10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 6

Dave Rogers

6th March 2007, 05:40 AM

Post #94 and #1222

OK, looking at that, I can see three major areas of structural damage to the south face. There's the corner damage that's seen in other photos; there's a large gouge from about floor 12 to the ground, which has certainly taken out column 5, appears to extend to column 4 but it's hard to tell because of the smoke, and may go further across to the west; and there's what looks like a huge entry hole around columns 6-8, with its base at floor 11 and extending upwards at least to floor 15 where it's lost in smoke. If anything, that's worse damage than NIST suggests. There is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a big chunk missing from at least columns 1, 5, 7 and 8, and the height of the upper impact hole suggests that for any reasonable impact vector the mass causing the hole must have penetrated a considerable distance into the building.

Overall, it looks like there was a 10+ storey gouge, and there was a gouge in the vicinity of column 8, but they were two separate pieces of damage. I see WTC7 was even worse damaged than I thought. It's really not possible to make out anything beyond column 11 above floor 15 or below floor 11, so there may or may not be more damage there.

Dave

Jennie C.

6th March 2007, 08:04 AM

Jennie C is denying it.

Sigh... No, I'm not arguing the locations of the fuel tanks, etc. I quoted two posts, perhaps a bit sloppily. This was the first one (from you, Chris):

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

The east part of the south side, below floor 12, was not obscured by smoke between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

There was no debris damage reported to this area.

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

The government has withheld the photographs of the east part of the south side WTC 7 for over 5 1/2 years.

They are available now only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

I have applied for the photographs of WTC 7 but as yet have not received a reply.

and THEN I quoted your saying that the facts couldn't be disputed.

All this stuff about photos that don't seem to exist being *proof* of the lack of damage where you say there is none can most certainly be disputed.

To quote myself, not that it's original: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Belz...

6th March 2007, 08:10 AM

Actually Larry Silverstien made a fortune in the collapse. He his rebuilding the Freedom Tower with 2.87 Billion of the Port Authorties money. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/FREE/70222010/1058/STATIC
and not out of the $3 billion insurance claim.

Before you get out your CT whipin sticks I am not agreeing with CTer's. But that point is moot. He got more crazy rich then he already was.

Patently false.

Belz...

6th March 2007, 08:14 AM

Yes. I don't believe that WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single key column could lead to a global collapse.

Aren't you forgetting something ?

Perhaps your x-ray vision is better than mine.

X-ray doesn't work with pictures.

What do you make of the hole we do see ?

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Does it eliminate the need for explosives placed on the support columns as well ?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.

I don't see how that changes the laws of physics.

Belz...

6th March 2007, 10:06 AM

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

And can they rig it in silence and in secret ? No one in the building noticed the year-long process ? No one ?

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.

Coincidence ? What's the coincidence ? The coincidence is based on your own conclusion. You THINK Bush had something to do with it, therefore Marvin's presence there is a "coincidence". What a cute circular logic you have.

Of course, when people say explosions, it's never really an explosion, it's always just something that sounds like an explosion.

What noise does a steel column snapping make, chris ?

Given your distaste for common sense, i have no particular 'qualifications'.
However, I find it impossible to believe that gravity could eject large sections of framework 350' to 400' horizontally, much less penetrate 90' into a building

Argument from personal incredulity.

An F14 can climb vertically. A B25 couldn't even come close to vertical.

What the hell does this have to do with anything ?

He could be describing a CD.

He could be describing a rabbit, too.

Christopher7

6th March 2007, 06:32 PM

Thank you for being so clear. Translation: You have no evidence, only supposition. Suppose the photographer ran to this location because they thought the pedestrian bridge would protect them from falling debris from the fires in WTC7 and other buildings?

What's your evidence that these photos, which you haven't seen but only guessed the existence of, show that there was no damage to the eastern part of the south face?

Dave
Your question was rhetorical, my answer, satirical, your response ridiculous.

No worries

BTW, what part of 'photographer' don't you understand?

The evidence that there was no damage below floor 12 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7 is as follows:

NIST Apx. L pg 24
Looking from the south east corner of the south face:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Fire...floor 14 (corrected to 12, NIST Final 4-5-05)
face above fire covered with smoke
Fire moved toward east face
[no fire or smoke below floor 12 as observed over a 3 hour period]

Pedestrian bridge and the wall holding it up intact.

No damage reported to east 1/3 south face of WTC 7.

Christopher7

6th March 2007, 07:24 PM

And yet your photo of the walkway to WTC7 clearly shows large pieces of exterior wall which fell there.

Nothing big enough to knock the pedestrian bridge down.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9154/copyofpedestrianbridgesa4.png

Can you possibly believe that the photographer who took this picture, didn't turn to their right and take a picture of WTC 7 ?

PhantomWolf

6th March 2007, 07:55 PM

Christopher7

6th March 2007, 08:53 PM

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

Except that there was so much damage the Lobby no longer existed!

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

The Loading dock was blocked in by debris.

The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

Mr. Jennings has over stated the damage to the lobby area

NIST Apx. L pg 17

After WTC 2 collapsed:

- Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors

- Dust covered the lobby areas at floors 1 and 3

pg 18

After WTC 1 collapsed:

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:

- No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed

The loading dock [west side of WTC 7] was blocked by debris

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5269/copyofnw12xy.jpg

jaydeehess

6th March 2007, 09:14 PM

The loading dock [west side of WTC 7] was blocked by debris

I could have sworn that the loading ramp keeps showing up in diagrams as being on the east side of the building Chris with the vehicle entrance on the north side of the east end of the building.

Christopher7

6th March 2007, 10:38 PM

I could have sworn that the loading ramp keeps showing up in diagrams as being on the east side of the building Chris with the vehicle entrance on the north side of the east end of the building.
The access ramp was in the NE corner and was not blocked by debris.

The loading dock is on the west side:
[see NIST Apx. L pg 8 {behind lobby} - floors reversed]

FEMA pg 14:
Silverstien tanks under loading dock on ground level
Pumps....between elevator shafts on west side of ground floor
Riser....in shaft in west elevator bank
Generators....5th floor in south west corner

Dave Rogers

7th March 2007, 01:27 AM

Your question was rhetorical, my answer, satirical, your response ridiculous.

No worries

BTW, what part of 'photographer' don't you understand?

The evidence that there was no damage below floor 12 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7 is as follows:

NIST Apx. L pg 24
Looking from the south east corner of the south face:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Fire...floor 14 (corrected to 12, NIST Final 4-5-05)
face above fire covered with smoke
Fire moved toward east face
[no fire or smoke below floor 12 as observed over a 3 hour period]

Pedestrian bridge and the wall holding it up intact.

No damage reported to east 1/3 south face of WTC 7.

No, the question wasn't rhetorical, I genuinely wanted to know if you had evidence. As for the "photographer" definition, I would think it would include someone who chooses good angles for their shots. The shot from under the pedestrian bridge is such a poor angle for revealing anything that's going on that it suggests to me that the photographer either doesn't know what he or she is doing, or is constrained to occupy a partuicular location for some reason. Falling debris was certainly a present danger around WTC Plaza on that day, and the very large amounts of smoke issuing from the south face of WTC7 suggest a lot of window breakage and hence falling glass and other debris. I'd have wanted to stay under cover, and that would preclude photographing the eastern part of the south face except from a fair distance away, as in Steve Spak's photos.

As for your evidence of no damage to the east 1/3 of the south face, the report says "no damage reported". There's also the possibility that debris entered higher up the face but the entry hole was obscured by smoke, along with most of the eastern side of the south face. Sorry, but although I admit there's no evidence of damage, neither is there evidence of no damage to that part of the building, and there will be neither unless your hypothetical photographs emerge.

Dave

GlennB

7th March 2007, 02:59 AM

Nothing big enough to knock the pedestrian bridge down.

Can you possibly believe that the photographer who took this picture, didn't turn to their right and take a picture of WTC 7 ?

Nothing that hit the walkway was big and heavy enough to destroy it, but both your photos show exterior wall sections next to it. Which destroys your own argument. Which part of your own argument do you not understand?

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 03:38 AM

No, the question wasn't rhetorical, I genuinely wanted to know if you had evidence. As for the "photographer" definition, I would think it would include someone who chooses good angles for their shots. The shot from under the pedestrian bridge is such a poor angle for revealing anything that's going on that it suggests to me that the photographer either doesn't know what he or she is doing, or is constrained to occupy a partuicular location for some reason. Falling debris was certainly a present danger around WTC Plaza on that day, and the very large amounts of smoke issuing from the south face of WTC7 suggest a lot of window breakage and hence falling glass and other debris.
Did you see the other photograph by the same photographer in post #1259 ?
He did not run to seek cover under the pedestrian bridge.
He had to walk around and over a lot of debris.
Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

As for your evidence of no damage to the east 1/3 of the south face, the report says "no damage reported". There's also the possibility that debris entered higher up the face but the entry hole was obscured by smoke, along with most of the eastern side of the south face. Sorry, but although I admit there's no evidence of damage,Thank you.
Please note that there was NO debris large enough to bring down the pedestrian bridge [photo in post #1259]
There was NO damage below floor 12 [area of initiating event]
There is nothing to suggest heavy damage to the east half of the south side.

neither is there evidence of no damage to that part of the building, and there will be neither unless your hypothetical photographs emerge.
DaveThere was no damage to the east half of the south side in the area we can see in this photo; floors 13 - 17 as far as column 11 or 12.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely.

The core columns were 37' inside the building.

A hypothesis of DD/F could not justifiably include columns
75 [in line with Steve's column 9],
78 [between Steve's columns 10 & 11] and
81 [in line with Steve's column 12].

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 03:47 AM

Nothing that hit the walkway was big and heavy enough to destroy it, but both your photos show exterior wall sections next to it. Which destroys your own argument. Which part of your own argument do you not understand?
Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.
There was no damage to floors 1 - 11 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7.

Dave Rogers

7th March 2007, 03:52 AM

Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely.

Given that there was damage to the west half of the south side close to roof level and at levels 7-16 at least, involving three or four separate debris strikes, why is damage to the east half unlikely above floor 12? As far as I know there are no photos showing floors 12-25 on the eastern side of the south face; that's a lot of area that might have been damaged.

As I said, if your hypothetical photos exist they might clear this up. However, you've only got conjecture to suggest they do exist. Do you know who actually took the photos near and under the pedestrian bridge, and have you contacted them to find out whether they have any more pictures?

Dave

Dave Rogers

7th March 2007, 03:56 AM

Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.

No, but there are large holes in WTC7 which strongly suggest that heavy debris impacted the building, so it is clearly fallacious to say that there could not have been heavy debris falling closer to WTC7 than the pedestrian bridge.

Dave

Belz...

7th March 2007, 05:51 AM

Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

I wonder what kind of fallacy that is.

Please note that there was NO debris large enough to bring down the pedestrian bridge [photo in post #1259]

And therefore nothing could have seriously damaged 7 WTC, is that what you're saying ?

There was NO damage below floor 12 [area of initiating event]

Uh-huh.

Oh, and please adress my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2402593&postcount=1257).

GlennB

7th March 2007, 06:28 AM

Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.
There was no damage to floors 1 - 11 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7.
And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.

PhantomWolf

7th March 2007, 07:33 PM

And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.

A CT ignoring the evidence that desagrees and claiming witnesses are lying, or wrong. Wow :jaw-dropp , that is something new, NOT!

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 08:25 PM

And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.
The roof and upper level damage is around columns [Steve's 5 & 6], west of center [Steve's column 8]
All the severe damage is in the center or west of center.
This is not surprising given that WTC 1 was west of WTC 7.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/6779/copyofworldtradecenterzm3.jpg

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 08:42 PM

A CT ignoring the evidence that desagrees and claiming witnesses are lying, or wrong. Wow :jaw-dropp , that is something new, NOT!
Are you saying that the firefighters, who were leading people out of WTC 7, were lying or wrong about "no heavy debris in lobby area" ?

PhantomWolf

7th March 2007, 08:45 PM

Are you saying that the firefighters, who were leading people out of WTC 7, were lying or wrong about "no heavy debris in lobby area" ?

Are you saying that the ones that described the heavy damage and gapping hole in the south face were lying?

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 08:50 PM

Are you saying that the ones that described the heavy damage and gapping hole in the south face were lying?
No

PhantomWolf

7th March 2007, 08:53 PM

No

So if the firemen that report the serious damage in the south side weren't lying, then why are you disputing what they say they saw?

Arus808

7th March 2007, 09:12 PM

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 09:13 PM

So if the firemen that report the serious damage in the south side weren't lying, then why are you disputing what they say they saw?
I'm not

Arus808

7th March 2007, 09:15 PM

yes you are chris; by stating that the damage they witnessed couldn't be enough to collapse a building (despite all the other factors) you are disputing what they saw.

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 09:29 PM

chris like magz and christophera likes to see his "thread" bumped up to the top. he's been debunked. end of story. he wont wait till the official report is out, and arguing from the contents of a preliminary reports is like arguing about who is going to win the presidency based off of only 10 states returns
There is a lot of data in the FEMA and NIST[preliminary] reports that will not change in the final report.
You [all] have been using NIST report as evidence for your debris damage/fire theory. Without it, you have nothing except 3 fire chiefs who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
When someone reads the same report and finds in it data that disproves your theory, you say "shut up and wait for the 'final' report"
Will you shut up about the debris damage/fire theory until the final report comes out?

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 09:31 PM

Jennie C.

The indisputable facts are:
the location of the debris damage [with photographs to confirm]
the data about where the fuel tanks, pumps, pipes, and generators were
the location and progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7
the photographs that confirm the location of the fires

The "In order for debris to get to the supply pipe...." is opinion.

************************************************** ******

There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

************************************************** ******

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.

12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

************************************************** ******

Fires:

There were no diesel fuel fed fires in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open. [FEMA pg 29]

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

************************************************** ******

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26]

************************************************** ******

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.[/quote]

LashL

7th March 2007, 09:34 PM

He did not run to seek cover under the pedestrian bridge.
He had to walk around and over a lot of debris.

I must have missed the post where you provided evidence of this. Can you please repost it or provide me with a link to where you identified the photographer and obtained his first hand account of what actions he took at the time?

Thanks.

Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

Wait, I'm confused. I thought from your prior assertions in which you claim to know exactly what the photographer did, where he approached from, how he got there, the speed at which he was travelling, and what he must have done, that you actually had evidence to support your suppositions, and that you actually had obtained first hand accounts from the photographer of his actions that day.

1) If that is the case, did you not ask him whether he took a photo such as the one you allege he must have taken? If you forgot to ask him about these important details, PM me with his contact information and I'll ask him myself.

2) If that is not the case, then it would appear that you are making bald assertions without any basis in fact.

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 09:40 PM

yes you are chris; by stating that the damage they witnessed couldn't be enough to collapse a building (despite all the other factors) you are disputing what they saw.
On the contrary, i am using their statements as part of the proof that
there were NO DIESEL FIRES OR DEBRIS DAMAGE IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT!

Arus808

7th March 2007, 10:04 PM

On the contrary, i am using their statements as part of the proof that
there were NO DIESEL FIRES OR DEBRIS DAMAGE IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT!

I guess the BIG FREAKING HOLE in the building wasn't enough?

AGAIN, like hte WTC towers, there WAS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING! Diesel started fires CONTRIBUTED to the fires that envoloped through the building. IT WASN:T NECSSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

The debris contributed to damage and hte fires that started within the PENTHOUSE level . IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

The collapse of wTC 1 contributed in FURTHER DAMAGE to wTC 7's south face. it wasn't necessarily the only thing that caused its collapse.

Christophera, YOU aren't using what is stated in the report. YOU twisting the meanings within the report to suit your foregone and unsubstantiated conclusions..:boggled:

PhantomWolf

7th March 2007, 10:23 PM

I'm not

So if you aren't disputing their accounts of the damage, which includes that the building was leaning over, that there was a measurably growing bulge, that the middle of the south face has a large gouge in it with heavy fire visible inside it, that inside the building was creaking, groaning and highly unstable (so unstable that once they cleared it the order went out that no one was to go in) and that the south west corner was ripped off from the 19th floor down, then what's the point of this thread and why has it gone on for 33 pages?

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 10:42 PM

I guess the BIG FREAKING HOLE in the building wasn't enough?
Right. It was NOT in the area of the initiating event

AGAIN, like hte WTC towers, there WAS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING! Diesel started fires CONTRIBUTED to the fires that envoloped through the building. IT WASN:T NECSSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!
Right again. The diesel fires were in the west half of the building.
I listed the location and progression of the office fires in the east half of the building where the initiating event occurred.

The debris contributed to damage and hte fires that started within the PENTHOUSE level . IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!Good point
but the initiating event was below floor 13

The collapse of wTC 1 contributed in FURTHER DAMAGE to wTC 7's south face. it wasn't necessarily the only thing that caused its collapse.True
However, there was NO damage reported to the part of the south wall in front of the area of the initiating event

Christopher7

7th March 2007, 11:04 PM

So if you aren't disputing their accounts of the damage, which includes that the building was leaning over,

The 'leaning over' statement was made by a guy who works nearby, not a firefighter.

that there was a measurably growing bulge,In the south west corner

that the middle of the south face has a large gouge in it with heavy fire visible inside it,
The gouge around floor 14, just west of center

that inside the building was creaking, groaning and highly unstableAs one would expect if a bulge were developing in the south west corner

(so unstable that once they cleared it the order went out that no one was to go in)A prudent decision

and that the south west corner was ripped off from the 19th floor down, then what's the point of this thread and why has it gone on for 33 pages?Something about an initiating event

Read post #1282 and click on the links to see the data and pictures that verify the facts listed.

If you have a problem with a particular statement, say so.

Arus808

8th March 2007, 12:35 AM

Something about an initiating event

.

what part of:

there wasn't one thing significant that can be considered the "ONE" initiating event

that you do not freaking understand?

What part of:

THERE WAS A COMbination of events that caused the collapse of WTC 7

do you not understand?

Whta part of :
the firefighters and witnesses that day described what they saw, which supports many of the conclusions that NIST will be coming to,

do you not understand?

Dave Rogers

8th March 2007, 03:05 AM

Belz...

8th March 2007, 05:42 AM

Christophera, YOU aren't using what is stated in the report. YOU twisting the meanings within the report to suit your foregone and unsubstantiated conclusions..:boggled:

Interesting...

Belz...

8th March 2007, 05:44 AM

Right. It was NOT in the area of the [I]initiating event

But then how would YOU know how deep the damage went into the building, or what chain events it triggered ?

that there was a measurably growing bulge,

In the south west corner

Which in and of itself indicates something's wrong SOMEWHERE in the building.

JimBenArm

8th March 2007, 05:46 AM

I think it's time to do with Christopher7 what we did with Christopera. Let him post here all by himself, but not respond to it anymore. He doesn't listen to anything anyone else says, and just repeats the same crap over and over again, even when shown it's totally wrong. So let him stay here and mutter to himself. That's pretty much what's going on anyway.

njslim

8th March 2007, 10:55 AM

Christopher 7:

There is a lot of data in the FEMA and NIST[preliminary] reports that will not change in the final report. You [all] have been using NIST report as evidence for your debris damage/fire theory. Without it, you have nothing except 3 fire chiefs who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

If case you didn't know, fire chiefs are highly trained - both in class room
and from years of experience to evaluate the structural integrity of a
building to know when to pull their people out. When to seminar 6 months
after 9/11 and heard from the fire chiefs on the scene what they did .

Their assessment of WTC 7 was that the building was highly damaged and
structurally unsound, there was no water (collapse had cut mains), and
with numerous casulties and much of the apparatus on the scene crushed
or damaged it was better to abandon WTC 7. After seeing bulge on
southwest corner ordered surveyor transit positioned to watch for signs of
movement indicating structural collapse. When saw building starting to
move ordered everyone out of area (3PM) and set up collapse zone. This
is what fire chiefs are trained to do.

Jennie C.

8th March 2007, 12:00 PM

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?

jaydeehess

8th March 2007, 12:07 PM

There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

post 1282

There you go again. A definitive statement that it is simply out of the question

OK, Chris, try this one. There were no explosives in WTC 7, debris/fire damage brought the building down.

Two definitive statements. On the one hand though we do positively know that there were significant fires and debris damage to WTC 7. Which of the above definitive statements would this known condition (fire and damage) support as circumstantial evidence? It only supports a debris/fire collapse.

On the other hand we have a few people who characterize the sounds they heard as 'explosions'. Which of the two definitive statements does this support? It supports both an explosive CD and a debris/fire collapse since these sounds cannot be ascribe soley to explosions.

Which statement is then backed up more by the circumstantial evidence we have?

beachnut

8th March 2007, 12:09 PM

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?

The damage of junk hitting WTC7, and the fires that burned out of control and not fought all day. Fires and damage.

If you do not fight fires, the fires make the steel weak and it fails. Why did WTC7 fail since all the heavy people were out? They forgot to take TONS of generators out of the building. I think the building was even built to handle the extra load of the many Generators in the Building.

So as you can see in WTC5 and 6, steel failed and floors fell but no global collapse. May be it was all the weight of junk in WTC7 that helped in the global collapse. Cause simple floors fell due to fires in WTC6 and 5, why would anyone be surprised if the floors in WTC7 failed.

No firemen that understand fire were surprised WTC7 failed. This is why hundreds of firemen there on 9/11 are not idiots marching with Dylan in his LC fraud.

Fire and damage. Or do you mean a major floor failure with real heavy generators falling and knocking out other structures.

Fire. I think someone already said this.

What does Chris want again? Oh, he wants to say explosives did it. Why not find some RDX sounds to prove your point Chris.

jaydeehess

8th March 2007, 03:29 PM

Good point.
BTW, you've got your stove pipe in upside down. I suggest you rectify this when she's out of town.:rolleyes:

.
No, I have it installed correctly.

There are many references you can check, for instance:
http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/mod02/01500596.html

The connector pipe diameter should be as large as the
flue collar (where the connector pipe joins the stove).
When joining sections of the pipe, overlap the joints at
least 2 inches, with the crimped (male) end pointing down
to prevent creosote drip or leak. Many house fires have
resulted from stove pipe joints vibrating apart during a
chimney fire. Secure each joint with at least 3 sheet
metal screws. A fireproof sealant may be used in addition.

Wonder why stove pipes rattle when you have a chimney fire? Because air is being drawn into the pipe between the crimps at every joint.

jaydeehess

8th March 2007, 04:24 PM

Can't understand how I missed this tidbit;

Chris 7 writes;
It is a very real fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

FEMA pg 28
"there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system"

Somehow FEMA's statement specifically saying there is no evidence to substantiate OR REFUTE becomes "a very real fact that there were NO ....." , in Chris's mind.

Is that
a)critical thinking
OR
b) a sophist twisting of the FEMA statement?

Kent1

8th March 2007, 05:17 PM

Can't understand how I missed this tidbit;

Chris 7 writes;

Somehow FEMA's statement specifically saying there is no evidence to substantiate OR REFUTE becomes "a very real fact that there were NO ....." , in Chris's mind.

Is that
a)critical thinking
OR
b) a sophist twisting of the FEMA statement?

That's FEMA, read what NIST has to say about that.
There is evidence regarding the discharge of fuel oil. Evidence suggests it did not leak into the ground, but was burned. See my first post in this thread (Post 1120).
Or read the links I posted.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Cheers.

Miragememories

8th March 2007, 07:33 PM

I must have missed the post where you provided evidence of this. Can you please repost it or provide me with a link to where you identified the photographer and obtained his first hand account of what actions he took at the time?

Thanks.

Wait, I'm confused. I thought from your prior assertions in which you claim to know exactly what the photographer did, where he approached from, how he got there, the speed at which he was travelling, and what he must have done, that you actually had evidence to support your suppositions, and that you actually had obtained first hand accounts from the photographer of his actions that day.

1) If that is the case, did you not ask him whether he took a photo such as the one you allege he must have taken? If you forgot to ask him about these important details, PM me with his contact information and I'll ask him myself.

2) If that is not the case, then it would appear that you are making bald assertions without any basis in fact.

Your really going to hurt your cheek if you keep shoving your tongue into it that hard LashL

MM

Miragememories

8th March 2007, 07:54 PM

That's FEMA, read what NIST has to say about that.
There is evidence regarding the discharge of fuel oil. Evidence suggests it did not leak into the ground, but was burned. See my first post in this thread (Post 1120).
Or read the links I posted.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Cheers.

From your NIST reference Kent1;
"No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building."

Ah what evidence?

From the same NIST reference;
"..Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the
slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below..

How definitive is that?

They acknowledge the sand absorbed fuel but neglect to speculate or assess how much fuel might have been absorbed, or provide any information about how widespread the sand was or how much sampling was undertaken. NIST deliberately 'coaches' their wording to diminish the evidence as much as possible when it doesn't lead in the direction they favour.

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

MM

jaydeehess

8th March 2007, 08:07 PM

Truly reaching for straws are we MM?

The point is that the contamination of the soil is not enough to account for the majority of the fuel that was in the tanks. Where did the fuel go then MM? Obviously it burned, where it burned is not in the tanks since they did not displaythe damage that would accompany having a large quantity if fuel burned in them. The fuel did not all escape to the soil nor did it burn in the tanks.
THAT suggests that it was consumed elsewhere and THAT is suggestive of it being pumped out in a rupture.

I forgot about that post by you, Kent. Thanks, certainly illustrates the error in Chris' definitive, " no fuel fire" statement. (such things get called 'lies' if preformed by others. I am not so damning)

Kent1

8th March 2007, 10:03 PM

From your NIST reference Kent1;

Ah what evidence?

From the same NIST reference;

How definitive is that?

They acknowledge the sand absorbed fuel but neglect to speculate or assess how much fuel might have been absorbed, or provide any information about how widespread the sand was or how much sampling was undertaken. NIST deliberately 'coaches' their wording to diminish the evidence as much as possible when it doesn't lead in the direction they favour.

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

MM

That's a sad spin, especially if you simply keep reading after, "but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below."
"Also the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus it is likey a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination of this soil."
Its clear when you add up the statements they are stating that if the fuel leaked more would be evident within the areas below.

jaydeehess

8th March 2007, 10:11 PM

From the same NIST reference;

Quote:
"..Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the
slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below..
How definitive is that?

Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.

Kent1

8th March 2007, 10:44 PM

From the same NIST reference;

Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.
I guess they can contact or wait for the NIST report for further info.
But I'm guessing this is another boring..."I don't believe NIST/NIST is dishonest" thread.

LashL

8th March 2007, 11:13 PM

Your [sic] really going to hurt your cheek if you keep shoving your tongue into it that hard LashL

MM

MM, my tongue was most certainly not planted in my cheek, and I'm surprised that you would think so, frankly. Chris didn't answer my post so since you have taken it upon yourself to do so, albeit backhandedly, perhaps you can actually address the specific points of my post and provide information that is responsive to my queries therein. I would appreciate a straightforward response.

Christopher7

9th March 2007, 02:37 AM

Chris, in post 1266 you stated,

"Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely."

Doesn't that admission by you make it rather less than totally indisputable that there was structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event?
Point well taken
The indisputable facts are the ones from the FEMA and NIST reports.
My statement "There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event...." is not totally indisputable.

For example, isn't it possible that a large piece of debris entered the building above floor 12, then caused internal damage by falling through the lower levels of the building, damaging one of columns 79 to 81 on the way? If you admit that, then your statement that there was no structural damage in the area of the initiating event is clearly in dispute. If you don't, I'd like to see your argument as to why such a sequence of events is impossible.
DaveAny debris hitting WTC 7 beyond column 11 (Spak) [25 NIST] would miss the core columns [see NIST Apx. L pg 6]
In this photo, we can see as far as column 11 (Spak) [25 NIST] on floors 13, 14 and 16;
as far as column 10 (Spak) [24 NIST] on floor 13;
and between columns 10 & 11 (Spak) [24 & 25 NIST] on floor 17.

This eliminates most of the area that debris could have entered and damaged a core column in the area of the initiating event:
Columns 73 to 81 inclusive, below floor 13 [NIST Apx. L pg 31]

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8812/sfacegraphicic2.jpg

A few more frames from this video, with the smoke in different positions, would probably show weather or not there was any damage in the remaining possible area.

Dave Rogers

9th March 2007, 02:48 AM

Point well taken
The indisputable facts are the ones from the FEMA and NIST reports.
My statement "There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event...." is not totally indisputable.

This eliminates most of the area that debris could have entered and damaged a core column in the area of the initiating event:
Columns 73 to 81 inclusive, below floor 13 [NIST Apx. L pg 31]

A few more frames from this video, with the smoke in different positions, would probably show weather or not there was any damage in the remaining possible area.

OK, so you also admit that there isn't enough visual evidence to be certain that there was no structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event.

The conclusion I have to draw is, therefore, that I cannot agree that there were indisputably neither diesel oil fires nor structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event; and it seems to me that you more or less agree with that point of view.

Dave

Christopher7

9th March 2007, 03:03 AM

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?
For initiating event See NIST Apx. L pg 31 - 33

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is:
the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

Christopher7

9th March 2007, 03:39 AM

OK, so you also admit that there isn't enough visual evidence to be certain that there was no structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event.

The conclusion I have to draw is, therefore, that I cannot agree that there were indisputably neither diesel oil fires nor structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event; and it seems to me that you more or less agree with that point of view.

Dave
There is still a small possibility that there was debris damage and a remote possibility that the fuel line was severed in the area of the initiating event.
[If there was not a great deal of ventilation, a diesel fire could not burn hot enough to weaken the support columns]

On the other hand, there is NO evidence that there was debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Dave Rogers

9th March 2007, 03:42 AM

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is:
the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

Could be very significant, especially if floor trusses were sagging in WTC7 in the same way as in 1 and 2. As the fires burn out, the sagging trusses contract, putting lateral strain on the columns. In WTC2, at least, this seems to have been the cause of catastrophic failure of the exterior columns - see the Trinity Church video for a clear illustration of this failure mode. Could something similar have happened to WTC7?

It's important to note, in any case, that fires burning out can be the final event in a sequence leading inevitably to structural collapse. It's certainly an error to say that once the fires had died down, the building automatically became safe.

Dave

westprog

9th March 2007, 04:32 AM

There is still a small possibility that there was debris damage

Done the calculation of the energy released when the WTC collapsed? It's really very easy.

Belz...

9th March 2007, 05:27 AM

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

Impossible high speed collapse ?

How fast would YOU expect it to collapse ?

Belz...

9th March 2007, 05:28 AM

the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had [B]burned OUT

I see your X-ray vision is better than mine.

JimBenArm

9th March 2007, 05:36 AM

I see your X-ray vision is better than mine.
Hah! Some fiend god you are!

Jennie C.

9th March 2007, 10:10 AM

For initiating event See NIST Apx. L pg 31 - 33

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is: the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

No, Chris, I don't want "one very significant event". I want you to tell me what your initial event is. Initial means first. It means one. You pull that phrase like a gun (yes, stolen from True Grit). I want to know what you're talking about.

Don't quote the report: tell me what you mean. Simply stated.

Miragememories

9th March 2007, 10:31 AM

That's a sad spin, especially if you simply keep reading after, "but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below."
"Also the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus it is likey a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination of this soil."
Its clear when you add up the statements they are stating that if the fuel leaked more would be evident within the areas below.

Not spin at all.

If you know how much sand is available to absorb fuel. If you sample the area and depth of where fuel is found in the sand, it should be possibly to estimate the volume of fuel absorbed by the sand and thus determine how much remained to fuel fires. By stating some, NIST avoided revealing any calculations that might have argued otherwise.

Clay is a natural moisture barrier and does not readily absorb liquids. The sand would readily soak up any fuel flowing over the clay barrier.
http://www.johnstonsmith.co.uk/fact28.html

MM

Kent1

9th March 2007, 11:53 AM

Not spin at all.

If you know how much sand is available to absorb fuel. If you sample the area and depth of where fuel is found in the sand, it should be possibly to estimate the volume of fuel absorbed by the sand and thus determine how much remained to fuel fires. By stating some, NIST avoided revealing any calculations that might have argued otherwise.

Clay is a natural moisture barrier and does not readily absorb liquids. The sand would readily soak up any fuel flowing over the clay barrier.
http://www.johnstonsmith.co.uk/fact28.html

MM
They are clearly stating that there would be more fuel contamination of this sand/ soil area. I see nothing showing otherwise. You could always contact the person NIST used if you think they are being dishonest. Otherwise, again, it's clear this is just another hollow "I don't believe them/NIST is dishonest" post. Also from my understanding it wasn't just clay. NIST seems to be stating the fuel never reached the organic marine silt/clay below.

From my understanding clay can be contaminated and it will certainlly help the contamination from going lower.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/2xbe7xv6ebc1j362/

Belz...

9th March 2007, 01:03 PM

Hah! Some fiend god you are!

I can still see through your soul, though.

Miragememories

9th March 2007, 05:05 PM

They are clearly stating that there would be more fuel contamination of this sand/ soil area. I see nothing showing otherwise. You could always contact the person NIST used if you think they are being dishonest. Otherwise, again, it's clear this is just another hollow "I don't believe them/NIST is dishonest" post. Also from my understanding it wasn't just clay. NIST seems to be stating the fuel never reached the organic marine silt/clay below.

From my understanding clay can be contaminated and it will certainlly help the contamination from going lower.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/2xbe7xv6ebc1j362/

NIST loves drowning readers in documentation! TEN THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION yet given the opportunity to support their contention with a few calculations...they waffle with a summation of some.

This is important information and they know it! Without the fuel argument, it becomes extremely difficult to mount any kind of case for a natural collapse of WTC7! If investigators found evidence of fuel in the sand, then they could have performed some rudimentary measurements and created some extrapolative estimates of how much fuel the sand absorbed. Subtract that from the fuel tanks capacity and we know what amount fuel was unaccounted for and thus how much fuel might have fed this towering inferno that everyone in JREF chooses to believe caused WTC7 to slam to the ground.

MM

beachnut

9th March 2007, 05:42 PM

NIST loves drowning readers in documentation! TEN THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION yet given the opportunity to support their contention with a few calculations...they waffle with a summation of some.

This is important information and they know it! Without the fuel argument, it becomes extremely difficult to mount any kind of case for a natural collapse of WTC7! If investigators found evidence of fuel in the sand, then they could have performed some rudimentary measurements and created some extrapolative estimates of how much fuel the sand absorbed. Subtract that from the fuel tanks capacity and we know what amount fuel was unaccounted for and thus how much fuel might have fed this towering inferno that everyone in JREF chooses to believe caused WTC7 to slam to the ground.

MM
So which points in the 10,000 plus pages do you have a problem with? Do you have specific points you disagree with?

Wrong, on the fuel part, just fire weakens steel, and like other buildings totaled by fire, WTC7 was added, as was WTC5, WTC6, Windsor building, One Meridian Plaza, and the list goes on, and on... Fire makes building fail. Fire destorys buildings.

Show me the Windsor building today, show me WTC5, WTC6, One meridian Plaza in Philly. Where did they go and why? (fire is in there)

Kent1

9th March 2007, 08:23 PM

NIST loves drowning readers in documentation! TEN THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION yet given the opportunity to support their contention with a few calculations...they waffle with a summation of some.

This is important information and they know it! Without the fuel argument, it becomes extremely difficult to mount any kind of case for a natural collapse of WTC7! If investigators found evidence of fuel in the sand, then they could have performed some rudimentary measurements and created some extrapolative estimates of how much fuel the sand absorbed. Subtract that from the fuel tanks capacity and we know what amount fuel was unaccounted for and thus how much fuel might have fed this towering inferno that everyone in JREF chooses to believe caused WTC7 to slam to the ground.

MM
Don't worry the WTC7 report isn't done yet. The next update should be out within the next few months so you'll have even more pages of documentation to make accusatory and hollow statements about. LOL!

stateofgrace

9th March 2007, 08:31 PM

Christopher7

9th March 2007, 10:58 PM

From the same NIST reference;

Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.

The diesel tanks, pumps and risers were in the west end of WTC 7 so it doesn't matter how much diesel fuel was burned.

There was NO fire in the north east generator room.

That leaves the fuel supply pipe.

FEMA pg 28
"Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double-wall iron pipe.
A portion of the piping was in close proximity to Truss 1.
However, there is no physical photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed and discharged up to 75 gpm onto the 5th floor in the vicinity of Truss 1."

The whole thing about fuel oil [diesel] causing Truss 1 to fail is an [B]ASSUMPTION based on nothing!

There is NO evidence diesel fires played any part in the [I]initiating event* that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

*NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33

Arus808

10th March 2007, 12:19 AM

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 12:58 AM

AGAIN FOR THE umpteenth TIME CHRISTOPHER 7
you are arguing semantics from a report that isn't even completed. between that preliminary report and the final one, MANY aspects of what they believed when they started their investigation could change

YOU are aruging about what is being said in a TEMPORARY report

get that through your tHICK FREAKING Skull.
Actually, i'm quoting the FEMA report. The NIST progress report doesn't mention diesel fires.

5th Floor Scenarios:[Page 28] is the basis for the dieisel fires contributing to the initiating l event rumor.

There is NO evidence that this happened.

OT'ers should refrain from claiming that diesel fires contributed to the initiating event*, that led to thecollapse of WTC 7, until the final report comes out and perhaps shows evidence that this happened.

*NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33

Kent1

10th March 2007, 03:00 AM

Again he's still using FEMA outdated statements. However NIST states that if the Salomon brothers supply or return pipes were fractured it would continue pumping fuel until the storage tanks were empty. The tanks and piping system were empty and product sludge was not observed in either underground storage tank or piping system. This Salomon brothers pumping system was different from others and near the initiating event.
Also see page 178
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

Cheers.

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 05:04 AM

Kent1;

Cheers.

C7
Page 3 [on page counter]
"One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis....impact......may have resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system..........at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited,......."

There is no evidence for any of this, it's just a possibility.

Pg 180 [11 on the pg counter]
"valve box......near generator #1"

Pg 181
"very near column #79"

i.e. in the generator room.

cloudshipsrule

10th March 2007, 08:58 AM

OT'ers should refrain from claiming that diesel fires contributed to the initiating event*, that led to the collapse of WTC 7, until the final report comes out and perhaps shows evidence that this happened.

Perhaps it was soley the damage caused by tons of raining debree from the collapse of two of the tallest buildings on the planet that initiated collapse. Does it really matter? CERTAINLY, the fire that lasted for HOURS that day reduced the load bearing limits of some support members. That's what fire does. That's what makes it fun to play with.

Isn't it all speculation based on photographs, video and debree fields? No one was actually in the building when it fell, so no one can say for certain what the collapse mechanism was. NIST is just a group of qualified experts coming up with an educated theory after-the-fact. They have more information than you have, and my guess is, they can make better assumptions than you can. That's just a guess, mind you, but I'm pretty certain I'm right.

I always find it humorous reading these armchair arguments and analyses from individuals gathering data from conspiracy websites and youtube.

Kent1

10th March 2007, 09:05 AM

Kent1;

There is no evidence for any of this, it's just a possibility.

i.e. in the generator room.
There is evidence. As I have already explained. The Salomon brothers piping system and tanks were empty. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil. Also see previous posts.
Cheers.

Miragememories

10th March 2007, 02:21 PM

So which points in the 10,000 plus pages do you have a problem with? Do you have specific points you disagree with?

Wrong, on the fuel part, just fire weakens steel, and like other buildings totaled by fire, WTC7 was added, as was WTC5, WTC6, Windsor building, One Meridian Plaza, and the list goes on, and on... Fire makes building fail. Fire destorys buildings.

Show me the Windsor building today, show me WTC5, WTC6, One meridian Plaza in Philly. Where did they go and why? (fire is in there)

You must be smoking the good stuff beachnut.

Totaled by fire does not equate to a 'controlled demolition' type collapse!

WTC7 is it! If you can't white wash it your house of cards collapses.

I'm sorry but it's not easy to get modern highrise buildings to go 'fwump'.

You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want but it won't change reality.

MM

GlennB

10th March 2007, 02:33 PM

You must be smoking the good stuff beachnut.

Totaled by fire does not equate to a 'controlled demolition' type collapse!

WTC7 is it! If you can't white wash it your house of cards collapses.

I'm sorry but it's not easy to get modern highrise buildings to go 'fwump'.

You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want but it won't change reality.

MM

Although, the E Penthouse (and the structure below it) was going "fwump" several seconds before the global collapse.
Have you ever wondered, mm, what was happening inside the building prior to its collapse and in the six+ seconds after it fell into the building?

Picture this - it was a very substantial structure :

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc1peelingcorecropped.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 03:09 PM

There is evidence. As I have already explained. The Salomon brothers piping system and tanks were empty. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil. Also see previous posts.
Cheers.
Key words "would release" ....NO evidence that this actually happened.

Did it ever occur to you that a pipe broke in the south west part of WTC 7, where the debris hit ?

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 03:15 PM

Miragememories

10th March 2007, 04:02 PM

Although, the E Penthouse (and the structure below it) was going "fwump" several seconds before the global collapse.
Have you ever wondered, mm, what was happening inside the building prior to its collapse and in the six+ seconds after it fell into the building?

Picture this - it was a very substantial structure :

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc1peelingcorecropped.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif

GlennB don't muddy the waters with pics of WTC1.

Of course I speculate about what happened inside WTC7 when the E penthouse was fwumping away. I wonder about lots of things. I particularly wonder why you continue to believe that buildings can collapse 'fwump'!

I can only believe it's because you are afraid. Afraid of the truth. Buildings don't like to collapse 'fwump'. If they are going to collapse they like to resist because they were engineered to resist. They collapse in pieces..gradually.. that is..if they are going to colllapse. It takes controlled demolition to make them collapse completely and at high speed. Surely that's not incomprehensible for you? Face your fear..it's not pleasant, but dammit man, the truth rarely is. WTC7's collapse was pre-determined and not an accident of fate as you and the flock try and believe.

MM

GlennB

10th March 2007, 04:36 PM

GlennB don't muddy the waters with pics of WTC1.

Of course I speculate about what happened inside WTC7 when the E penthouse was fwumping away. I wonder about lots of things. I particularly wonder why you continue to believe that buildings can collapse 'fwump'!

I can only believe it's because you are afraid. Afraid of the truth. Buildings don't like to collapse 'fwump'. If they are going to collapse they like to resist because they were engineered to resist. They collapse in pieces..gradually.. that is..if they are going to colllapse. It takes controlled demolition to make them collapse completely and at high speed. Surely that's not incomprehensible for you? Face your fear..it's not pleasant, but dammit man, the truth rarely is. WTC7's collapse was pre-determined and not an accident of fate as you and the flock try and believe.

MM

It's a photo showing the size of the E Mechanical Penthouse that I happen to have handy in PhotoBucket.

Did they screw up the CD, MM? Causing the E Penthouse to fall into the building several seconds early? Set off a few charges several seconds early?

Strange that the FDNY were freely predicting that this building was going to collapse. It was ablaze, leaning, creaking ... then it fell ...

Can you try to visualise the damage that caused the E Penthouse to fall into the building? Can you then visualise the further damage that it caused on its way down?

Thanks for your concern, but I have no fear of this subject.

A W Smith

10th March 2007, 06:57 PM

I can only believe it's because you are afraid. Afraid of the truth. Buildings don't like to collapse 'fwump'. If they are going to collapse they like to resist because they were engineered to resist. They collapse in pieces..gradually.. that is..if they are going to colllapse. It takes controlled demolition to make them collapse completely and at high speed. Surely that's not incomprehensible for you? Face your fear..it's not pleasant, but dammit man, the truth rarely is. WTC7's collapse was pre-determined and not an accident of fate as you and the flock try and believe.

MM

Now thats just utter bullshiat. Ive seen plenty of incidents of complete and catastrophic building collapse with no warning at all. Your argument of incredulity doesn't fly here. The only one afraid is you. I don't know how your doing it but you are rapidly losing brain cells.

Kent1

10th March 2007, 07:27 PM

Key words "would release" ....NO evidence that this actually happened.

Did it ever occur to you that a pipe broke in the south west part of WTC 7, where the debris hit ?

No because we are talking about the Salomon brothers piping system and tank as I explained. See post #1328
I am not talking about the base building distrubtion system on the other side of the 5th.
Again as previously shown, there is evidence.

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 07:34 PM

Now thats just utter bullshiat. Ive seen plenty of incidents of complete and catastrophic building collapse with no warning at all. Your argument of incredulity doesn't fly here. The only one afraid is you. I don't know how your doing it but you are rapidly losing brain cells.
Please read post #1282

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 08:14 PM

No because we are talking about the Salomon brothers piping system and tank as I explained. See post #1328
I am not talking about the base building distrubtion system on the other side of the 5th.
Again as previously shown, there is evidence.
Wrong.
In the link you posted there is NO mention of evidence to back up the 'fuel pipe broke at the valve' hypothesis.

The SSB system fuel tanks, pumps, risers and 5 of it's 9 generators were at the west end of WTC 7. [FEMA pg 14]
As a matter of fact, all the tanks, pumps and risers were located at the west end except for the north east SSB generators in the north east corner. [FEMA pg 14]
The valve in question was in the generator room at the north east corner of WTC 7, on the opposite end of the building from where all the heavy debris damage occurred. [FEMA pg 14]

See post #1329 where i point out that Mr. Sunder testifies:
[pg 3 on pg counter]
"One possibility being considered in the working hypothesis is that impact.....may have resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system......at the valve box that would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited....."

jaydeehess

10th March 2007, 10:01 PM

post 1219
It is a very real fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

FEMA pg 28
"there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system"

in response to the definitive nature of the FEMA statement

Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.

Chris , you made the statement that there was no fire in that area and claimed it was FACT.

I am pointing out that you simply have no basis to make the definitive statement that there was no fire near the initiating event.

One need only look at the location of the elevators and the columns to see that damage to columns 76,77,78 could be done by whatever ejected the elevator cars and that a fire between row 76-77-78 and 79-80-81 would put stress on the very columns that are in question. Damage on the 8th floor to one set of columns would put added stress on nearby columns. Those columns becoming heavily stressed by fire on any floor below the 8th would put additional torsion and compressive stress on nearby columns including the ones damaged on the 8th floor. Damage to the transfer trusses would put more stress on this complex system, stresses that would never have been anticipated by the designers as coming from any normal fire.

An elevator shaft runs next to the stairwell in the east core and there were reports that witnesses felt cracks in the walls of the stairwells. That would be consistent with damage to the columns near the stairwells/elevator bank.

Everything you twist to attempt to make it FACT is just that, your attempt to twist everything and anything in order to eliminate a debris/fire cause of the collapse in the vain hope that doing so will leave only explosive demolition as the cause of collapse. You simply ignore that it takes much less to destroy the flimsy 'evidence' you put forward as showing that it was a controlled , explosive demolition. You have utterly failed to provide anything of substance to back up your contention of explosives, any explosive, anywhere in the building.

You have been shown the statements that state that there is unaccounted for fuel, it was not in the tank, was not in the soil and did not burn off in the vicinity of the tank. You have been informed that partial fracture of the piping system need not be the result of a direct hit on the pipe. Do you take this information and understand that it does indeed provide circumstantial corroboration for a fuel fire on 5th floor? No, instead you choose to brush it aside as not being conclusive.

Odd then that you can claim that 'sounds like' or 'looks like' makes your theory any more plausible.
Its unabashed sophistry.

Kent1

10th March 2007, 10:27 PM

Wrong.
In the link you posted there is NO mention of evidence to back up the 'fuel pipe broke at the valve' hypothesis.

The SSB system fuel tanks, pumps, risers and 5 of it's 9 generators were at the west end of WTC 7. [FEMA pg 14]
As a matter of fact, all the tanks, pumps and risers were located at the west end except for the north east SSB generators in the north east corner. [FEMA pg 14]
The valve in question was in the generator room at the north east corner of WTC 7, on the opposite end of the building from where all the heavy debris damage occurred. [FEMA pg 14]

See post #1329 where i point out that Mr. Sunder testifies:
[pg 3 on pg counter]
"One possibility being considered in the working hypothesis is that impact.....may have resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system......at the valve box that would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited....."

I'm going to eat crow, generators 5-7 were in the southwest.
(1-4 northeast 8-9 northwest 5-7 southwest)
As for Mr. Sunder, I have no problem with his statements.

twinstead

10th March 2007, 11:24 PM

Odd then that you can claim that 'sounds like' or 'looks like' makes your theory any more plausible.
Its unabashed sophistry.

LOL ya think? This double standard as far as evidence is concerned is very interesting.

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 11:41 PM

in response to the definitive nature of the FEMA statement

Chris , you made the statement that there was no fire in that area and claimed it was FACT.

I am pointing out that you simply have no basis to make the definitive statement that there was no fire near the initiating event.
No diesel fuel fires.

One need only look at the location of the elevators and the columns to see that damage to columns 76,77,78 could be done by whatever ejected the elevator cars and that a fire between row 76-77-78 and 79-80-81 would put stress on the very columns that are in question.No.
Columns 76, 77 and 78 were well beyond the elevator shafts.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9813/wtc7fl8edit2vh6.png

Steve Spak's graphic shows the
"large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14" is centered on column 7 [21 NIST]
It is not known which elevator cars were ejected.
If debris ejected the elevator cars, they were most likely the ones in column row 70 - 72.

An elevator shaft runs next to the stairwell in the east core and there were reports that witnesses felt cracks in the walls of the stairwells. That would be consistent with damage to the columns near the stairwells/elevator bank.That crack in the wall was on floors 27 - 30.
No mention of cracks on any other floors.

Everything you twist to attempt to make it FACT is just that. Your attempt to twist everythingTalk to yourself much?

You have been shown the statements that state that there is unaccounted for fuel, it was not in the tank, was not in the soil and did not burn off in the vicinity of the tank.You don't know where the fuel burned.

You have been informed that partial fracture of the piping system need not be the result of a direct hit on the pipe.That is pure speculation. There is NO evidence to support that speculation.
Debris damage to the west half of the south face may have broken a fuel pipe in that area but not in the opposite end of the building. IMO

Christopher7

10th March 2007, 11:49 PM

I'm going to eat crow, generators 5-7 were in the southwest.
(1-4 northeast 8-9 northwest 5-7 southwest)
As for Mr. Sunder, I have no problem with his statements.
Thank you for your honesty.

By "no problem" do you mean you understand that he is talking about a possibility and there is NO evidence to support that hypothesis?

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 12:52 AM

the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out

I see your X-ray vision is better than mine.
I find your reply intuitive and eloquently sarcastic.

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out because it had run out of fuel.
However, the fires on floors 7 and 13 still had fuel to burn so they may have been burning in the center or south side.

Miragememories

11th March 2007, 03:09 PM

A W Smith

11th March 2007, 06:08 PM

SOURCES PLEASE! A W Smith

MM

Brooklyn Building Collapse Questions (http://www.gothamist.com/2005/05/04/brooklyn_building_collapse_questions.php)

Reconnaissance of the Elks Lodge Building Collapse (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/investigations/investigations.htm)

Building collapse in Alexandria (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001202/2000120211.html)

Building Collapse Kills One, Injures Six (http://www.wnbc.com/news/4442137/detail.html)

Building Collapse Kills Baby and Traps 4 in Greenwich Village (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DC1F3EF931A25752C1A9619482 60)

twinstead

11th March 2007, 06:24 PM

That is pure speculation. There is NO evidence to support that speculation.
Debris damage to the west half of the south face may have broken a fuel pipe in that area but not in the opposite end of the building. IMO

I find it ironic that a member of a movement that bases almost its entire premise on pure speculation would have the guts to even say something like that. IMO

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 10:09 PM

I find it ironic that a member of a movement that bases almost its entire premise on pure speculation would have the guts to even say something like that. IMO
Yes, isn't it ironic?

The point is:

The 'debris damage and fire caused the collapse of WTC 7' hypothesis
is entirely based on pure speculation.

Arus808

11th March 2007, 10:12 PM

which is STILL Being investigated! get that through your thick skull.

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 10:22 PM

which is STILL Being investigated! get that through your thick skull.
At this point there is nothing to back up the claim you make that debris damage/fire caused the collapse.

Will you and the other OT'ers here stop making this claim and admit that your theory is based on speculation, until the 'final report' comes out?

Arus808

11th March 2007, 10:27 PM

At this point there is nothing to back up the claim you make that debris damage/fire caused the collapse.

Will you and the other OT'ers here stop making this claim and admit that your theory is based on speculation, until the 'final report' comes out?

I guess you missed the many posts that allude that we will base our claims when the final report is out, and that none of things we say about WTC 7 is concrete, and we are only going on what is available (the preliminary report) about what is being said about wtc 7

You also have to put that to yourself, Christopher 7. you can't make claims about anything based on the words found in a preliminary report and a report (FEMA) did that pretty much left it up to NIST to finish.

Will you stop making claims and assertions about non existent holes based on speculation, until the final report comes out?

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 10:42 PM

I guess you missed the many posts that allude that we will base our claims when the final report is out, and that none of things we say about WTC 7 is concrete, and we are only going on what is available (the preliminary report) about what is being said about wtc 7
Thank you for you honesty, few here will admit that the DD/F theory is not concrete.

You also have to put that to yourself, Christopher 7. you can't make claims about anything based on the words found in a preliminary report and a report (FEMA) did that pretty much left it up to NIST to finish. When will you get it thru your head that the data about where the diesel fuel pipes and generators were, is not going to change in the final report.
Why do you say i can't make any claims based on this data?

Arus808

11th March 2007, 11:13 PM

[quote=Christopher7;2417153

When will you get it thru your head that the data about where the diesel fuel pipes and generators were, is not going to change in the final report.[/quote]

HOW
DO
YOU
KNOW?

mortimer

11th March 2007, 11:14 PM

Right. It was NOT in the area of the initiating event

Right again. The diesel fires were in the west half of the building.
I listed the location and progression of the office fires in the east half of the building where the initiating event occurred.

Good point
but the initiating event was below floor 13

True
However, there was NO damage reported to the part of the south wall in front of the area of the initiating event

And yet you have failed to provide any evidence that there would necessarily have to be fire and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event for said fire and/or debris damage to have caused the initiating event.

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 11:32 PM

And yet you have failed to provide any evidence that there would necessarily have to be fire and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event for said fire and/or debris damage to have caused the initiating event.
Actually, debris damage and fire is essential to the NIST hypothesis.

Without the debris damage to the core columns and the diesel fuel fires, the hypothesis falls apart.

Christopher7

11th March 2007, 11:52 PM

HOW
DO
YOU
KNOW?
Get real!

Do you think that NIST is so totally incompetent that they couldn't get the location of the tanks, pipes, risers and generators right?

Are you saying we should disregard the entire report as rubbish?

Arus808

12th March 2007, 12:25 AM

Are you saying we should disregard the entire report as rubbish?

No, Im saying that you should treat any preliminary report and what it says as that. a PRELIMINARY finding of what they have investigated thus far. As more things come to light and the more investigation they do brings out more facts, the statements made in the preliminary report can be changed.

Im not saying that they are going to change what is already FACTUALLY supported (ie the exact positions of the tanks). however, anything else that is speculated (ie possible, probable, likely) that is littered through the report should only be taken at that. POSSIBLE. PROBABLE and LIKELY.

So, I hold you to the same degree of "speculation" as you hold us. YOU are speculating basing on the speculations of a preliminary report. Essentially, you're turning their speculation into "they said this, so it must be true" and trying to win an argument by that logic.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 01:07 AM

No, Im saying that you should treat any preliminary report and what it says as that. a PRELIMINARY finding of what they have investigated thus far. As more things come to light and the more investigation they do brings out more facts, the statements made in the preliminary report can be changed.

Im not saying that they are going to change what is already FACTUALLY supported (ie the exact positions of the tanks).
OK, now we're on the same page.

The statements about the location and progression of the fires on the east end of WTC 7 backed up by photographic evidence is not going to change.
There may be some additions above floor 12 on the south side but there won't be any additions to the fires below that point or on the east and north sides.
"Around 4:45.......floor 12 was burned out by this time."
To make this determination, they had to look at the south, east and north sides. These statements are, no doubt, from reports by firefighters.

however, anything else that is speculated (ie possible, probable, likely) that is littered through the report should only be taken at that. POSSIBLE. PROBABLE and LIKELY.We agree.

So, I hold you to the same degree of "speculation" as you hold us. YOU are speculating basing on the speculations of a preliminary report.No. I am listing the facts that will not change, not the speculations in the report.

GlennB

12th March 2007, 03:24 AM

Brooklyn Building Collapse Questions (http://www.gothamist.com/2005/05/04/brooklyn_building_collapse_questions.php)

Reconnaissance of the Elks Lodge Building Collapse (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/investigations/investigations.htm)

Building collapse in Alexandria (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/001202/2000120211.html)

Building Collapse Kills One, Injures Six (http://www.wnbc.com/news/4442137/detail.html)

Building Collapse Kills Baby and Traps 4 in Greenwich Village (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6DC1F3EF931A25752C1A9619482 60)

Russian swimming pool collapse (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/05/russia_pool051105.html)

Swiss swimming pool collapse (http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-SCC/swimming.htm)

London building collapse (http://www.londonist.com/archives/2007/02/building_collap.php)

Mecca building collapse (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article785331.ece)

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

Belz...

12th March 2007, 05:58 AM

AGAIN FOR THE umpteenth TIME CHRISTOPHER 7
you are arguing semantics from a report that isn't even completed.

I think that sums up the thread.

Thanks Arus. We can all stop posting here, now.

Oh, wait. I don't think Chris will. Darn.

Belz...

12th March 2007, 05:59 AM

Columns 76, 77 and 78 were well beyond the elevator shafts.

You keep making a fuss about where the fires were. Are you aware that, if some columns in a building fail, other columns have to bear the extra load and that they could fail later as well at a later time ? This might be the initiating event you're looking for.

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out because it had run out of fuel.
However, the fires on floors 7 and 13 still had fuel to burn so they may have been burning in the center or south side.

Source please ?

Get real!

Well, well. An argument from incredulity. Never seen that in a truther before... :rolleyes:

Belz...

12th March 2007, 06:00 AM

NIST loves drowning readers in documentation! TEN THOUSAND PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION yet given the opportunity to support their contention with a few calculations...they waffle with a summation of some.

Ooh, yes. That IS suspicious...

I can only believe it's because you are afraid. Afraid of the truth.

Speculation. Truth is power. And I WANT power.

Buildings don't like to collapse 'fwump'. If they are going to collapse they like to resist because they were engineered to resist. They collapse in pieces..gradually.. that is..if they are going to colllapse.

Might I suggest a course in structural engineering ?

aggle-rithm

12th March 2007, 06:50 AM

Russian swimming pool collapse (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/05/russia_pool051105.html)

Swiss swimming pool collapse (http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-SCC/swimming.htm)

London building collapse (http://www.londonist.com/archives/2007/02/building_collap.php)

Mecca building collapse (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article785331.ece)

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

I predict the "No True Scotsman" fallacy will make an appearance soon.

"Those aren't REAL high-rises like building 7..."

aggle-rithm

12th March 2007, 06:54 AM

The stories about swimming pool collapses reminded me of when I was a child and I built a homemade terrarium from a shoe box. Some day I will tell the traumatic story of how it catastrophically collapsed one night, sending baby frogs flying everywhere.

But...not yet. It's....it's too painful...

mortimer

12th March 2007, 07:34 AM

Actually, debris damage and fire is essential to the NIST hypothesis.

Without the debris damage to the core columns and the diesel fuel fires, the hypothesis falls apart.

So the NIST preliminary report says that there was no fire or debris damage around the area of the initiating event, and it also says that such fire or debris damage around the area of the initiating event is what caused the collapse? Cite please?

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 07:42 AM

Russian swimming pool collapse (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/12/05/russia_pool051105.html)

Swiss swimming pool collapse (http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-SCC/swimming.htm)

London building collapse (http://www.londonist.com/archives/2007/02/building_collap.php)

Mecca building collapse (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article785331.ece)

Really, MM, you could get bored finding yet more examples.

When the "source please" line is trotted out over an issue that is so well known and easily researchable, you have to conclude that the questioner is rattled.

What's really boring GlennB is people like yourself who see words but don't 'read' them.

It's not just that WTC7 collapsed and I'm well aware other structures have collapsed.

Your arguing apples and oranges.

It's the TOTAL, HIGH SPEED NATURE OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE, supposedly from fire and debris damage that is absurd!

Now cull your huge list of collapses and provide one that is comparable.

MM

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 07:49 AM

You keep making a fuss about where the fires were. Are you aware that, if some columns in a building fail, other columns have to bear the extra load and that they could fail later as well at a later time ? This might be the initiating event you're looking for.

Source please ?

Well, well. An argument from incredulity. Never seen that in a truther before... :rolleyes:

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools. No longer burning fires are a very important consideration when evaluating a building's effective structural condition.

MM

Dave Rogers

12th March 2007, 08:00 AM

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools. No longer burning fires are a very important consideration when evaluating a building's effective structural condition.

Are you aware that steel doesn't necessarily regain its shape when it cools? Thermal history is also a very important consideration, and can lead to very large residual strains in a structure.

Dave

Belz...

12th March 2007, 08:00 AM

The statements about the location and progression of the fires on the east end of WTC 7 backed up by photographic evidence is not going to change.

X-ray vision AND psychic abilities ?

What's next ?

Belz...

12th March 2007, 08:01 AM

Are you aware that steel weakened by heat regains it's strength once it cools.

I'm also aware that it doesn't REPAIR itself once it cools.

Belz...

12th March 2007, 08:02 AM

It's the TOTAL, HIGH SPEED NATURE OF THE WTC7 COLLAPSE, supposedly from fire and debris damage that is absurd!

Why ?

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 08:15 AM

I'm also aware that it doesn't REPAIR itself once it cools.

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant. Add that to the fact that there wasn't any evidence that the supporting steel was ever significantly weakened by fire, or fire-damaged to a state of vulnerable DISREPAIR, and the fire history in WTC7 gains even greater significance.

MM

Dave Rogers

12th March 2007, 08:29 AM

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant. Add that to the fact that there wasn't any evidence that the supporting steel was ever significantly weakened by fire, or fire-damaged to a state of vulnerable DISREPAIR, and the fire history in WTC7 gains even greater significance.

If there wasn't any weakening or deformation of the supporting steel structure, how do you explain the measured structural movement of the building? The point is that once the steel has actually deformed - and there was clear physical evidence from the FDNY transit measurements that it had done so significantly before the collapse - then the deformed structural components have the same 5x over strength as the rest of the structure. The strength of the structure then becomes the force that is actually stressing other parts of the structure, and it's quite possible for one or the other to give way as a result.

Not based on structural engineering expertise, by the way. It just seems reasonable to me that differential deformation due to thermal cycling can seriously, and potentially catastrophically, weaken a structure.

Dave

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 08:43 AM

Why ?

Why is it absurd?

Your question is absurd..but I'll humour you.

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

WTC7 collapsed completely.

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.

WTC7 kept a level roofline during it's high speed collapse.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.

You are suggesting that it is not absurd to believe that 7 hours after the initial falling debris damage, the 47 storey WTC7 would suffer a catastrophic simultaneous structural failure throughout it's base as a consequence of a very tenuous fire history.

Amazing what people like yourself Belz, will argue in order to protect your cherished beliefs.

MM

Dave Rogers

12th March 2007, 09:04 AM

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

Yes, it would be much cheaper to build a 110 storey tower near to the building you want to demolish, then knock down the tower by a combination of fire and impact damage, then pump thousands of gallons into the building you want to demolish so it burns for seven hours.

What people who actually understand controlled demolition seem to be saying, mostly, is that the hard bit isn't getting the building to fall, it's doing so without damaging other buildings around it. Fortunately WTC7 fell slightly southwards, as studies of the rubble pile have shown, towards an area where there weren't any undamaged buildings left. However, it didn't fall vertically, and it didn't keep a level roofline - clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles. As for falling fast - once the lower supports failed, it fell at the same speed as a building would fall if its lower supports failed for any other reason (e.g. explosives). If you haven't yet realised that the speed of collapse isn't sensitive to the means of initiation, then you haven't been paying attention; if you have, then you're the one arguing to protect your precious beliefs.

Dave

DavidJames

12th March 2007, 09:21 AM

WTC7 collapsed completely.True

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence that the speed of collapse should be considered unusual.

WTC7 kept a level roofline during it's high speed collapse.Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence that this observation should be considered unusual.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence to support your claim, otherwise it's simply an observation by an uneducated and inexperienced person.

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.Please provide engineering or demolition based evidence to support your claim, otherwise it's simply an observation by an uneducated and inexperienced person.

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 09:28 AM

If there wasn't any weakening or deformation of the supporting steel structure, how do you explain the measured structural movement of the building? The point is that once the steel has actually deformed - and there was clear physical evidence from the FDNY transit measurements that it had done so significantly before the collapse - then the deformed structural components have the same 5x over strength as the rest of the structure. The strength of the structure then becomes the force that is actually stressing other parts of the structure, and it's quite possible for one or the other to give way as a result.

Not based on structural engineering expertise, by the way. It just seems reasonable to me that differential deformation due to thermal cycling can seriously, and potentially catastrophically, weaken a structure.

Dave

What we have is a quote..or two, that based on transit readings, the members of the NYFD decided WTC7 was going to collapse.

We don't have any details on what was measured, other than they determined there were changes in the 'before' and 'after' measurements. We don't know if transit observations were equally noted at all 4 corners of WTC7.

We don't know if transit reading changes were a result of building changes around the area of the more significant debris damage.

We do know that on 9/11, the NYFD was using a transit on a burning building and supposedly, for the very first time, stating a total collapse prognosis, even though such an event had never happened before.

I say this because prior to 9/11, no concrete and steel building had ever completely collapsed in NYC due to fire and initial debris damage.

The transit measurements could certainly provide warning of possible WTC7 debris collapse, possibly very large debris, which would place anyone in the immediate area at serious risk.

We know they were questioning the structural integrity of WTC7, and that it was most likely that after already witnessing the unexpected collapse of the world's two tallest buildings that day, combined with the horrific loss of over 300 firefighters and 2700 civilians, they might have been extremely ripe to the idea that WTC7 might suffer the same fate.

There is no logical reason, or evidence, to assume that representatives of the NYFD had reason to logically deduce a high speed total collapse of WTC7 based on transit readings.

MM

Dave Rogers

12th March 2007, 09:50 AM

What we have is a quote..or two, that based on transit readings, the members of the NYFD decided WTC7 was going to collapse.

We don't have any details on what was measured, other than they determined there were changes in the 'before' and 'after' measurements. We don't know if transit observations were equally noted at all 4 corners of WTC7.

We don't know if transit reading changes were a result of building changes around the area of the more significant debris damage.

We do know that on 9/11, the NYFD was using a transit on a burning building and supposedly, for the very first time, stating a total collapse prognosis, even though such an event had never happened before.

I say this because prior to 9/11, no concrete and steel building had ever completely collapsed in NYC due to fire and initial debris damage.

The transit measurements could certainly provide warning of possible WTC7 debris collapse, possibly very large debris, which would place anyone in the immediate area at serious risk.

We know they were questioning the structural integrity of WTC7, and that it was most likely that after already witnessing the unexpected collapse of the world's two tallest buildings that day, combined with the horrific loss of over 300 firefighters and 2700 civilians, they might have been extremely ripe to the idea that WTC7 might suffer the same fate.

There is no logical reason, or evidence, to assume that representatives of the NYFD had reason to logically deduce a high speed total collapse of WTC7 based on transit readings.

MM

There's an interesting shift in the burden of proof here. You seem to be suggesting that WTC7 would not be expected to fall as it did because the firemen on the scene were not, in your opinion, predicting precisely the collapse mode of the building. In fact, we know that the FDNY set up a collpase perimeter equal to the height of the building, hampering search and rescue work in WTC6, because they were concerned at the possibility of a complete collapse, and eyewitness accounts indicate that complete collapse was considered a reasonable likelihood. Clearly they considered the possibility that the building might fall at a significant angle, but prior to 9-11 there was presumably very little experience of structural collapses of 40+ storey steel framed buildings.

As for the transit readings, though, they did indicate that part of the structure had moved. Can you explain how one part of a rigid steel structure can show measurable movement without either deformation or failure of other parts of the structure? As for the near-vertical collapse, can you give examples of any steel-framed building falling any other way than near-vertically? And as for the speed of collapse, can you explain why a building suffering failure of structural components at a low level due to fire and impact damage should fall significantly more slowly than a building suffering failure of structural components at a low level due to pre-positioned explosives?

Remember, you're the one stating that these events are signatures of CD and hence disprove collapse due to damage; the burden of proof is on you to explain why.

Dave

Belz...

12th March 2007, 10:18 AM

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant.

You're forgetting one very important point: if the column has already failed, then it cannot once more be part of the structure. Once it fails, it doesn't matter if it cools down: the weight of the building has already shifted, and, heated or not, the remaining columns may not be capable of holding that weight.

Belz...

12th March 2007, 10:25 AM

Why is it absurd?

Your question is absurd..but I'll humour you.

Why is my question absurd ? You said the collapse theory was absurd. I want to understand your reasons for thinking so, particularily in light of the experts' disagreement with you. Why is that absurd ?

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

Ad hoc reasoning. We don't have a definite scenario, so far, of what occured, so there are many possible, slightly different such scenarios. Collapses such as these are chaotic and hard to predict.

No, demolition companies would NOT save a lot of money because doing it this way, assuming you could make it work every time by predicting how the building will react, you'd still be stuck with a building that damages nearby structures, something you DON'T want to do when you demolish it.

WTC7 collapsed completely.

Almost. Some of the lower floors remained.

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.

Define "high speed".

WTC7 kept a level roofline during it's high speed collapse.

Patently false: since much of the penthouse had already partially collapsed before the rest came down, SOME of the roofline had been damaged. And since it didn't fall straight down, it had to have SOME inclination.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.

It didn't have to. 7 WTC was pulled down. A single point wasn't damaged like in an earthquake.

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.

That's not true at all. Anyone with any form of knowledge about building construction, even a layman, would know this.

You are suggesting that it is not absurd to believe that 7 hours after the initial falling debris damage, the 47 storey WTC7 would suffer a catastrophic simultaneous structural failure throughout it's base as a consequence of a very tenuous fire history.

By that logic, 1 WTC and 2 WTC should've collapsed immediately following the plane impacts.

Amazing what people like yourself Belz, will argue in order to protect your cherished beliefs.

Forgetting that this is speculation on your part, would you mind telling me what belief that is ?

Belz...

12th March 2007, 10:32 AM

JimBenArm

12th March 2007, 10:43 AM

That's one of the most insane, senseless, nonsensical bits of crappy reasoning I've seen in a long time.

I thought you'd read some of his earlier posts. Sometimes he makes 28K seem rational.

R.Mackey

12th March 2007, 10:54 AM

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 11:07 AM

Yes, it would be much cheaper to build a 110 storey tower near to the building you want to demolish, then knock down the tower by a combination of fire and impact damage, then pump thousands of gallons into the building you want to demolish so it burns for seven hours.

You don't need a 110 storey building dropping debris to do similar damage. No proof re:thousands of gallons. My point was that if fire and debris damage could supposedly create a result that could be duplicated by minor human intervention, then, aside from modificatons to avoid collateral damage, demolition companies could save a lot of time and money avoiding the major interventions they currently practise. The fact is, fire and debris damage don't collapse buildings that way, major human intervention does!

What people who actually understand controlled demolition seem to be saying, mostly, is that the hard bit isn't getting the building to fall, it's doing so without damaging other buildings around it.

That's quite true in a commercial controlled demolition. Less of a concern in a criminal controlled demolition.

Fortunately WTC7 fell slightly southwards, as studies of the rubble pile have shown, towards an area where there weren't any undamaged buildings left. However, it didn't fall vertically, and it didn't keep a level roofline - clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles.
Dave

"..slightly southward...based on rubble studies..didn't fall vertically.."

Well Dave I never expected you to hold me to the accuracy of a carpenter's level. For that matter you could argue commercial building demolitions rarely fit your standards of observation as well. Jowenko, an expert in building demolitions, totally disagrees with your amateur opinion.
He's had a few years since he originally assessed WTC7 as a controlled demolition. In spite of his research and equal opportunity to view the "..clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles..", he stands firm in his professional belief that WTC7 collapse was the result of a controlled demolition!

As for falling fast - once the lower supports failed, it fell at the same speed as a building would fall if its lower supports failed for any other reason (e.g. explosives).

We agree on explosives. You fail to suggest any other possible reason why all the lower supports would fail in unison?

If you haven't yet realised that the speed of collapse isn't sensitive to the means of initiation, then you haven't been paying attention; if you have, then you're the one arguing to protect your precious beliefs.

It is sensitive to the result of the means of initiation.
Explosives clearly will provide that result (simultaneous removal of the building's structural supports, leaving the force of gravity a free hand).

Clearly you are the one not choosing to pay attention.

I would suggest you are the one who is guilty of clinging to your precious beliefs!

MM

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 11:12 AM

That's one of the most insane, senseless, nonsensical bits of crappy reasoning I've seen in a long time.

Your mastery of this field of reasoning is something I wouldn't think of challenging Belz.

MM

Miragememories

12th March 2007, 11:17 AM

I'd just like to point out that this is a bald-faced lie.

The WTC column design strength was built to a safety factor of 1.67, not 5. (See cite in discussion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2133601#post2133601).) You pulled that number out of thin air, didn't you?

Carry on.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref7) Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref8)
References

1. Chapter 1: Introduction, WTC Building Performance Study, (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm)
2. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/medserv_collapseshocks.html)
3. Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227) [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/seattletimes_withstandjet.html)
4. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 131
5. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
6. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20011001a.asp) [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/construction_losses.html)
7. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003 (http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/books/index.html#cityinthesky), page 133
8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

Carry on!

MM

DavidJames

12th March 2007, 11:19 AM

Your mastery of this field of reasoning is something I wouldn't think of challenging Belz.

MM
I'm still waiting on the evidence I asked for in post 1379. I don't give a flying fig about your opinion or what your uneducated brain may imagine. You made claims without a shred of evidence, why? Either your have detailed analysis or you're simply making **** up. I suspect the later, please confirm.

Dave Rogers

12th March 2007, 11:27 AM

My point was that if fire and debris damage could supposedly create a result that could be duplicated by minor human intervention, then, aside from modificatons to avoid collateral damage, demolition companies could save a lot of time and money avoiding the major interventions they currently practise. The fact is, fire and debris damage don't collapse buildings that way, major human intervention does!

My point is that the fire and debris damage actually observed to WTC7 was actually very severe, and would be complicated and expensive to replicate in the context of a controlled demolition, and that "modifications to avoid collateral damage" are the reasons why CD's are difficult. However, I take your point that I'm not an expert. How much experience of controlled demolition do you have? Oh, and your "fact" is a supposition.

"..slightly southward...based on rubble studies..didn't fall vertically.."

Well Dave I never expected you to hold me to the accuracy of a carpenter's level. For that matter you could argue commercial building demolitions rarely fit your standards of observation as well. Jowenko, an expert in building demolitions, totally disagrees with your amateur opinion.
He's had a few years since he originally assessed WTC7 as a controlled demolition. In spite of his research and equal opportunity to view the "..clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles..", he stands firm in his professional belief that WTC7 collapse was the result of a controlled demolition!

OK, so you're saying that the vertical roofline proves it's a CD, but if there isn't a vertical roofline it still proves it's a CD. I'm well aware that Jowenko is of the opinion that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, and I've stated elsewhere on this forum that his testimony is the one concern I have over the official story. However, as I suspect you well know, he also says WTC1 and 2 weren't CD's, so his testimony opposes the conspiracy theories as well, unless you can come up with a scenario in which the collapse of WTC7 was planned but those of 1 and 2 were unexpected.

We agree on explosives. You fail to suggest any other possible reason why all the lower supports would fail in unison?

I fail to suggest that the lower supports would need to fail in unison to produce a near-vertical collapse, because I haven't seen it demonstrated that this is necessary. Note that WTC1, not a CD according to controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, fell near-vertically when its supports collapsed due to fire and impact damage.

It is sensitive to the result of the means of initiation.
Explosives clearly will provide that result (simultaneous removal of the building's structural supports, leaving the force of gravity a free hand).

Clearly you are the one not choosing to pay attention.

I would suggest you are the one who is guilty of clinging to your precious beliefs!

MM

I don't think I suggested that controlled demolitions in general are impossible, if that's what you're suggesting. What I'm saying is that, once the collapse has progressed significantly beyond the initiation point, its further progression is relatively insensitive to the initiation method, because the part of the structure around the initiation point has already collapsed, destroying information about the means of initiation. CDs don't in general use explosives to make the collapse continue, only to initiate it, so the speed of collapse would be expected to be independent of the means of initiation.

Dave

rwguinn

12th March 2007, 11:45 AM

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref7) Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref8)
References

1. Chapter 1: Introduction, WTC Building Performance Study, (http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm)
2. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/medserv_collapseshocks.html)
3. Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 (http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227) [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/seattletimes_withstandjet.html)
4. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 131
5. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
6. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 (http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20011001a.asp) [cached] (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/construction_losses.html)
7. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003 (http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/books/index.html#cityinthesky), page 133
8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964

Carry on!

MM
Which simply proves(if further proof were needed) that you have no engineering capability or expertise at all, and are incompetent to criticize those who do.
1.67 is the standard to which each member was designed. In combination with all the other members, the result is a much higher FS when the SYSTEM (For the mentally impared and CTers, that means all the parts taken together) is put together.

Firestone

12th March 2007, 11:46 AM

...

Jowenko, an expert in building demolitions, totally disagrees with your amateur opinion.
He's had a few years since he originally assessed WTC7 as a controlled demolition. In spite of his research and equal opportunity to view the "..clear tilts can be seen in videos shot from some angles..", he stands firm in his professional belief that WTC7 collapse was the result of a controlled demolition!
...(bolding mine)
Jowenko first heard about WTC 7 last summer. :rolleyes:

Can you link us the research done by Jowenko, so that it can be scrutinized like you guys scrutinize the FEMA and NIST reports?
Thanks!

aggle-rithm

12th March 2007, 12:08 PM

That's quite true in a commercial controlled demolition. Less of a concern in a criminal controlled demolition.

So when you said:

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in rapid complete footprint collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

...you really meant:

If buildings could be induced to collapse rapidly and completely, without the use of special intervention methods, then the demolition companies that specialize in criminal controlled demolition collapses would sure save a lot of time and money.

Thanks for clearing that up.

R.Mackey

12th March 2007, 12:18 PM

Since 5x over strength was quite normal in the WTC structural steel, regaining any heat loss strength, even if it wasn't 100%, was still quite significant.

The WTC column design strength was built to a safety factor of 1.67, not 5. (See cite in discussion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2133601#post2133601).) You pulled that number out of thin air, didn't you?

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads.
Thank you for clarifying where you got that idea.

I'll go easy on you, since I now see you did not pull that out of thin air, but rather you believed someone who did. I'll also concede that you are not lying, merely insufficiently educated to detect someone else's error.

Let me explain the errors:

Designing to "5 times static load" is not the same as "5 times overstrength." That's like saying your car can go 200 MPH because that's what the spedometer goes up to. The static load component is only a part of the total strength, so you cannot inflate the meaning in that way. (And you made this mistake on your own.)
While a typical safety factor calculation may look like "5 x static load + 3 x live load", there is no reason to assume the WTC used this formula -- which isn't even cited or expressed clearly.
If you really want the answer, you should look at the one reference that, curiously, is not included in your references -- namely the NIST study.

Here's what NIST found:

The actual ultimate strength standards can be found in NISTNCSTAR1-1 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf), pp. 54-55 (114-115 in the PDF file). See any "5x" multipliers? No. Not even close.

The estimated tower safety factors, as-built, were found to be slightly less than design standards in most cases, described by a demand-to-capacity ratio of less than 1. This is summarized in NISTNCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf), pp. 90-92 (206-208 in the PDF file) though the whole section deserves a careful read.

So, in short, the idea that they were overbuilt by a factor of five is wrong. That's just plain bad engineering. They had considerable design margin, but not nearly that much.

I reiterate, your statement is a bald-faced lie. But I do understand that you merely repeated it, believing it to be true. Please examine the NIST report and feel free to ask questions.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 01:29 PM

Thank you for clarifying where you got that idea.

I'll go easy on you, since I now see you did not pull that out of thin air, but rather you believed someone who did. I'll also concede that you are not lying, merely insufficiently educated to detect someone else's error.

Let me explain the errors:
You [all] are ignoring the fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires or debris damage to the core columns.

R.Mackey

12th March 2007, 01:34 PM

You [all] are ignoring the fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires or debris damage to the core columns.

Unmitigated balderdash. You haven't shown that there was no damage of that sort to those members, nor have you shown that it makes any difference.

Besides, I was responding to Miragememories talking about WTC 1 and 2. In those structures, fire and debris damage most certainly applied to the core columns. Please, if you can't follow the discussion, just keep quiet.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 02:07 PM

Unmitigated balderdash. You haven't shown that there was no damage of that sort to those members, nor have you shown that it makes any difference.
Read post #1282.
The data in the FEMA and NIST reports [that will not change in the 'final' report] clearly state that all the major debris damage was to the west half of the south side.
NIST never said that there were diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7. They only talked about the possibility.
There was NO fire in the east generator room which proves the diesel fire 'possibility' did not happen.

Besides, I was responding to Miragememories talking about WTC 1 and 2. In those structures, fire and debris damage most certainly applied to the core columns. Please, if you can't follow the discussion, just keep quiet.Excuse me.
Please note the title of this thread.

Mancman

12th March 2007, 02:32 PM

WTC7 collapsed at high speed.

Please demonstrate how long WTC7 should have taken to collapse.

WTC7 did not topple over as one area of support weakened before another.

How far would WTC7 have to lean to allow it to topple? Have you worked it out?

A collapse of this sort required a uniform loss of structural supports throughout the base of the WTC7, all occurring at the same moment in time, or it would lean and topple.

Except we know a uniform loss of support did not take place because the east penthouse collapse preceded total collapse by 6-7 seconds.

Kent1

12th March 2007, 02:54 PM

Read post #1282.
The data in the FEMA and NIST reports [that will not change in the 'final' report] clearly state that all the major debris damage was to the west half of the south side.
NIST never said that there were diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7. They only talked about the possibility.
There was NO fire in the east generator room which proves the diesel fire 'possibility' did not happen.

Excuse me.
Please note the title of this thread.

NIST does not state there were no fires in the east 5th floor.
No smoke at the exhaust vents does not mean no fires for certain.
In fact NIST addresses this point (right after they mention there was no smoke observed from the 5th floor vents) as they do state air flow may of been altered due to the damage to the building.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 03:24 PM

NIST does not state there were no fires in the east 5th floor.
No smoke at the exhaust vents does not mean no fires for certain.
In fact NIST addresses this point (right after they mention there was no smoke observed from the 5th floor vents) as they do state air flow may of been altered due to the damage to the building.
Unless the vents closed air tight, there would have been smoke coming out thru the cracks.
In any case, if they were closed the fire would have no air supply.
"Air flow may have been altered due to debris damage." is double speak.
There is absolutely no possibility that debris damage poked a hole in the north east generator room wall, 90' from the south face.
Seriously Kent, do you believe that this is possible?

Kent1

12th March 2007, 03:40 PM

Unless the vents closed air tight, there would have been smoke coming out thru the cracks.
In any case, if they were closed the fire would have no air supply.
"Air flow may have been altered due to debris damage." is double speak.
There is absolutely no possibility that debris damage poked a hole in the north east generator room wall, 90' from the south face.
Seriously Kent, do you believe that this is possible?

Its clear NIST believes its possible to have the air flow altered. I don't know the details. Personally if I were you, I would wait for the next update before you make anymore claims you can't fully support. Hang in there. It should be within the next few months.

NIST also states that Floor 5 is considered a possible fire initiation location, subject to further data and/or analysis on building conditions that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.

So we will see more in the near future.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 04:25 PM

Its clear NIST believes its possible to have the air flow altered. I don't know the details. Personally if I were you, I would wait for the next update before you make anymore claims you can't fully support. Hang in there. It should be within the next few months.

NIST also states that Floor 5 is considered a possible fire initiation location,
subject to further data and/or analysis on building conditions that improve knowledge of fire conditions in this area.

So we will see more in the near future.
You didn't say you believe that debris damage could have knocked a hole in the wall of the generator room in the north east corner of WTC 7 because you know that's freakin' impossible.
Pray for a miracle in the final report if you like but i'm going to look at the evidence we have.
There was no major damage reported to he east half of WTC 7 below floor 12.
Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

Column 79 and the NE generator room are beyond the range of falling debris.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9813/wtc7fl8edit2vh6.png

Kent1

12th March 2007, 04:48 PM

You didn't say you believe that debris damage could have knocked a hole in the wall of the generator room in the north east corner of WTC 7 because you know that's freakin' impossible.
Pray for a miracle in the final report if you like but i'm going to look at the evidence we have.
There was no major damage reported to he east half of WTC 7 below floor 12.
Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

Column 79 and the NE generator room are beyond the range of falling debris.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9813/wtc7fl8edit2vh6.png
Don't worry I was the person who gave NIST that photo back around June of last year so yes they were aware of it when they wrote their last couple of updates in Sep. and Oct. Oh and for what its worth I think where you have floor 12 is floor 10.

Cheers.

PhantomWolf

12th March 2007, 05:26 PM

You know I have yet to hear a good reason for why WTC 7 would have been CD'ed anyways. It doesn't make sense to me. It just would add more complexity to the issue and bring no gains.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 05:35 PM

Don't worry I was the person who gave NIST that photo back around June of last year so yes they were aware of it when they wrote their last couple of updates in Sep. and Oct. Oh and for what its worth I think where you have floor 12 is floor 10.
Cheers.
Thank you for providing that photograph.

I was working from Steve's graphic. Floor 10 in his is 2 floors below where i put floor 12. Correct me if i'm wrong.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

BTW: NIST doesn't think there was debris damage anywhere near column 79 and the north east generator room.

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

Arus808

12th March 2007, 05:36 PM

You know I have yet to hear a good reason for why WTC 7 would have been CD'ed anyways. It doesn't make sense to me. It just would add more complexity to the issue and bring no gains.

from the Cter's belief?

2 possible answers;

1) WTC 7 contained the "evidence" (ie detonator cord, remote controlled bombs, remote controls for the planes etc) that prove that it was an inside job, so they CD'ed the building in order "hide" it.

2) WTC 7 contained "uber" secret "confidential" papers so the "evil" governement decided to demo the building in order to "hide" them. (much safer to demo a building than to buy a $10,000 uber big shredding machine. /end sarcasm)

PhantomWolf

12th March 2007, 05:44 PM

from the Cter's belief?

2 possible answers;

And neither of them make sense.

1) WTC 7 contained the "evidence" (ie detonator cord, remote controlled bombs, remote controls for the planes etc) that prove that it was an inside job, so they CD'ed the building in order "hide" it.

Hide it from who?

2) WTC 7 contained "uber" secret "confidential" papers so the "evil" governement decided to demo the building in order to "hide" them. (much safer to demo a building than to buy a $10,000 uber big shredding machine. /end sarcasm)

Again hide them from who?

The NYFD? The NYPD? The Media? The FBI? FEMA? NIST? The 9/11 Commision? According to the CTer's all these groups are in on it, so hiding the evidence from them seems a little pointless.

Kent1

12th March 2007, 05:53 PM

Thank you for providing that photograph.

I was working from Steve's graphic. Floor 10 in his is 2 floors below where i put floor 12. Correct me if i'm wrong.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

BTW: NIST doesn't think there was debris damage anywhere near column 79 and the north east generator room.

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

Steve didn't draw that. Debunking 911 did. He hasn't fixed the error yet. Here's what Steve says http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/myths.html
As for the NIST graphic, yes I've seen that.

Considering NIST has been using the fuel fires /column 79 as a working hypothesis within their more recent papers, it should be interesting to see what new and changed information will be coming out.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 06:27 PM

Steve didn't draw that. Debunking 911 did. He hasn't fixed the error yet.
As for the NIST graphic, yes I've seen that.

Considering NIST has been using the fuel fires /column 79 as a working hypothesis within their more recent papers, it should be interesting to see what new and changed information will be coming out.
"One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis is that the impact sustained by WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1 may have resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system...."

They are NOT considering the possibility of debris damage to the north east generator room because that's just bloody impossible.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 08:06 PM

And neither of them make sense.
Hide it from who?
Again hide them from who?

The NYFD? The NYPD? The Media? The FBI? FEMA? NIST? The 9/11 Commision? According to the CTer's all these groups are in on it, so hiding the evidence from them seems a little pointless.
Hiding from the evidence by talking about something else seems a little pointless too.

Can you accept and acknowledge that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at about 2:00 p.m. when this photograph was taken?

Also, if the louver vents were closed, a fire would have no plentiful supply of oxygen.

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

PhantomWolf

12th March 2007, 08:44 PM

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 09:17 PM

Hiding from the evidence by talking about something else seems a little pointless too.

I'm not the one hiding from the evidence. CT's generally use two things for their claim of a CD of the WTC buildings. Motive and because it looked like one. I'm pointing out that for 7 there is no logical motive, that means you are left with "it looked like one."

Pointing to spots on a building and claiming they aren't showing fire doesn't tell you what is happening inside the building itself, unless you have stunning X-Ray vision that is.
You don't need x-ray vision to figure out that if the louvers were open there would be smoke coming out and if not, a fire would have no oxygen supply.

It's really very simple if you stop and think about it.
Also, think about this.

When abandoning a building on fire, firefighters would shut off the fuel pumps and the diesel engines, would they not?

Arus808

12th March 2007, 09:19 PM

chris, the bulding had a big hole in it. it supplied all the oxygen it needed even though the windows were closed. And they weren't louvered windows (please learn what those are). jeezes, why dont you LOOK at the images you post.

JimBenArm

12th March 2007, 09:19 PM

You don't need x-ray vision to figure out that if the louvers were open there would be smoke coming out and if not, a fire would have no oxygen supply.

It's really very simple if you stop and think about it.
Also, think about this.

When abandoning a building on fire, firefighters would shut off the fuel pumps and the diesel engines, would they not?
Yeah, it's not like the fire would get oxygen from any broken windows or holes from debris.
Oh, wait...

PhantomWolf

12th March 2007, 09:21 PM

When abandoning a building on fire, firefighters would shut off the fuel pumps and the diesel engines, would they not?

Why? They don't own the building, or work in the building, nor do they know what is in the building or what works what. They are in there looking for fire and people, not at what a pumps somewhere might or might not be doing.

PhantomWolf

12th March 2007, 09:22 PM

You don't need x-ray vision to figure out that if the louvers were open there would be smoke coming out and if not, a fire would have no oxygen supply.

Funny, the windows in the building I am in aren't open, and I'm breathing perfectly fine.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 09:46 PM

chris, the bulding had a big hole in it. it supplied all the oxygen it needed even though the windows were closed.
The hole was nowhere near the north east generator room.

And they weren't louvered windows (please learn what those are). jeezes, why dont you LOOK at the images you post.Louvered windows? Please learn how to read.

And please stop denying the obvious.

Pardalis

12th March 2007, 09:51 PM

And now we pause this thread for a little interlude.

Sg9x5mUjbH8

Arus808

12th March 2007, 09:54 PM

The hole was nowhere near the north east generator room.
funny, but I work in an office building that has no windows that open to the outside. and I breathe just fine. So where is all that oxygen coming from?

Louvered windows? Please learn how to read.

This is what you stated Chris
You don't need x-ray vision to figure out that if the louvers were open there would be smoke coming out and if not, a fire would have no oxygen supply.

Again, the building did not have louvers (hence louvered windows) They were sliding panes of glass windows. common in a lot of office buildings.

And please stop denying the obvious.

You should take your own advice.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 09:55 PM

Funny, the windows in the building I am in aren't open, and I'm breathing perfectly fine.
That's probably because you're not raging diesel fire.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 10:02 PM

Yeah, it's not like the fire would get oxygen from any broken windows or holes from debris.
Oh, wait...
What part of 'room' don't you understand?
The generator 'room' was in the NE corner. It did not have windows, it had louvered vents.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 10:08 PM

Why? They don't own the building, or work in the building, nor do they know what is in the building or what works what. They are in there looking for fire and people, not at what a pumps somewhere might or might not be doing.
The first thing firefighters do is shut off the power and gas.
They have to know how to do this.
Perhaps you think the FDNY doesn't know what it's doing.

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 10:26 PM

funny, but I work in an office building that has no windows that open to the outside. and I breathe just fine. So where is all that oxygen coming from?
This is what you stated Chris

Here's what i posted:

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

The NE generator room had louvers, not windows

Are you with me so far?

If there was a fire in this room, and the louvers were open, smoke would be coming out.

If the louvers were closed, a diesel fire would not have enough oxygen.

Note: Diesel fires require more oxygen that a smoke bolwin' OT'er

Arus808

12th March 2007, 11:19 PM

Christopher7

12th March 2007, 11:40 PM

again, christopher 7, there is always oxygen in a building. louvers open or not.
otherwise, how would maintenance people get into those rooms on cold winter days when they would close those windows?

christopher you live in fantasyland.
In order for diesel fire to burn very hot it needs a a great deal of oxygen.
If the louvers in the NE generator room were closed, there would be insufficient oxygen to sustain a diesel fire.
But, of course, you know that.

You live in denial. You can't face the fact that there were no diesel fires in the area of the initiating event, so you babble about anything but facts.

JimBenArm

13th March 2007, 05:15 AM

What part of 'room' don't you understand?
The generator 'room' was in the NE corner. It did not have windows, it had louvered vents.
Oh, so the room was hermetically sealed? The louvers were the only source of air?
Silly me!
What part of "stupid idea" don't you understand?

Belz...

13th March 2007, 05:44 AM

Your mastery of this field of reasoning is something I wouldn't think of challenging Belz.

And well you shouldn't :

There is no logical reason, or evidence, to assume that representatives of the NYFD had reason to logically deduce a high speed total collapse of WTC7 based on transit readings.

There's no reason to assume that the people who know this stuff could come to a reasonable conclusion about because... YOU think they were under stress ?

That's their JOB, you boob.

The fact is, fire and debris damage don't collapse buildings that way, major human intervention does!

No, and 7 WTC didn't collapse in a way that looks like human intervention. Not to the experts, anyway.

I would suggest you are the one who is guilty of clinging to your precious beliefs!

Again, please tell us what this belief is.

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice.

For what possible purpose would they want to do that ?

Belz...

13th March 2007, 05:52 AM

Read post #1282.
The data in the FEMA and NIST reports [that will not change in the 'final' report]

If they won't change, why are they working on a final version of it ?

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

I'm going to help you with this one, since you seem incapable of reading:

THE INITIAL DAMAGE NEEDS NOT BE IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING COLLAPSE EVENT. Stress could be transfered from one to the other, facilitated by the fire damage.

They are NOT considering the possibility of debris damage to the north east generator room because that's just bloody impossible.

Where did they say that ?

Also, if the louver vents were closed, a fire would have no plentiful supply of oxygen.

Who said it needed to be plentiful ?

You don't need x-ray vision to figure out that if the louvers were open there would be smoke coming out and if not, a fire would have no oxygen supply.

Oh, now it's "no oxygen supply" ? I thought it just had "no plentiful supply of oxygen". Which is it ?

Belz...

13th March 2007, 05:56 AM

The hole was nowhere near the north east generator room.

Actually, the hole was all over the place.

And please stop denying the obvious.

It's not that obvious if all the experts disagree with your conclusions, Chris.

If the louvers in the NE generator room were closed, there would be insufficient oxygen to sustain a diesel fire.

Oh, it's "insufficient" oxygen, now ?

You live in denial. You can't face the fact that there were no diesel fires in the area of the initiating event, so you babble about anything but facts.

Says the guy who can't make up his mind about the supply of oxygen to a fire.

Dave Rogers

13th March 2007, 06:13 AM

You live in denial. You can't face the fact that there were no diesel fires in the area of the initiating event, so you babble about anything but facts.

In post 1308 you said,

My statement "There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event...." is not totally indisputable.

Is it now your contention that your statement has become totally indisputable?

Dave

Jennie C.

13th March 2007, 07:58 AM

If there was a fire in this room, and the louvers were open, smoke would be coming out.

If the louvers were closed, a diesel fire would not have enough oxygen.

If the louvers are the source of oxygen, then the smoke would not be coming out of them. The air wouldn't flow both ways.

Conversely, if the smoke is coming out of them, then that's not where the oxygen is coming in. Buildings don't breathe.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 11:04 AM

In post 1308 you said,

Is it now your contention that your statement has become totally indisputable?
Dave
There is a remote possibility that there was debris damage to the core columns, however, there is no evidence that there was a fire in the NE generator room and there is no sign of fire there.
You guys can babble about holes in the building or air flow, but you know it's just BS.
You are in denial and desperately trying to deny the obvious.

There was NO fire in the NE generator room.

Gravy

13th March 2007, 11:12 AM

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 11:16 AM

If the louvers are the source of oxygen, then the smoke would not be coming out of them. The air wouldn't flow both ways.

Conversely, if the smoke is coming out of them, then that's not where the oxygen is coming in. Buildings don't breathe.
The generator rooms had fans to supply air for the diesel engine intake and cooling. [Testimony Sept. 8 '06 pg 180; 11 on pg counter]
When the generators were on, the vents would open and the fans would come on.

Dave Rogers

13th March 2007, 11:21 AM

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 11:28 AM

Just checking in.
Anything new?
No, huh?
Say, when did this thread start, anyway?

January third!

Well, carry on, Christophera7.

(By the way, how will you know when you're done? Will you see a flaming chariot, or hear voices, or what?)
When you and the rest of the deniers club stop lying to yourselves and acknowledge that

There was no fire in the north east generator room and therefore, no diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7

Arus808

13th March 2007, 11:29 AM

so? the rooms that held those generators would need access by maintenance people. meaning that there was air in those rooms...

jaydeehess

13th March 2007, 11:35 AM

I must have missed a few pages. where was it decided that the deisel fire HAD to be IN the generator room? After all if a fire is outside that room then there will be no smoke from the louvers as long as (as would be common practice) the generator room doors were closed.

The first thing firefighters do is shut off the power and gas.
They have to know how to do this.
Perhaps you think the FDNY doesn't know what it's doing

yes, they would shut off any natural gas to the building and the elctrical power to the building. Electrical power feed INTO the building was already off. If the building had natural gas feed then it would have been shut off at the street. The NYFD would NOT venture into the generator rooms. The doors would be shut and If there is a fire in the room they would be putting themselves in unnecessary danger, if there is no fire but a fuel leak or simply fuel fumes in the room then opening the door in a building that is on fire would again be an unnecessary risk.. They WERE NOT fighting the fires, they were not going to fight the fires, they had concerns about the building being able to remain standing. Any action that would risk further damage to the building by increasing the spread or intensity of the fires would be counter productive. The very best that the NYFD could hope for as far as #7 went was that the fires would burn out and the building remain upright and allow therefore make it possible to attempt to demolish it in a controlled fashion. In order to get to that position having them mucking around with the deisel tanks, pumps and generators would a) require more man-hours within an unstable building and b) increase the risk of spreading or increasing the intensity of the existing fires.

It is all fine and well for you to contend that, as far as you are concerned, with the inforamtion and understanding of the construction of the building and the way fire behaves, that such and such is impossible. However there are a few things that argue against you. You have only the evidence and data supplied thus far, that which was available at the time that NIST and FEMA produced the reports you refer to. This would argue for you to wait to see what, if any, further information is forthcoming. Instead you simply make your definitive statements that this or that is simply impossible in the hopes that it will somehow, by some odd twist of logic make the explosive controlled demolition contention magically stronger.

Then there is the fact that the producers or the reports that have been made thus far have training and experience in understanding building construction and the behaviour of fires in large structures whereas you do not. This would argue for you to give them some benfit of the doubt.Instead you simply make your definitive statements that this or that is simply impossible in the hopes that it will somehow, by some odd twist of logic make the explosive controlled demolition contention magically stronger.

Gravy

13th March 2007, 11:35 AM

When you and the rest of the deniers club stop lying to yourselves and acknowledge that

There was no fire in the north east generator room and therefore, no diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7Do you rest your case then? If so, I'll take a vote to see if your argument has been persuasive.

If if hasn't, what will you do, Christopher?

Jennie C.

13th March 2007, 11:41 AM

The generator rooms had fans to supply air for the diesel engine intake and cooling. [Testimony Sept. 8 '06 pg 180; 11 on pg counter]
When the generators were on, the vents would open and the fans would come on.

Well, I don't know if you're saying that the generators were on or off, but if they're off, then the fans are irrelevant. You can have smoke coming out of the louvers OR air coming in, but you can't have both.

If the generators are on, then the fans would supply the oxygen whether the louvers are open or not.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 11:49 AM

And which way did the fans move the air? Into the building, perhaps?

Dave
The generator room, by necessity, would be fireproof and relatively if not completely air tight to prevent diesel fumes from being forced into the rest of the building when the high volume fans created pressure in the generator room.
The fans, located in the east wall and brought air into the generator room.
See Testimony Sept. 8 '06 pg 180; pg 11 on page counter

jaydeehess

13th March 2007, 11:50 AM

The generator rooms had fans to supply air for the diesel engine intake and cooling. [Testimony Sept. 8 '06 pg 180; 11 on pg counter]
When the generators were on, the vents would open and the fans would come on.

Yes, and the air would be forced into the room and the exhaust from the generators would be vented to the outside. The vents would be directly connected to the exhaust manifold. There would be no way that smoke could get into the exhaust manifold as this would also mean that in normal operation of the generator that exhaust would enter the room.(not a great day for anyone in the room) Now if there were a raging fuel fire in the room then heat and pressure would build up in the room enventually causing the failure of the generators or the fans,and if the fans stop then lock-outs would cause the generators to go off and then the fuel supply stops. At that point there would be smoke coming from the louvers if they are not airtight as they shut, which they would do as soon as the generators stop.

I am not argueing for a fire in the generator room, just pointing out the possibilities that would allow one without smoke from the intake louvers(as I point out there is no way to have it coming from the exhaust vent). If pressure build up in the room but the heat had not caused the generator to stop yet then it is possible that the door blows open(made more or less likely depending on which way the door normally opens). In such a case you now have air being forced into the room by the fan and a ready outlet for smoke with the open door. With no windows that smoke will find its way out via stairwells and elevator shafts.(note the proximity of these to the generator room)

But rather than consider any means by which this could occur you instead simply make your definitive statements that this or that is simply impossible in the hopes that it will somehow, by some odd twist of logic make the explosive controlled demolition contention magically stronger.

Kent1

13th March 2007, 11:52 AM

I must have missed a few pages. where was it decided that the deisel fire HAD to be IN the generator room? After all if a fire is outside that room then there will be no smoke from the louvers as long as (as would be common practice) the generator room doors were closed.

yes, they would shut off any natural gas to the building and the elctrical power to the building. Electrical power feed INTO the building was already off. If the building had natural gas feed then it would have been shut off at the street. The NYFD would NOT venture into the generator rooms. The doors would be shut and If there is a fire in the room they would be putting themselves in unnecessary danger, if there is no fire but a fuel leak or simply fuel fumes in the room then opening the door in a building that is on fire would again be an unnecessary risk.. They WERE NOT fighting the fires, they were not going to fight the fires, they had concerns about the building being able to remain standing. Any action that would risk further damage to the building by increasing the spread or intensity of the fires would be counter productive. The very best that the NYFD could hope for as far as #7 went was that the fires would burn out and the building remain upright and allow therefore make it possible to attempt to demolish it in a controlled fashion. In order to get to that position having them mucking around with the deisel tanks, pumps and generators would a) require more man-hours within an unstable building and b) increase the risk of spreading or increasing the intensity of the existing fires.

It is all fine and well for you to contend that, as far as you are concerned, with the inforamtion and understanding of the construction of the building and the way fire behaves, that such and such is impossible. However there are a few things that argue against you. You have only the evidence and data supplied thus far, that which was available at the time that NIST and FEMA produced the reports you refer to. This would argue for you to wait to see what, if any, further information is forthcoming. Instead you simply make your definitive statements that this or that is simply impossible in the hopes that it will somehow, by some odd twist of logic make the explosive controlled demolition contention magically stronger.

Then there is the fact that the producers or the reports that have been made thus far have training and experience in understanding building construction and the behaviour of fires in large structures whereas you do not. This would argue for you to give them some benfit of the doubt.Instead you simply make your definitive statements that this or that is simply impossible in the hopes that it will somehow, by some odd twist of logic make the explosive controlled demolition contention magically stronger.

From my understanding diesel fire isn't the only scenario that NIST is strongly looking into. NIST has stated that they are also looking into possiblilities regarding the floors above the 5th. Floors 7-13. One such report was submitted by Arthur Scheuerman former FDNY Battalion Chief.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

From my understanding NIST has stated they are looking into over a dozen different scenarios.

Arus808

13th March 2007, 11:54 AM

From my understanding NIST has stated they are looking into over a dozen different scenarios.

which is why arguing the semantics in a preliminary and probably already outdated report is useless.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 11:55 AM

Well, I don't know if you're saying that the generators were on or off, but if they're off, then the fans are irrelevant. You can have smoke coming out of the louvers OR air coming in, but you can't have both.

If the generators are on, then the fans would supply the oxygen whether the louvers are open or not.
No
The intake and exhaust louvers would open when the generators came on.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 12:01 PM

which is why arguing the semantics in a preliminary and probably already outdated report is useless.
We are not arguing semantics.
I am presenting facts contained in the Testimony of Mr. Sunder on Sept. 8 2006 and a photograph of the NE generator room at 2:00 p.m.

Give it up.
There was NO fire, or any reason to believe that there was a fire in the NE generator room.

Arus808

13th March 2007, 12:05 PM

We are not arguing semantics.
I am presenting facts contained in the Testimony of Mr. Sunder on Sept. 8 2006 and a photograph of the NE generator room at 2:00 p.m.

Give it up.
There was NO fire, or any reason to believe that there was a fire in the NE generator room.

why are you so focused on this "one" unimportant aspect of the report? they are reporting what was told to them and are attacking the issues from SEVERAL DIFFERENT scenarios. Why are you arguing about if there was/was not any fire in the generator rooms? Did the NIST already conclude that the fires from diesel was what contributed 100% to WTC 7 collapse? Please show us where they have made this statement.

Kent1

13th March 2007, 12:09 PM

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 12:16 PM

why are you so focused on this "one" unimportant aspect of the report? they are reporting what was told to them and are attacking the issues from SEVERAL DIFFERENT scenarios. Why are you arguing about if there was/was not any fire in the generator rooms? Did the NIST already conclude that the fires from diesel was what contributed 100% to WTC 7 collapse? Please show us where they have made this statement.
I focus on one thing at a time.
The fact that there was NO fire in the NE generator room is significant.

I am looking at each possible contributing factor separately.
The possibility of debris damage to the area of the initiating event is remote, and there was NO fire in the NE generator room.
That leaves office fires.

Arus808

13th March 2007, 12:28 PM

I focus on one thing at a time.

because you can't focus on other things that have actual importance to the collapse?

You can't "piece" out the collapse and pin it on ONLY one thing.
The fact that there was NO fire in the NE generator room is significant.

only to you. those at the NIST think its one of the MANY things that could have or not could have contributed to the collapse. Again, you are arguing from what is being said in a PRELIMINARY report.

and until you get through your thick skull, no amount of arguing on this thread is going to change that.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 12:37 PM

because you can't focus on other things that have actual importance to the collapse?

You can't "piece" out the collapse and pin it on ONLY one thing.

only to you. those at the NIST think its one of the MANY things that could have or not could have contributed to the collapse. Again, you are arguing from what is being said in a PRELIMINARY report.

and until you get through your thick skull, no amount of arguing on this thread is going to change that.
Wrong!
As i have stated before, right now i am quoting the Testimony of Mr. Sunder in the Testimony Sept. 8 2006 document.

Belz...

13th March 2007, 01:05 PM

When you and the rest of the deniers club stop lying to yourselves and acknowledge that

Running out of arguments ?

There was no fire in the north east generator room and therefore, no diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7

Your only reason for saying there was no fire is because you think that a hot fire in the generator room would have either: a) vented smoke via the louvers or b) starved.

You can't tell me if there wasn't enough oxygen, or none at all, however.

Care to adress that ?

Arus808

13th March 2007, 01:05 PM

Wrong!
As i have stated before, right now i am quoting the Testimony of Mr. Sunder in the Testimony Sept. 8 2006 document.

and ignoring the rest.

AGAIN, you can't take ONE report and debate just using one aspect of the report (whatever testimony that is given). YOU have take EVERYTHING under consideration, including OTHER testimonies.

What you are doing is nitpicking testimony and arguing what is wrong/right with them.

That's not how investigations work.

Belz...

13th March 2007, 01:11 PM

and ignoring the rest.

AGAIN, you can't take ONE report and debate just using one aspect of the report (whatever testimony that is given). YOU have take EVERYTHING under consideration, including OTHER testimonies.

What you are doing is nitpicking testimony and arguing what is wrong/right with them.

That's not how investigations work.

It is ?

I thought it was all about cherry-picking, ignoring evidence and engaging in magical thinking.

Silly me. ;)

PhantomWolf

13th March 2007, 02:26 PM

The first thing firefighters do is shut off the power and gas.
They have to know how to do this.
Perhaps you think the FDNY doesn't know what it's doing.

I know jdh has already said the power was already off, but I thought I'd point this out anyway.

See, I'm not a Firefighter, but I know one (he works for the Montgomery County Volunteers) so I asked. He pointed me to this document (http://www.firetactics.com/HIGH-RISE.pdf), the 1997 NYFD Highrise tactics. In it on page 21 they state:

D. Gain control of the building systems.
1. Elevators.
2. HVAC.
3. Communications.
4. Fire pumps.

My contact states that this is because "in high rises we take control of the elevators and ride up to two floors below the fire floor."

I'd also note that the power was NOT cut to the WTC 1 & 2 and the fire crew did exactly that, used the working elevators, and even sent people out using those that were still working.

As such it is quite clear that Christopher7 is wrong about this point, they do not cut the utilities, in fact they need them on to do their job effectively (the elevators, HVAC, and Building fire pumps all need power.)

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 07:07 PM

I know jdh has already said the power was already off, but I thought I'd point this out anyway.

See, I'm not a Firefighter, but I know one (he works for the Montgomery County Volunteers) so I asked. He pointed me to this document (http://www.firetactics.com/HIGH-RISE.pdf), the 1997 NYFD Highrise tactics. In it on page 21 they state:

D. Gain control of the building systems.
1. Elevators.
2. HVAC.
3. Communications.
4. Fire pumps.

My contact states that this is because "in high rises we take control of the elevators and ride up to two floors below the fire floor."

I'd also note that the power was NOT cut to the WTC 1 & 2 and the fire crew did exactly that, used the working elevators, and even sent people out using those that were still working.

As such it is quite clear that Christopher7 is wrong about this point, they do not cut the utilities, in fact they need them on to do their job effectively (the elevators, HVAC, and Building fire pumps all need power.)
Good point

However, Wouldn't they shut off the diesel fuel pumps when abandoning the building?
Perhaps they couldn't get to the shutoff switch because of fire.

In either case we are left with two possibilities:

1) The vents were open
and there was NO fire.

2) The vents were closed
and a fire, if it existed, would have very little oxygen or no oxygen to sustain it. [other that what was in the room]

PhantomWolf

13th March 2007, 07:19 PM

However, Wouldn't they shut off the diesel fuel pumps when abandoning the building?

Why? If they are abandoning the building, there isn't a lot of point in trying to find the breakers and throwing them, you just get the heck out of Dodge.

PhantomWolf

13th March 2007, 07:23 PM

In either case we are left with two possibilities:

1) The vents were open
and there was NO fire.

2) The vents were closed
and a fire, if it existed, would have very little oxygen or no oxygen to sustain it. [other that what was in the room]

Or that doors were oen letting air be drawn in, or a wall/ceiling/floor was damaged allowing air flow, or that the HVAC still working and pumping air in, or that the vent opening mechanism was damaged and failed to operate or that the fires weren't in the generator room, but that the line was broken elsewhere or that.....

Why do you artifically limit the options to two? Oh, let me guess, so you can say that as one is wrong, your's must win by default.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 07:48 PM

Or that doors were open letting air be drawn in, or a wall/ceiling/floor was damaged allowing air flow, or that the HVAC still working and pumping air in, or that the vent opening mechanism was damaged and failed to operate or that the fires weren't in the generator room, but that the line was broken elsewhere or that.....
Grasp at straws much?

Why do you artifically limit the options to two? Oh, let me guess, so you can say that as one is wrong, your's must win by default.Artificially my elbow.

There is no evidence or reason to think that any of the 'possibilities' you listed actually occurred.

ETA: one of the two is correct, there would be either no heat or insufficient heat to effect column 79.

JimBenArm

13th March 2007, 07:53 PM

Grasp at straws much?

Artificially my elbow.

There is no evidence or reason to think that any of the 'possibilities' you listed actually occurred.
Or any evidence or reason to think they didn't occur. Other than your ravings.

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 08:48 PM

Or any evidence or reason to think they didn't occur. Other than your ravings.
So, as long as there's no evidence that something didn't happen,
then it should be considered a possibility.
Is that what you are saying?

jaydeehess

13th March 2007, 09:18 PM

No
The intake and exhaust louvers would open when the generators came on.

The intake air apparently has a fan bringing air into the room and the exhaust louvers would NOT open into the room. To do so would imply that the deisels simply run and exhaust their emissions into the room. That would be a very bad design as it would load the room up with carbon monoxide and other nasties. In the several diesel generator rooms that I have been in the exhaust manifold is vented to the outside and this is a sealed vent from the room. It has a flexible section that isolates the generator vibration from the piping to the outside.

Now , once again, why is it required that a possible desiel fuel fire be in the generator room? Just because it is easier to show that such a fire is less of a possibility? Why can the fuel fire not be anywhere along the fuel supply system? Why not just outside the generator room which you correctly(if not quite technically correct) state would be fire-proofed?

Are we done with the diesel fuel fire possibility? Would you like to look up and address any other possible senarios

Christopher7

13th March 2007, 10:18 PM

Now , once again, why is it required that a possible desiel fuel fire be in the generator room?
Once again, it is not 'required'

The point is:

There is NO evidence that such a fire existed.

If it did exist, it did not have enough airflow to burn hot enough to weaken steel beams or columns.

Just because it is easier to show that such a fire is less of a possibility?Actually, it's about the same.

If the area outside the generator room had no ventilation, the fire would not have enough airflow to burn hot enough to weaken steel beams or columns.

There was no debris damage 90' inside WTC 7

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

Are we done with the diesel fuel fire possibility? Would you like to look up and address any other possible scenariosDo you agree that there is NO evidence for this scenario, it is pure speculation?
Even if there was a diesel fire in the diesel room or the area along the north wall,
it would NOT have had enough airflow to burn hot enough to weaken steel beams or columns.

Belz...

14th March 2007, 05:39 AM

However, Wouldn't they shut off the diesel fuel pumps when abandoning the building?

They might as well stick their fingers in their nostrils and start chanting "la Marseillaise"

Perhaps they couldn't get to the shutoff switch because of fire.

Would that be speculation, Chris ?

1) The vents were open
and there was NO fire.

Or the smoke was drawn somewhere else.

2) The vents were closed
and a fire, if it existed, would have very little oxygen or no oxygen to sustain it. [other that what was in the room]

Aren't you forgetting other possible sources of oxygen ?

Belz...

14th March 2007, 05:42 AM

Grasp at straws much?

Interesting. You call a listing of possible sources of oxygen, which would cause problems to your hypothesis, grasping as straws ??

So, as long as there's no evidence that something didn't happen,
then it should be considered a possibility.

Well, that settles it! You don't understand "burden of proof".

"Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !"

Jennie C.

14th March 2007, 08:16 AM

No
The intake and exhaust louvers would open when the generators came on.

Are you being purposely obtuse? (rhetorical)

You have only a few scenarios:

Generators are on
(seems doubtful to me, since you said the FDNY would have shut things down, but for the sake of argument):

Fans are on and supply air to the supposed fire. If louvers are closed, no smoke. If louvers are open, smoke (MAYBE...it also might exit through damage inside the room: smoke rises.

Generators are off, louvers are closed: smoke from supposed fire either leaks through the louvers or through possible damage to the room. Air flow seeps through the louvers or from damage to the room.

Generators are off: louvers are open. You postulate that there must be smoke coming out of the louvers. But if they are the source of the air feeding the fire, there would NOT be smoke coming out. Air-flow would be one way.

So, as I keep pointing out, you can either have air going in OR smoke coming out, but NOT BOTH.

Of course, this all assumes a fire in the particular room, which may or may not be so. My only point is that you keep saying that the louvers have to both provide the air and vent the smoke. They can't do both.

jaydeehess

14th March 2007, 11:54 AM

If the area outside the generator room had no ventilation, the fire would not have enough airflow to burn hot enough to weaken steel beams or columns.

Still waiting for your explanation as to why there would be only limited O2 available outside of the generator room. There are whopping big holes in the south wall and a large number of broken windows,there is damage to the south wall on many floors, there are stairwells and elevator shafts and there is no reason to suspect that the entire 5th floor is air tight and sealed from the rest of the building. There is a fuel line that runs much of the length of the core of the building on the 5th floor and there is very little that can bee seen of the interior of the 5th floor from the outside. It is ONE possibility that there was a fire, including a diesel fuel fire on the 5th floor. To simply ignore the circumstantial evidence of this poissibility and declare that there was no fire or that if there was then it could never have been intense enough to cause problems to columns 79,80,81 is pure and unadulterated sophistry on your part(whether you realize it or not). Your continued harping about a fire in the diesel room itself simply underlines your blatant attempt at sophistry. Yes a fire in the gen.rm. itself is less of a probability than one outside the room. That does not equate to no fire.

Do you agree that there is NO evidence for this scenario, it is pure speculation?
Even if there was a diesel fire in the diesel room or the area along the north wall, it would NOT have had enough airflow to burn hot enough to weaken steel beams or columns.
.

There is no empirical evidence that this fire took place. No one has stated that there is. What has been stated is that the possibility exists for it to have occured and that this is ONE possibility.

Now where did you now get no diesel fuel fire along the north wall from? Did someone claim a fuel fire along the north wall?

As for air supply, deny it if it turns your crank but there are ample ways for air to supply a fire on the 5th floor.

Are YOU willing to admit that there is no evidence of the existance, or use of, explosives in the collapse of WTC 7? Do you still deny that there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence for the debris/fire damage collapse while the amount of circumstantial evidence for a controlled explosive demolition is sparse and weak(at best)?

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 01:31 AM

Are you being purposely obtuse? (rhetorical)
You have only a few scenarios:
Generators are on
(seems doubtful to me, since you said the FDNY would have shut things down, but for the sake of argument):
Fans are on and supply air to the supposed fire. If louvers are closed, no smoke. If louvers are open, smoke (MAYBE...it also might exit through damage inside the room: smoke rises.
Generators are off, louvers are closed: smoke from supposed fire either leaks through the louvers or through possible damage to the room. Air flow seeps through the louvers or from damage to the room.
Generators are off: louvers are open. You postulate that there must be smoke coming out of the louvers. But if they are the source of the air feeding the fire, there would NOT be smoke coming out. Air-flow would be one way.

So, as I keep pointing out, you can either have air going in OR smoke coming out, but NOT BOTH.

Of course, this all assumes a fire in the particular room, which may or may not be so. My only point is that you keep saying that the louvers have to both provide the air and vent the smoke. They can't do both.
That is precisely what they do.

When the generators were running, the fans brought outside air into the building and across the generators for cooling and combustion. [Testimony Sept. 8 2006 pg 11 on pg counter]

The cooling air exits the generator room thru the exhaust louvers.

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 02:19 AM

Still waiting for your explanation as to why there would be only limited O2 available outside of the generator room.
There was a concrete masonry wall that ran most of the length of the 5th floor east to west
along columns 58 thru 79; 90 feet from the south face.
There were no windows on the north wall.
There may have been ventilation louvers for this area along the north wall.
Other than that, air would have to come in and out from the south west corner where the damage was.
[If there were no walls between the south west corner and the north east generator room]
There is NO EVIDENCE or reason to suspect that the supply pipe broke in this area, just wishful thinking.

There are whopping big holes in the south wall and a large number of broken windows,there is damage to the south wall on many floors, there are stairwells and elevator shafts and there is no reason to suspect that the entire 5th floor is air tight and sealed from the rest of the building.There is no reason to suspect that the concrete wall was damaged

There is a fuel line that runs much of the length of the core of the building on the 5th floor and there is very little that can bee seen of the interior of the 5th floor from the outside. It is ONE possibility that there was a fire, including a diesel fuel fire on the 5th floor. To simply ignore the circumstantial evidence of this poissibilityThere is NO circumstantial evidence that the concrete wall was damaged.

There is no empirical evidence that this fire took place. No one has stated that there is. What has been stated is that the possibility exists for it to have occured and that this is ONE possibility.There is NO evidence period.
You are living in the blissful world of 'anything is possible'.

As for air supply, deny it if it turns your crank but there are ample ways for air to supply a fire on the 5th floor. Not to the area in question.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 05:28 AM

There is NO EVIDENCE or reason to suspect that the supply pipe broke in this area, just wishful thinking.

Yeah, controlled demolition in spite of all the EVIDENCE we DO have isn't wishful thinking... :rolleyes:

Miragememories

15th March 2007, 07:36 AM

Why do you artifically limit the options to two? Oh, let me guess, so you can say that as one is wrong, your's must win by default.

Well thank you PhantomWolf your statement pretty much sums up the whole motivation for JREF skeptics regarding the truth about 9/11.

For you folks it's an ego game, all about "winning", a big high five, never give an inch, never acknowledge a possibility..yada yada yada.

MM

Jennie C.

15th March 2007, 08:02 AM

That is precisely what they do.

When the generators were running, the fans brought outside air into the building and across the generators for cooling and combustion. [Testimony Sept. 8 2006 pg 11 on pg counter]

The cooling air exits the generator room thru the exhaust louvers.

To paraphrase BJ Hunnicutt, a woman can only stand so much gibberish.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 08:03 AM

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 12:40 PM

Yeah, controlled demolition in spite of all the EVIDENCE we DO have isn't wishful thinking... :rolleyes:
You have NO evidence that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 01:05 PM

You have NO evidence that there were explosives in the building.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 01:18 PM

You have NO evidence that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

And you have presented no evidence that debrisdamage or diesel fires did not exist in the same area.
It's a TIE!

PhantomWolf

15th March 2007, 03:35 PM

jaydeehess

15th March 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Still waiting for your explanation as to why there would be only limited O2 available outside of the generator room.
There was a concrete masonry wall that ran most of the length of the 5th floor east to west
along columns 58 thru 79; 90 feet from the south face.
There were no windows on the north wall.
There may have been ventilation louvers for this area along the north wall.
Other than that, air would have to come in and out from the south west corner where the damage was.

There is NO EVIDENCE or reason to suspect that the supply pipe broke in this area, just wishful thinking.

Well then if all doors to the north side were closed tight then that would block air from entering the area from the north .
What part of 'possible' do you have a problem understanding in regards to any official mention of a diesel fire on the 5th floor?

[I]Quote jaydeehess:
There are whopping big holes in the south wall and a large number of broken windows,there is damage to the south wall on many floors, there are stairwells and elevator shafts and there is no reason to suspect that the entire 5th floor is air tight and sealed from the rest of the building.
There is no reason to suspect that the concrete wall was damaged

Once again that wall you describe only blocks any air from north of the core on the 5th floor and then only if all doors to that side are closed tight. Your definitives require that you can show without doubt that such is the case. Can you?

Quote jaydeehess:
There is a fuel line that runs much of the length of the core of the building on the 5th floor and there is very little that can be seen of the interior of the 5th floor from the outside. It is ONE possibility that there was a fire, including a diesel fuel fire on the 5th floor. To simply ignore the circumstantial evidence of this poissibility
There is NO circumstantial evidence that the concrete wall was damaged.

So? What does that supposed prove concerning the fuel pipe?

Quote jaydeehess:
There is no empirical evidence that this fire took place. No one has stated that there is. What has been stated is that the possibility exists for it to have occured and that this is ONE possibility.
There is NO evidence period.
You are living in the blissful world of 'anything is possible'.

As stated many times you are quite fine with no evidence whatsoever of explosives being used in the WTC 7 building other than "it looked like...". Your state of "I just want it to be that way", is supposedly better than describing all possible senarios and then examining them as to probability?

Quote jaydeehess:
As for air supply, deny it if it turns your crank but there are ample ways for air to supply a fire on the 5th floor.
Not to the area in question.

You have yet to prove that beyond a doubt in order to substantiate your definitive statements concerning no fire or damage in the area of the initiating event. Given the substantial damage done to the south wall I find it quite amazing that somehow you have determined beyond a doubt that air could not get to the area of columns 79,80,81, or the columns just to the west (76,77,78).

,,, you missed a couple of my points
Now where did you now get no diesel fuel fire along the north wall from? Did someone claim a fuel fire along the north wall?

You brought it up and I asked why you mention fire along the north wall of the 5th floor? You missed answering the question.

Are YOU willing to admit that there is no (edited here to add the word empirical) empirical evidence of the existance, or use of, explosives in the collapse of WTC 7? Do you still deny that there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence for the debris/fire damage collapse while the amount of circumstantial evidence for a controlled explosive demolition is sparse and weak(at best)?

you missed answering this as well.

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 06:38 PM

To paraphrase BJ Hunnicutt, a woman can only stand so much gibberish.
Do you think Shyam Sunder's testimony before the NY City Council is gibberish?

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 06:48 PM

And you have presented no evidence that debrisdamage or diesel fires did not exist in the same area.
It's a TIE!
A very safe statement
Debris damage and diesel fires were likely to have occurred in the south west corner of WTC 7.

Food for thought:

If the impact of debris could cause a double wall steel pipe to fracture at the other end of the building, it would cause double and single wall pipes in the immediate area to fracture also.

A W Smith

15th March 2007, 07:47 PM

You didn't say you believe that debris damage could have knocked a hole in the wall of the generator room in the north east corner of WTC 7 because you know that's freakin' impossible.
Pray for a miracle in the final report if you like but i'm going to look at the evidence we have.
There was no major damage reported to he east half of WTC 7 below floor 12.
Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

Column 79 and the NE generator room are beyond the range of falling debris.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9813/wtc7fl8edit2vh6.png

I'm looking at that column spacing and comparing the spans between other columns in this floor plan. Doesn't the supported floor area for that particular column 79 seem disproportionate to you? Also assuming the beam connections between the columns spans is more robust than simple web truss connections. And imagining the floor beam layout to act like a spiders web. Wouldn't debris in the NIST shaded damage area tend to exert a south westward pull on column 79?

LashL

15th March 2007, 07:47 PM

Well thank you PhantomWolf your statement pretty much sums up the whole motivation for JREF skeptics regarding the truth about 9/11.

For you folks it's an ego game, all about "winning", a big high five, never give an inch, never acknowledge a possibility..yada yada yada.

MM

No, MM, it's quite the opposite. Skeptics consider, study, and research facts and evidence. Most "Truthers" on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge reality, make up all manner of nonsense, refuse to acknowledge their lack of expertise, pretend that "common sense" trumps all, knock themselves out with high fives all around, and trumpet their stupidity all over the internet in the process.

You, for instance, have not provided any substantive posts whatsoever in your time here. You have simply parroted tinhat theories that you've found on conspiracy fantasist sites and you have heaped unsubstantiated abuse upon those who have tried in good faith to provide you with rational, substantive and substantiated facts, evidence, and knowledge. You appear to be incapable of rational response, and you appear to be impervious to reason, facts, evidence, and logic. These are traits which are, sadly, typical among members of the "Truth" movement and which are, thankfully, alien to skeptics.

Christopher7

15th March 2007, 10:22 PM

Well then if all doors to the north side were closed tight then that would block air from entering the area from the north .
What part of 'possible' do you have a problem understanding in regards to any official mention of a diesel fire on the 5th floor?
from anywhere except perhaps vent louvers along the north wall
The part where OT'ers claim that diesel fuel fires had something to do with the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.
Official 'mention' of this remote possibility with NO evidence to back it up should not be used as evidence or suggested as a contributing factor.

Once again that wall you describe only blocks any air from north of the core on the 5th floor and then only if all doors to that side are closed tight. Your definitives require that you can show without doubt that such is the case. Can you?Your question is rhetorical as there is no way anyone could state without doubt weather or not doors were left open.
Doors closed is the normal contition in a mechanical area.
Your statement 'only if all the doors to that side are closed tight' is incorrect.
All the doors would have to be open for air to flow thru this area.

So? What does that supposed prove concerning the fuel pipe?My bad. Should read:
There is no circumstantial evidence that there was a diesel fire on the 5th floor near the initiating event, only speculation about a 'possibility'.

As stated many times you are quite fine with no evidence whatsoever of explosives being used in the WTC 7 building other than "it looked like...". Your state of "I just want it to be that way", is supposedly better than describing all possible senarios and then examining them as to probability?
This thread is about the 'debris damage and fire caused the global collapse of WTC 7" hypothesis.
There is NO evidence that there was a diesel fuel fire in the east half of WTC 7.
It is very unlikely that a double wall steel pipe fractured at the valve connection so far from the debris damage.
There is no good reason to investigate this unlikely 'possibility'.
The people at NIST were assigned the task of proving that debris damage and fires brought down WTC 7.
They are doing their best.

You have yet to prove that beyond a doubt in order to substantiate your definitive statements concerning no fire or damage in the area of the initiating event. Given the substantial damage done to the south wall I find it quite amazing that somehow you have determined beyond a doubt that air could not get to the area of columns 79,80,81, or the columns just to the west (76,77,78).You are misquoting me.
There would have been little or no airflow in the NE generator room or the area outside the generator room near column 79, 76 or 73. [north core column row in the area of the initiating event]

You brought it up and I asked why you mention fire along the north wall of the 5th floor? You missed answering the question.You left out the word 'area' [along the north wall]

you missed answering this as well.There is NO 'circumstantial' evidence that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

volatile

16th March 2007, 05:34 AM

But WTC7 *was* on fire for several hours before the collapse.

Do you dispute that?

Belz...

16th March 2007, 05:41 AM

Do you dispute that?

Of course he doesn't. He just disputes that the impacts and fires could've damaged the structure of 7 WTC in any significant way whatsoever.

A W Smith

16th March 2007, 05:42 AM

But WTC7 *was* on fire for several hours before the collapse.

Do you dispute that?

Don't bother. hes just going to used the oxygen starved canard or cool fire to explain that the fires in his opinion weren't hot enough to cause damage. Why i bet it was so cool you could have hung around the generator room in T shirt soaked in baking soda during the fires to plant demo charges!

aggle-rithm

16th March 2007, 07:12 AM

Don't bother. hes just going to used the oxygen starved canard or cool fire to explain that the fires in his opinion weren't hot enough to cause damage. Why i bet it was so cool you could have hung around the generator room in T shirt soaked in baking soda during the fires to plant demo charges!

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for...hmmm...now, WHY did they do this, again...?

aggle-rithm

16th March 2007, 07:40 AM

Christopher7,

Since you troofers seem to have such a profound failure of imagination when it comes to constructing a plausible narrative in which to frame your allegations, I'm going to do you a favor and provide you with one. Ready? Here goes.

OK, let's say the US government, headed by a fairly new president with little political and virtually no foreign policy experience, has decided to commit mass murder of its own citizens to further its foreign policy goals. We'll put aside the implausity of this scenario and just take it as a given, since we're only looking at WTC 7.

Let's say that the government has helpfully informed Larry Silverstein that the attack is coming, or perhaps his Jewish friends in the Mossad have tipped him off. Again, implausible, but we'll take it as a given that he knew about the coming attack.

If he knew about the attacks, Silverstein would have known that his other buildings in the area would probably be damaged. Most of these could be demolished fairly easily if this happened, clearing the way quickly for rebuilding.

WTC 7, on the other hand, could not be pulled like the other buildings; it was too large. The only way to demolish it would be to painstakingly disassemble it, since explosive demolition is illegal in New York. For such a large building, this could take months, perhaps years. In the meantime, Silverstein is losing revenue.

Therefore, he could have developed a contingency plan in which a team of commando demolition experts would be standing nearby, ready to rush in and blow up the building if it is damaged.

Sound plausible? If true, the implications are staggering. It means that Silverstein broke the law by using explosives, and therefore would have to pay a hefty fine, perhaps in the hundreds, maybe even THOUSANDS of dollars!! He couldn't afford this considering the hazard pay and hush money he would have shelled out to the demolition experts.

Of course, it also means that Silverstein had foreknowledge of the attacks, no doubt from his slippery Jew friends in Israel. It says nothing about who perpetrated the attacks, however. It also, as far as I know, does not implicate Silverstein in any crime. If someone tells you that a terrorist attack is going to be committed, are you LEGALLY OBLIGATED to tell the authorities? Morally, of course you are, but legally? I don't think so. If the authorities already know about the attack and you hinder their investigation, that's one thing, but knowing about something and not reporting it is not a crime.

So, if everything you are saying is correct, then we can infer that:

1. Silverstein owes the city of New York a fine of some sort.
2. Silverstein heard about the attacks and didn't tell anyone, instead looking after his own interests.

Conclusion: Silverstein bad man. Very, very bad man! But not a criminal.

Jennie C.

16th March 2007, 10:45 AM

Do you think Shyam Sunder's testimony before the NY City Council is gibberish?

No, I think all of your drivel about louvers and interior doors/walls (which you appear to be able to see in exterior pictures) to be gibberish.

And I hope you never have a wood-burning fireplace, because you'll probably leave the draught closed and smoke yourself to death.

jaydeehess

16th March 2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:
Once again that wall you describe only blocks any air from north of the core on the 5th floor and then only if all doors to that side are closed tight. Your definitives require that you can show without doubt that such is the case. Can you? Your question is rhetorical as there is no way anyone could state without doubt weather or not doors were left open.

Once again showing that you do not understand the term "rhetorical question" as it pertains to questions the speaker does not actually want answered (ie. how many times do I have to tell you..?)

On the other hand you have stated catagorically that there was no fire in the area of the columns 79,80,81 or columns that if damaged could affect the behaviour of those three. A fire north of the east west wall that runs along the north side of column 79 simply is not such a fire and I fail to understand why you even bring up a fire along the north side of the 5th floor. that is not the area in question.

Air would very likely be readily available for any fire south of that wall and the area between the row of columns 76,77,78 and the row of columns 79,80,81 is south of that wall.

You have also categorically stated that there was no fire in the area between those rows of columns yet you now say that there is no way anyone can say for sure if the doors on the north side were open or closed. why then can you state categorically that there is no way for there to be enough air to support a fire given that this would require that you can state for certain that there is no damage to the south wall that would allow an air supply to such a fire? You know this for certain but you don't know for certain that the doors on the north were all closed.

jaydeehess

16th March 2007, 03:56 PM

A very safe statement
Debris damage and diesel fires were likely to have occurred in the south west corner of WTC 7.

Food for thought:

If the impact of debris could cause a double wall steel pipe to fracture at the other end of the building, it would cause double and single wall pipes in the immediate area to fracture also.

How many were in the area of the intial event leading to total collapse? If there was a diesel fire in the western end of the building what does that have to do with proving that explosives were used in the collapse?
note that these are rhetorical questions as I am aware that you know the answers are zero and nothing.

Christopher7

16th March 2007, 06:44 PM

But WTC7 *was* on fire for several hours before the collapse.
Do you dispute that?
No. I listed the fires in the east half of WTC 7 in my summary in post #1282

The point i have been making [with references] is:

There were NO DIESEL FUEL FIRES in the area of the initiating event.

Gravy

16th March 2007, 06:46 PM

I swear, if NIST doesn't investigate this building seven business, I am going to raise a ruckus!

Christopher7

16th March 2007, 06:50 PM

Of course he doesn't. He just disputes that the impacts and fires could've damaged the structure of 7 WTC in any significant way whatsoever.
No

Please read post #1282.

There were NO diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event
that led to the collapse of WTC 7

GlennB

16th March 2007, 07:13 PM

No

Please read post #1282.

There were NO diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event
that led to the collapse of WTC 7

Sorry, but I've missed most of this debate.

Could you explain what the "initiating event" was, exactly?
You seem to have a very clear picture of it. One that has escaped me up until now.

Many thanks.

Christopher7

16th March 2007, 08:03 PM

When the generators were running, the fans brought air into the building and across the generators for cooling and combustion. [Testimony Sept 8 2006 pg 11 on pg counter]
Cooling air exits the generator room thru the exhaust vents.
To paraphrase BJ Hunnicutt, a woman can only stand so much gibberish.
Do you think Shyam Sunders testimony before the NY City Council was gibberish
No, I think all of your drivel about louvers and interior doors/walls (which you appear to be able to see in exterior pictures) to be gibberish.
The 'gibberish' about the louvers and fans is from an official document:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf

The 'gibberish' about the concrete masonry interior wall that ran most of the length of the 5th floor in an east-west direction, is in the FEMA report on pg 14.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

The doors 'gibberish' was PhantomWlof's offering.

Christopher7

16th March 2007, 09:01 PM

On the other hand you have stated catagorically that there was no fire in the area of the columns 79,80,81
Learn how to read.
You have misquoted me again on the same point.
See post #1484

or columns that if damaged could affect the behaviour of those three. A fire north of the east west wall that runs along the north side of column 79 simply is not such a fire and I fail to understand why you even bring up a fire along the north side of the 5th floor. that is not the area in question.Same thing as above.
I said "There may have been ventilation louvers for this area along the north wall. [assuming that there were no walls between the concrete wall and the north wall]

Air would very likely be readily available for any fire south of that wall and the area between the row of columns 76,77,78 and the row of columns 79,80,81 is south of that wall.There was NO diesel fuel in the area south of that wall.

You have also categorically stated that there was no fire in the area between those rows of columnsYou are making a habit of misquoting me.
What part of:
"There were NO DIESEL fuel FIRES in the area of the initiating event"
are you having such a problem with?

yet you now say that there is no way anyone can say for sure if the doors on the north side were open or closed. why then can you state categorically that there is no way for there to be enough air to support a fire given that this would require that you can state for certain that there is no damage to the south wall that would allow an air supply to such a fire? You know this for certain but you don't know for certain that the doors on the north were all closed.The debris damage was to the west half of the south side. The area in question is in the north east part of the building.

There in NO evidence that there was a fire in this area.

It is just your speculation about a remote 'possibility'.

NIST did NOT mention this 'possibility'

You are desperately grasping at straws.

If the double wall pipe broke outside the generator room and
if there was a fire and
if the doors were all left open and
if that would provide enough air supply to get a diesel fire hot enough to weaken steel beams and columns.....