"Chris7 disproved NIST's claims in four centrally important areas"

[NoahFence]

Denial. The frauds are listed here:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/


The time to first lie on that website is 1 sentence. What makes we're going to fall for the many, many lies that follow?

[funk de fino]

Same old lies by C7

Quelle surprise........

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Animal

I would not even classify them as mistakes, but rather poor editing. Each chapter of the final report was written by different groups. Their writing styles, use of words, and intent of information being delivered varies quite a bit.

I would include typos, spelling errors, and grammatical or editing errors to all be classified as 'mistakes'. The number of such errors in the NIST reports is truly small considering the length of the reports and the scope of the investigation.

If such things are to be considered ;lies' or 'frauds' then I have operator and service manuals at work that prove that Apple, Sony, Panasonic, Larcan, and many others are all companies propigating lies and frauds.

In fact, I had a Sony service manual for an older Beta Pro VTR which instructed one on the adjustment of three screws to align the play heads. It came with a diagram showing these three screws. In reality, in the machine, there were only TWO screws. My Larcan transmitter has a schematic of one cct board which shows included on the board, three PIN diodes. These do not exist on the actual board. In both cases the manuals were written before final modifications were made to the design and it was simply a mistake to not change the diagrams and instructions in the manuals.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Denial. The frauds are listed here:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

I know you cannot back away from your own statements as it would seriously challenge your ego, but you aren't fooling anyone with reason and logic Chris.

Quote:

More word games. They stated the reasons it was not possible.

So you believe that the word "possible" has the same meaning as "probable" then do you?

Quote:

I have told you the beef many times. You are just wasting column space by asking the same questions over and over again.

Yes you have , you are concerned that NIST said things in a preliminary report that they , upon further consideration, decided were not probable or important factors in the collapse and said as much in their FINAL report and you consider the preliminary report proof of NIST fraud and lies. This is quite incredible Chris as it underlines, hilites and shines great light upon your paranoia and religious fervor in attempting to prove malfeasance.

Quote:

More denial? No, this goes beyond denial. You know that is not true.

No, Chris I know it to be that way. Before final reports are written, spokesmen for organizations normally refer only to previously released reports. If in fact a section of the final report has been completed they might comment of its findings. However in the case of the WTC NIST reports I can certainly understand that Sunder may well have not seen a final report on the fuel system and possible fifth floor fires at the time of the PM interview either because it had not yet reached his desk OR if had not even been written yet OR that aspect had not yet been investigated for the purposes of the final report yet.

Quote:

In the PM article there was nothing about a "possible" fire that "may" have been. They stated it as a fact!

Chris I do not normally accuse you of lying but I just showed you where he says it in the PM interview. You either are willfully ignoring it and now lying about it, or you are so deluded you cannot accept the information on a very basic level. Here it is for the third time in this thread.

Quote:

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First,(that) trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

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

Quote:

In both cases a fire caused the collapse of column 79. First it was a non-existent fire on the 5th floor and then it was a fire that had burned out on the 12th floor.

Actually the fires on the 12th and adjacent floors are also mentioned in the prelim report with as much emphasis on their contribution to column damage as the fire that "may" have been on the fifth floor.
Again, why deny what was truly in the prelim report Chris? Here it is again for the third time.

Quote:

2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on
Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows.
The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5

Really Chris how is that supposed to translate into the idea that NIST considered fifth floor fuel fed fires as THE most probable cause of column failure? It does simply not say so in the prelim report nor does Sunder say so in the PM interview (unless you willfully ignore his use of the word "possible" and still perform major mental jiggery-pokery to make it so)

Quote:

How long are you going to keep this crap up? There was no fire and no smoke coming from the NE generator room at any time and there was no reason to think there was a fire there.

Which IS what NIST decided and said as much in their final report, again , where's the beef Chris? NIST stated that fifth floor fires were improbable, their conclusion aligns with yours. In your daily interactions with people do you normally have a problem taking 'yes' for an answer? If you wanted a stop sign at the nearest corner to your house and one was put there would you then complain about it? Jeeez

Quote:

They said the fire may have been a contributing factor but the fire itself was stated as a fact.
"Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel"

The fires referred to are those that "may" have been on the fifth floor how many times does that have to be pointed out to you before you can admit that NIST was never saying that these fires were a fact?.

Quote:

jaydeehess wroteAnd to what is Sunder referring to in these "possible" contributing factors? The prelim report and it states:
The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5

Quote:

That was 8 months earlier and very few people read it or even knew about it. NIST had enough time to verify that a diesel fuel fire was not a factor.

Really? I certainly knew of it, so did you. In fact I suspect that most people who really cared about the technical issues concerning the collapse of WTC 7 had read it(or should have read it. You are aware that many on your side of the argument have never bothered to read a NIST report preferring instead to read edited versions of it on so called 911 truth sites such as ..... I don't know, maybe .... http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

That side are you saying that prelim report is inconsequential but that an edited interview in a barely technical popular press magazine is incredibly important and illustrates NIST fraud as long as you re-edit it to exclude the word "possible" am I getting this correct?

Quote:

Anyone reading the "Debunking" article was given the impression that there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours and there was a 10 story gouge in the south face. There was NO evidence to support the fire and clear evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.

Again only if they willfully ignore the qualifier Sunder used. What word was that again, its slipped my mind in the last 10 seconds since I last pointed it out to you.... oh yes,,,, "possible".

Quote:

Do you want me to find some posts on this forum where people insisted that both really existed? Did you ever believe that the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room and/or the 10 story gouge as described on p. 18 of the NIST L report existed?

Prior to the final report I considered the fifth floor diesel fed fires to be a real possibility albeit I gave it odds that favoured it not being likely rather than the other way around. Fuel was originally thought to be unaccounted for and there was the outside possibility that smoke was being draughted towards the interior rather than the louvers and exiting through the south windows along with smoke from other sources. Some pictures do suggest a long gouge more to the center of the south face and similar to the very visible gouge at the SW corner extending at least to the tenth floor. With that in mind I awaited the final report rather than leaping joyfully to a prejudgment. Sorry you cannot say the same.

Quote:

False! They were lies when they were told. The fact they they were not in the final report is an admission that they were lies.

I really am not sure about you. I lean towards considering you an ideologue who simply cannot abide anything other than the idea that 911 was an inside job and who will unconsciously distort fact and quote out of context in order to propagate your religious-style beliefs.
That is because I do actually appreciate you in that you are at least willing to attempt technical detail (unlike tmd, Clayton M., or ergo for instance) and I do not wish to believe that you do all of this willfully and conscious of the fact that you are distorting fact and quoting out of context.

Of course I only speak for myself in that last paragraph. Apparently Funk and Noah are not as reticent

[jaydeehess]

Chris, it strikes me that your insistance the Sunder lied in the PM interview because he only used the word 'possible' once (assuming that in viewing his words to PM your mind allows you to comprehend that he did use that word in reference to fifth floor fires) is the extreme opposite of a comedy skit in which two supposed police officers are discussing a case and they use the word 'alledged' and 'alledgedly' over and over, several times in each sentence.
Perhaps you'd have been more satisfied with Sunder being quoted saying;

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

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Denial. The frauds are listed here:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

More word games. They stated the reasons it was not possible.

I have told you the beef many times. You are just wasting column space by asking the same questions over and over again.

You are talking to yourself.

More denial? No, this goes beyond denial. You know that is not true.

In the PM article there was nothing about a "possible" fire that "may" have been. They stated it as a fact!

"a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours" ... "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


In both cases a fire caused the collapse of column 79. First it was a non-existent fire on the 5th floor and then it was a fire that had burned out on the 12th floor.

How long are you going to keep this crap up? There was no fire and no smoke coming from the NE generator room at any time and there was no reason to think there was a fire there.

They said the fire may have been a contributing factor but the fire itself was stated as a fact.
"Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel"

That was 8 months earlier and very few people read it or even knew about it. NIST had enough time to verify that a diesel fuel fire was not a factor.

Anyone reading the "Debunking" article was given the impression that there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours and there was a 10 story gouge in the south face. There was NO evidence to support the fire and clear evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.

Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie. The NIST working hypothesis was a double lie.

Do you want me to find some posts on this forum where people insisted that both really existed? Did you ever believe that the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room and/or the 10 story gouge as described on p. 18 of the NIST L report existed?

False! They were lies when they were told. The fact they they were not in the final report is an admission that they were lies.

Since you pointed out such an egregious error to them then surely NIST must have credited you in the final report. Could you cite that credit?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by tsig

Since you pointed out such an egregious error to them then surely NIST must have credited you in the final report. Could you cite that credit?

They did not, and perhaps that sticks in C7's craw as much as his perceived NISTian fraud.

[jaydeehess]

hmmm I stand corrected. In the PM article Sunder is not quoted with the word "possible" That is the word used by PM. I wonder where they got that from?????

In fact the only quoted sentences from Sunder are
"There was no firefighting in WTC 7,"
"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

great. Obviously this all that Sunder said to PM and PM made the rest up themselves, including the use of the word 'possible'. Now where would PM get that qualifier from, hmmmmm?

Ooooorrrrr?
Is it possible (I love that word) that Sunder said quite a bit more and followed quite closely to what is actually put down in print in the prelim report concerning fires that "may" have occured on the fifth floor? Is it possible that PM paraphrased and condensed most of what Sunder said in the interview to keep the article shorter. Nahhhhh, PM is so well known for detailed and insightful articles that they must have included every word the man said.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Prior to the final report I considered the fifth floor diesel fed fires to be a real possibility albeit I gave it odds that favoured it not being likely rather than the other way around. Fuel was originally thought to be unaccounted for and there was the outside possibility that smoke was being draughted towards the interior rather than the louvers and exiting through the south windows along with smoke from other sources. Some pictures do suggest a long gouge more to the center of the south face and similar to the very visible gouge at the SW corner extending at least to the tenth floor. With that in mind I awaited the final report rather than leaping joyfully to a prejudgment. Sorry you cannot say the same.

Many people here insisted that the diesel fuel fires and the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of NIST L actually happened based on Sunders statements.

You ignored that axiom:

Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie. The NIST working hypothesis was a double lie.

[slowsmile]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

9/11 "truth" summed up in a sentence.

Now how did the fires on floor 12 spread to the North face of WTC7 through partition walls as fast as along corridors?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

... The NIST working hypothesis was a double lie.

? A hypothesis is a lie?

A proposed explanation for a phenomenon could be wrong. Calling it a lie is indicative of your failure to prove your claims.

My working hypothesis; I am working from the backyard...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...b/DSC_4805.jpg
How can anyone say posting at JREF is a waste to time when we can do it anywhere; and added benefit of being a NWO defender of apple pie and the girl next door, we get speeds of 16.57 Mbps down and 3.86 Mbps up (and that is in the backyard). Oops.

[carlitos]

deleted

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Many people here insisted that the diesel fuel fires and the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of NIST L actually happened based on Sunders statements.

So? If people draw the wrong conclusion by not fully reading what is said is that the author's fault? Does that make hima liar?

Is it the fault of Moses that people steal and kill despite the commandments to the contrary?

OTOH if people did actually properly read Sunder's comments and still reach a personal conclusion that the gouge was fact and that a fifth floor fire was fact is that Sunder's fault? Is that a fault of the NIST report as a whole?
Not a chance!
In point of fact the people you refer to read Sunder, read the prelim report, looked at photos and the reasons for inclusion of these items and reached independant conclusions as to the veracity of these claims.
I said that I was not fully convinced but that there certainly was evidence to back them. MOST people(including me) argueing the fifth floor fire said, often more than once, that this fire was less than likely but possible and gave their reasons for the probability of this event. Many, including me, called for you to wait for the final report just as we were prepared to do. YOU CHOSE to then characterize all such discussion as argument for this fire having been fact. None of us cannot help it if you cannot fathom the difference. We cannot help it if you cannot abide reasoned debate and have no patience.

Quote:

You ignored that axiom:

Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

You have not shown that NIST or Sunder ever deliberately misled anyone. In FACT the FACT that the final report on WTC 7 does not include a ten storey gouge in the center of the south face similar to the one that was FACT at the SW corner;
and
the FACT that NIST refers to fuel fed fires on the fifth floor as quite improbable,
both indicate that NIST did not deliberately mislead anyone on these two issues.

No misleading conclusions means your axiom is a moot point here. Thus my choosing to ignore something that has no relevence.

Quote:

The NIST working hypothesis was a double lie.

You keep repeating this as if it makes any sense at all.

A hypothesis is a conjecture based upon preliminary evidence. A hypothesis must be then subjected to research and/or experimentation designed to falsify it (illustrate that it is either correct or incorrect or to determine the probability of its veracity as closely as possible). One must determine what predictions such a hypothesis would require and then test to see if such are realized.
A hypothesis therefore cannot be, by itself, a statement designed to mislead, it cannot be a lie.

String theory is, many argue, not actually a theory or hypothesis because it cannot make falsifiable predictions. Is it a "lie"? No, it is a mathematical construct that fits some observables in the physical world. Do some physicists believe it is fact? I believe there are some who do but they would be quite up front, most of them, in admitting it has little proof.

Furthermore in the PM article, PM came up with the qualifier "possible" somehow. One would have to conclude that the absolute most probable reason they used that word is that the prelim report, to which Sunder himself is referring, uses this and similar qualifiers.

When one uses such qualifiers it illustrates quite conviningly that the speaker is not trying to mislead the listener/viewer into believeig that the topic is being presented as fact. If one were trying to do that then the speaker would leave the qualifier out.

Did Sunder himself use "possible" or "may" in his interview with PM? I don't know. PM obviously did not print his every word. You choose to jump to the conclusion that since PM did not include Sunder using the qualifiers that Sunder never uttered them. In that case you would have to accuse PM of lying by including the word "possible", except for that niggling fact that it is used in the prelim report.

One unassailable fact in all of this then is that the 'possible' fires that 'may' have been on the fifth floor and possibly fed by the diesel fuel system is absolutely NOT a "Centrally Important" area of the NIST investigation.
Is any of this getting through Chris?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by slowsmile

9/11 "truth" summed up in a sentence.

Now how did the fires on floor 12 spread to the North face of WTC7 through partition walls as fast as along corridors?

You mean the fires that are verifiable fact as opposed to the fires that NIST characterized in the preliminary report as ones that "may" have occured on the fifth floor?

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So? If people draw the wrong conclusion by not fully reading what is said is that the author's fault? Does that make hima liar?

Don't forget that Christopher is using a draft report with incomplete conclusions that he assumes represents his position. He hasn't seen the final report...... at all.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by slowsmile

Now how did the fires on floor 12 spread to the North face of WTC7 through partition walls as fast as along corridors?

NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.
pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by C7

Many people here insisted that the diesel fuel fires and the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of NIST L actually happened based on Sunders statements.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

So? If people draw the wrong conclusion by not fully reading what is said is that the author's fault? Does that make him a liar?

People drew the conclusion they were led to believe. Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

Quote:

OTOH if people did actually properly read Sunder's comments and still reach a personal conclusion that the gouge was fact and that a fifth floor fire was fact is that Sunder's fault? Is that a fault of the NIST report as a whole?

Sunder lied when he told PM that there WAS a gouge 1/3 the width, from floor 10 to the ground. That is his fault.

Quote:

In point of fact the people you refer to read Sunder, read the prelim report, looked at photos and the reasons for inclusion of these items and reached independant conclusions as to the veracity of these claims.

You are assuming that people who read the PM article also read the preliminary report. Very few people actually take the time to do that. The fact is that the diesel fuel fire and debris damage was the "belief" of many if not most of those who read the PM article.

Quote:

I said that I was not fully convinced but that there certainly was evidence to back them. MOST people(including me) argueing the fifth floor fire said, often more than once, that this fire was less than likely but possible and gave their reasons for the probability of this event. Many, including me, called for you to wait for the final report just as we were prepared to do.

Why wait for the final report when a person seeking the truth can figure it out for their self? You and everyone else here refused to accept the obvious until the government told you so. That's very sad. You refuse to think for yourselves.

Quote:

YOU CHOSE to then characterize all such discussion as argument for this fire having been fact.

Strawman.

Quote:

You have not shown that NIST or Sunder ever deliberately misled anyone.

Denial. Sunder said there was a 10 story gouge when there was none. That is deliberately misleading. People reading the article got the impression that there was a fire on the fifth floor. I'll find some of the quotes from this forum and post them.

Quote:

In FACT the FACT that the final report on WTC 7 does not include a ten storey gouge in the center of the south face similar to the one that was FACT at the SW corner;
and
the FACT that NIST refers to fuel fed fires on the fifth floor as quite improbable,
both indicate that NIST did not deliberately mislead anyone on these two issues.

The final report was honest about the fire and the gouge but Sunder was not in the PM article. The gouge at the SW corner was NOT anything like the 10 story gouge described on p. 18 and shown in graphics on p. 23, 31 and 32 of the preliminary report and stated as a fact by Sunder in the PM article.

You refuse to admit that Sunder lied about the 10 story gouge and mislead people about the diesel fuel fire. You will no doubt persist in trying to double talk around it.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Don't forget that Christopher is using a draft report with incomplete conclusions that he assumes represents his position. He hasn't seen the final report...... at all.

Wrong. Please read the thread before making uninformed accusations. I am talking about the PM "Debunking" article and I have read the final report, have you?

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.
pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

You still haven't figured out the concept of "average" versus "instantaneous", have you. (Or in this case, "average range", since, as was pointed out to me once before, an average is typically construed as a single number.)

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by C7

NCSTAR 1A pg 19 [pdf pg 61]
On those floors that were mostly subdivided into offices (such as Floors 11 and 12), the fire would have grown within a single office, reaching flashover within several minutes. After about 5 to 15 min, the ceiling tile system would have failed from the heat, and the hot air would have flowed over the office wall. Soon the hot air would fail the ceiling of an adjacent office, and eventually the thermal radiation would ignite the contents in this office. Fire spread would have been similar for offices separated by a corridor, although this would have taken longer, since the hot air would have to travel further and would be cooling along the way.
pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

You still haven't figured out the concept of "average" versus "instantaneous", have you. (Or in this case, "average range", since, as was pointed out to me once before, an average is typically construed as a single number.)

This is the JREF merry-go-round. I have already responded to this denial of what NIST clearly stated. NIST is not talking about average, they talked about a range of 20 to 30 minutes.

The main point, that you ignored, was:
The fire burned from office to office.
This was in response to:

Quote:

Now how did the fires on floor 12 spread to the North face of WTC7 through partition walls as fast as along corridors?

[thedopefishlives]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

This is the JREF merry-go-round. I have already responded to this denial of what NIST clearly stated. NIST is not talking about average, they talked about a range of 20 to 30 minutes.

The main point, that you ignored, was:
The fire burned from office to office.
This was in response to:

An average range, yes. Or a typical range, whatever you want to call it. You are basing your conclusions on the mistaken idea that NIST claimed that the fires burned exactly between 20 to 30 minutes in every point on the floor, when in reality, the description is referring to the fact that the fires lasted, on average, between 20 to 30 minutes. This confusion led to your faulty fire model, which you totally pulled from your nether regions in a desperate attempt to "prove NIST wrong" - which, I might add, does nothing to prove CD.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

An average range, yes. Or a typical range, whatever you want to call it. You are basing your conclusions on the mistaken idea that NIST claimed that the fires burned exactly between 20 to 30 minutes in every point on the floor, when in reality, the description is referring to the fact that the fires lasted, on average, between 20 to 30 minutes.

Really? Where does NIST say that?

[triforcharity]

NIST says that in the part of fire science you don't understand. Which, is found between the fire triangle, and complex fire progression analysis.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

People drew the conclusion they were led to believe. Leading people to believe something that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

Yet you still have yet to prove the serious accusation that any deliberate effort was made to deceive anyone. GIVEN the fact that the prelim report DOES spell out in detail exactly what emphasis NIST was putting on the fifth floor fire possibility it stands to reason that there was not such an effort.

Quote:

Sunder lied when he told PM that there WAS a gouge 1/3 the width, from floor 10 to the ground. That is his fault.

Sunder WAS giving an interview based upon the written report he had at the time. The fact that you cannot fathom why anyone would not go out on a limb and opine on what the final disposition of the individual topics of research would be is your fault.

Quote:

You are assuming that people who read the PM article also read the preliminary report. Very few people actually take the time to do that. The fact is that the diesel fuel fire and debris damage was the "belief" of many if not most of those who read the PM article.

If people came away from the PM article, and this was the only article they had read on 9/11 conspiracies, with an erroneous view of what occured it is PM's fault for bad editing and more to the point, their own fault(perhaps they just did not care about it enough - who's fault would that be?), not NIST's or Sunder's. PM wrote that article, not NIST, not Sunder. But of course you have a predisposition to requiring nefarious dealings by NIST so of course you'd not be capable of putting blame anywhere else.

Quote:

Why wait for the final report when a person seeking the truth can figure it out for their self? You and everyone else here refused to accept the obvious until the government told you so. That's very sad. You refuse to think for yourselves.

As I said, for myself, with the education and experience I have, I expected that the fifth floor fires would likely not be an issue BUT I am not a fire engineering specialist, I am not an FEA specialist, and therefore I was quite willing and patient enough to wait upon the report finalized by those who are trained and educated in these matters before drawing a personal conclusion/. Have I questioned the conclusions of lettered authority figures in the past. Why yes, on more than a few occssions, BUT at least I wait to see what those conclusions are before disagreeing with the. But that you could say the same. Here you are STILL argueing the points made in a preliminary report even though the final report and conclusions do coincide with your own on these subjects.

Quote:

Strawman.

Sorry , YOU have brought up what went on in the previous thread regarding the preliminary report and the fifth floor fires more than once in THIS thread. If addressing that which you brought up is a strawman then blame the guy in your mirror.

Quote:

Denial. Sunder said there was a 10 story gouge when there was none. That is deliberately misleading. People reading the article got the impression that there was a fire on the fifth floor. I'll find some of the quotes from this forum and post them.

Like I said if people rush to conclusion without reading context its not Sunder's fault. If people draw conclusions upon reading an article in PM and little or nothing else its not Sunder's or NIST's fault, its the reader's and perhaps PM's. That's not denial, that's simply the way it is. Are you the kind of person who blames MacDonalds for making people fat? for people scalding themselves when they place a cup of hot coffee between their legs?
Do you blame a telephone company if a car goes off the roadway and injures a person in a phonebooth? Do you blame firearms manufacturers for all firearms deaths? Do you blame ladder manufacturers for injuries caused when people stand on the top platform of a step ladder?

If you are not these types of people then why are you blaing NIST for something NIST is obviously not the cause of?

Quote:

The final report was honest about the fire and the gouge but Sunder was not in the PM article. The gouge at the SW corner was NOT anything like the 10 story gouge described on p. 18 and shown in graphics on p. 23, 31 and 32 of the preliminary report and stated as a fact by Sunder in the PM article.

<<sighs>> In the PM article, PM uses the word "possible". Did they arrive at the use of that word all on their own even though they heard Sunder describe the fires as fact? Not bleedin likely. They quote ONE sentence ny Sunder but it is obvious that the context includes that this is a "possibility" and not concrete fact. Why are you incapable of understanding context Chris?

Quote:

You refuse to admit that Sunder lied about the 10 story gouge and mislead people about the diesel fuel fire. You will no doubt persist in trying to double talk around it.

Sunder was incorrect as made clear by the report that was published Loooong after he made the statements to PM. Even then though he was operating on information that was available in the preliminary report and was based upon eyewitness accounts that do describe such a gouge and as seen in other threads on this forum there were photos that suggested a gouge similar to those descriptions.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

This is the JREF merry-go-round. I have already responded to this denial of what NIST clearly stated. NIST is not talking about average, they talked about a range of 20 to 30 minutes.

The main point, that you ignored, was:
The fire burned from office to office.
This was in response to:

Originally Posted by thedopefishlives

An average range, yes. Or a typical range, whatever you want to call it. You are basing your conclusions on the mistaken idea that NIST claimed that the fires burned exactly between 20 to 30 minutes in every point on the floor, when in reality, the description is referring to the fact that the fires lasted, on average, between 20 to 30 minutes. This confusion led to your faulty fire model, which you totally pulled from your nether regions in a desperate attempt to "prove NIST wrong" - which, I might add, does nothing to prove CD.

NIST used a fire modelling in their FEA to arrive at their fire spread and duration times on individual areas of WTC 7, Chris.
If you really want an accurate fire model you must use all the resources of fire sciences and an FEA rather than paraphrased descriptions in the NIST report.
NIST's diagrams are the result of their FEA. Their FEA was loaded with data they collected, and operations on that data they input. If you dispute that then collect your own data and input your own operations based upon accepted fire sciences.
We all await your results.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Why are you incapable of understanding context Chris?

He has no desire to learn or understand this topic. He built a whole "truth phalanx" website about a misperception of a report draft. No point.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Wrong. Please read the thread before making uninformed accusations. I am talking about the PM "Debunking" article and I have read the final report, have you?

Again, and this time with passion...........

Why are you continuing to hop up and down on a circus ride that stopped when the final report came out?
The final report supercedes the preliminary report and the PM article is based upon the preliminary report AND what PM writes or does not write, and how they edit it, is not controlled by Sunder or NIST.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

what PM writes or does not write, and how they edit it, is not controlled by Sunder or NIST.

This reminds me of a similar illogic - that the BBC were "in on it" because they mistakenly said that the building fell down before it did. If I ever fall down this type of rabbit hole, I hope to God that someone gets me to a mental health professional.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

NIST says that in the part of fire science you don't understand. Which, is found between the fire triangle, and complex fire progression analysis.

Page #?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Yet you still have yet to prove the serious accusation that any deliberate effort was made to deceive anyone. GIVEN the fact that the prelim report DOES spell out in detail exactly what emphasis NIST was putting on the fifth floor fire possibility it stands to reason that there was not such an effort.

Denial

I'm talking about the PM article, 8 months later, and you know it.
Sunder said that there WAS a 10 story gouge as described on p. 18 and shown in graphics on p 23, 31 & 32. But that was not true. There was no such damage.

This was a the most significant damage to support their hypothesis that debris damage and diesel fuel fire caused the collapse.

There was no smoke or fire reported on floor 5 and no reason to think there was a fire in the NE generator room. Yet Sunder told PM:

PM:a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel[to the fire]for a long period of time."

The NIST working hypothesis was absolutely baseless.


Excess redundant verbiage deleted.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

The final report supercedes the preliminary report and the PM article is based upon the preliminary report AND what PM writes or does not write, and how they edit it, is not controlled by Sunder or NIST.

Please, They paraphrased and quoted Sunder. He laid out the totally baseless working hypothesis.

The "debunking" article was itself, bunk.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

NIST used a fire modelling in their FEA to arrive at their fire spread and duration times on individual areas of WTC 7, Chris.

But they did not use the photos as data for the input and the fires in their model does not match the actual fires. Furthermore, they will not release their input data so it cannot be verified.

Their fire computer simulation is grossly inaccurate.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Page #?

That "whoosh" you heard was triforcharity's joke flying over your head at free-fall acceleration speed.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by carlitos

He has no desire to learn or understand this topic. He built a whole "truth phalanx" website about a misperception of a report draft. No point.

That has not been in dispute for several months.

The only questions being:
1) Why do it?
2) Has everyone noticed that he is running out of energy; AND
3) In apparent desperation his posts are down below ergo level one liner "snides".

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

That has not been in dispute for several months.

The only questions being:
1) Why do it?
2) Has everyone noticed that he is running out of energy; AND
3) In apparent desperation his posts are down below ergo level one liner "snides".

When in Rome . . . .

ETA: check out posts 350 and 352

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Page #?

Page 241 of Fire Progression, under the chapter "Sarns doesn't understand fire science".

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by carlitos

That "whoosh" you heard was triforcharity's joke flying over your head at free-fall acceleration speed.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner!

He completely missed that joke. Not surprising though.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Please, They paraphrased and quoted Sunder. He laid out the totally baseless working hypothesis.

The "debunking" article was itself, bunk.

Why Chris? Why do you continue to push an obvious out of context parsing of the PM article?

The hypothesis Sunder is referring to is one about the "possible" fires on the fifth floor.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

But they did not use the photos as data for the input and the fires in their model does not match the actual fires. Furthermore, they will not release their input data so it cannot be verified.

Their fire computer simulation is grossly inaccurate.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/6...im4pmcombo.jpg

Please, you were shown a few pages back how accurate the NIST diagrams are. You choose to parse the NIST diagrams, to fit your prejudice.
You also willfully ignore the fact that NIST wanted the FEA to stand on its own to determmine its veracity by comparing it to visible fires. By this method one uses observables to demonstrate the degree of accuracy of one's computer sim and thereore the accuracy it can be assumed to have in describing unobservable area fires.
You choose to work backwards , map known window proximate fires and simplistically assume that visible fire spread and duration exactly predicts interior fire behaviour. Using your method you have absolutly no way to determine the accuracy of your predictions whereas NIST has.
Instead you egotistically assume your predictions are valid.

[jaydeehess]

per C7 complaint that NIST will not release their input parameters and functions:
It is odd that he would assume his diagrams to be accurate given that they show he assume a homogenity, in the interior, of fire load and fire access to both air supply and fuel.
If one wishes to simply repeat the NIST FEA then such things would be required. If one wanted instead to verify the veracity of the NIST FEA then one needs to determine these datta and functions independantly.