10 story hole in WTC 7

[Miragememories]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
Dave

Any 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Christopher7]

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]

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]

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...]

"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...]

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

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

 

[JimBenArm]

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

Hah! Some fiend god you are!

 

[Jennie C.]

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]

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]

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...]

Hah! Some fiend god you are!

I can still see through your soul, though.