10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

Right

I disagree.

color me suprised

There is NO evidence of DFF in the AIE.

Which is what FEMA said in the first place and all parties made clear was of a lesser probability. So where is your beef?

There never was any reason to think there was a DFF in the AIE.

Ahhh, there it is and you are wrong! There was deisel fuel in the AIE and the clean up showed a large missing amount of fuel. Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility.

At any rate, the working hypothesis has excluded DFF.

Actually they have not excluded the possibility. They have chosen to investigate a hypothysis that does not include deisel fuel fire on floor 5 because at this time there is (and yes likely never will be) enough evidence that such a fire existed. Once again the disticntion , in all probability, escapes you.

The office fires were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

Hmmm, 3 consecutive floors and another separted by only two floors. Is that supposed to be new to anyone here?

 

[Christopher7]

color me suprised

There is NO evidence of DFF in the AIE.

Which is what FEMA said in the first place and all parties made clear was of a lesser probability. So where is your beef?

The 'beef' was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was no evidence.
The 'beef' is settled.

There never was any reason to think there was a DFF in the AIE.

Ahhh, there it is and you are wrong! There was deisel fuel in the AIE

DFF = diesel fuel FIRE.

and the clean up showed a large missing amount of fuel. Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility.

Right

Actually they have not excluded the possibility.

They have been studying the evidence for over a year since they started up again. It's fair to say that they have ruled out diesel fuel fires in the AIE.

The office fires were on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13 in the AIE.

Hmmm, 3 consecutive floors and another separted by only two floors. Is that supposed to be new to anyone here?

No
Gotta crash now but i'll have more to say on that later.

Have a great 2008 jaydeehess.

 

[jaydeehess]

The 'beef' was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was no evidence.
The 'beef' is settled.

You never had a beef then. No one ever said there WAS a DFF in the AIE, only that there was a possiblity of one. That possibility was investigated and no evidence of a DFF was found and therefore NIST, being reasonable and prudent does not include such a thing in their working hypothysis, neither did they include it in the hypothysis in the prelim report of several years ago.

Your ONLY teeny point of contention is that they mentioned the possibility at all and therefore it makes you who is imprudent and insincere in wanting an investigation into this collapse.

DFF = diesel fuel FIRE.

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with

Therefore it was imperitive to consider the possibility.

Right

They have been studying the evidence for over a year since they started up again. It's fair to say that they have ruled out diesel fuel fires in the AIE.

They have put a finer point on the probability of one, to the extent that to include it in the working hypothysis of the cause of the initial failure would be contra-indicated.

 

[pomeroo]

I'm still looking for a fantasist or two with the stones to face Mark and Arthur Scheuerman in a 'Hardfire' debate. There must be somebody!

 

[Christopher7]

You never had a beef then. No one ever said there WAS a DFF in the AIE, only that there was a possiblity of one. That possibility was investigated and no evidence of a DFF was found and therefore NIST, being reasonable and prudent does not include such a thing in their working hypothysis, neither did they include it in the hypothysis in the prelim report of several years ago.

It was their inclusion in the summary of something for which there was NO evidence:
"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."

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with

No, it needed to be investigated, not included in the summary.

They have put a finer point on the probability of one, to the extent that to include it in the working hypothysis of the cause of the initial failure would be contra-indicated.

That finer point being:
NIST 12-18-07
page 6
The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm still looking for a fantasist or two with the stones to face Mark and Arthur Scheuerman in a 'Hardfire' debate. There must be somebody!

Who are they [journalists?] and where do they debate?

 

[funk de fino]

C7

This is what page 6 of the latest update states

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

This is what you have posted

The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

Your quote is in relation to the overall hypothesis. What it states is that the fires they are talking about in the AIE are normal office fires only not diesel fueled fires. This does not mean that debris damage is no longer part of the overall working hypothesis as you have seemed to claim.

Do you agree?

It states that diesel fuel was not a factor in the fires in the initiating event. This does not preclude diesel fires in other areas. Do you agree?

 

[Christopher7]

C7
Your quote is in relation to the overall hypothesis. What it states is that the fires they are talking about in the AIE are normal office fires only not diesel fueled fires. This does not mean that debris damage is no longer part of the overall working hypothesis as you have seemed to claim.

Do you agree?

No
The hypothesis you listed is a year old.
This is the new hypothesis
NIST 12-18-07
page 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks.

They did NOT say "initial local failure caused by normal building fires and debris damage."

The debris damage is no longer a part of the working hypothesis period.
The working hypothesis is an initiating event, leading to global collapse.

It states that diesel fuel was not a factor in the fires in the initiating event. This does not preclude diesel fires in other areas. Do you agree?

Yes.

 

[funk de fino]

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is restated here:

��An initial local failureoccurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

��Vertical progressionof the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse,and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

��Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progressionof the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

C7, this is what the slide in the update says. Or are you disagreeing this is in the update on page 6?

Your later quote is in relation to this current working hypothesis. It means that the fires that they think caused the initiating event were not fueled by diesel. This does not mean debris damage are no longer being thought of as a possible event cause. Your quote is not the overall current working hypothesis it is a clarification of the fuel for the fires that are part of the overall hypothesis.

Your use of this quote is wrong.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, so? I said that there was diesel fuel in the AIE so the possibility of a DFF needed to be included. A point you agree with

No, it needed to be investigated, not included in the summary.

So it needed to be investigated but not mentioned in the report or at the very least not mentioned at all in the summary. Sort of a hush-hush investigation, "if we find something then we'll talk about it".


Riiight, I can see it now. Had NIST severely under reported on diesel fuel fire possibilities and then found that there was evidence of such a fire and the "truth movers" would cry foul, "why did you not say much about it before?"

You readily admit, it seems, that there was a possibility of such a fire and that it required investigation and at the same time you are stating that it should not have been in the prelim report's summary as a "possibility".

How can you hold two mutually opposed opinions at the same time Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

C7, this is what the slide in the update says. Or are you disagreeing this is in the update on page 6?

Your later quote is in relation to this current working hypothesis. It means that the fires that they think caused the initiating event were not fueled by diesel. This does not mean debris damage are no longer being thought of as a possible event cause. Your quote is not the overall current working hypothesis it is a clarification of the fuel for the fires that are part of the overall hypothesis.

Your use of this quote is wrong.

You are right.
I skimmed the working hype because i've read it so many times
My bad. Thank you for the correction.
They have ruled out diesel fuel fires but not debris damage.

 

[Christopher7]

So it needed to be investigated but not mentioned in the report or at the very least not mentioned at all in the summary.

I said it should no be included in the summary as a possibility.

You readily admit, it seems, that there was a possibility of such a fire and that it required investigation and at the same time you are stating that it should not have been in the prelim report's summary as a "possibility".

Correct. They knew the only possibility of DFF in the AIE was the NE generator room or mechanical room.
They had investigated the time line of the fires and determined that there was NO evidence of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
It was clear at that point that there was NO evidence to support the "possibility" of DFF in the AIE.

 

[funk de fino]

You are right.
I skimmed the working hype because i've read it so many times
My bad. Thank you for the correction.
They have ruled out diesel fuel fires but not debris damage.

At least you can admit when you have made a mistake, as I would also if the tables were turned, unlike the majority of the CT side. Will you be retracting these claims that were also made elsewhere?

 

[jaydeehess]

Correct. They knew the only possibility of DFF in the AIE was the NE generator room or mechanical room.
They had investigated the time line of the fires and determined that there was NO evidence of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
It was clear at that point that there was NO evidence to support the "possibility" of DFF in the AIE.

Incorrect. The lack of witnesses to any fire in that area and the lack of direct evidence of a fire in that area reduces the probability of a fire in the location but given that there is still the missing diesel fuel the probability of a DFF in the AIE does not reduce to zero and it grates when you make these incorrect, definitive proclamations.

The low probability of DFF in the location of concern is what makes NIST disregard it in the working hypothesis.

It is agreed that NIST has decieded that the probability of such a fire is too low to be included. The probability of a DFF in the AIE has always been reported as low. However in the prelim report just how low had not been determined and therefore it warrented inclusion as a possibility in the summary. To not have included it would have been a mistake. Had they not included it in the summary and then later discovered some evidence that the area had been subject to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel fire and then upped the probability that such a fire contributed to the IE YOU would be screaming that they made it up, that they had not said much about such a thing in the prelim report but now needed a diesel fuel fire to make their hypothesis work. In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.

 

[Norseman]

In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.

And so he did indeed:

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]

At least you can admit when you have made a mistake, as I would also if the tables were turned, unlike the majority of the CT side.

The majority of people here will NEVER give an inch.

Will you be retracting these claims that were also made elsewhere?

I edited my posts at LC and 911 Blogger.

Richard Gage noted that debunkers help the Truth Movement by pointing out any mistakes or flaws in our arguments.

Thru discussion and feedback, he has decided to drop the ''squibs" from future presentations.

I thank maccy for getting me to look at the "squibs" frame by frame and i again thank you for correcting my error.

This is why i like debating here, It's very challenging and educational.

 

[Christopher7]

Incorrect. The lack of witnesses to any fire in that area and the lack of direct evidence of a fire in that area reduces the probability of a fire in the location but given that there is still the missing diesel fuel the probability of a DFF in the AIE does not reduce to zero and it grates when you make these incorrect, definitive proclamations.

Please

NIST has given up the ghost on DFF, why can't you?

The low probability of DFF in the location of concern is what makes NIST disregard it in the working hypothesis.

There ain't NO freakin 'probability'
Only because it is impossible to prove a negative can you even say there is a [remote] 'possibility'.

It is agreed that NIST has decieded that the probability of such a fire is too low to be included. The probability of a DFF in the AIE has always been reported as low. However in the prelim report just how low had not been determined and therefore it warrented inclusion as a possibility in the summary.

NIST new there was no sign of fire in the NE generator or mechanical rooms.
There was NO reason to think there were fires there.
It could have been mentioned that there was no evidence to support the DFF hypothesis but to suggest that DFF might be a factor, when the evidence pointed the other way, was misleading.
I am gratified that they have decided to come clean on this issue.

In fact in these pages you, or some other 'truth mover' has stated that NIST needed a diesel fuel fire. (I recall it being said and one could search for it but wanna bet how many hits you get for "diesel fuel fire" in this thread!) Now that NIST is disregarding this possibility suddenly such talk goes away.

Without DFF they will not be able to justify their hypothesis that fires were able to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F over 4 contiguous floors. IMnsHO.

 

[jaydeehess]

Please

NIST has given up the ghost on DFF, why can't you?

I do not believe that there is any significant probability that there was a DFF in the AIE Chris. Why do you seem to be saying that I do?

You do not understand the position it seems. How about an analogy;
I do not believe that there is a significant possibility of a human virgin birth having occured 2000+ years ago. However, there is a written record of such an event so I will NOT put the probability at zero. By your logic since there was not even a description of the birthing, only after the fact descriptions, (you have to take the word of people reporting, supposedly, on the claim of two people, named Mary and Joseph, that no copulation took place) you would state that there is zero probability of such an occurance. All you have is second hand testimony and a baby.

Without DFF they will not be able to justify their hypothesis that fires were able to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to 1,000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F over 4 contiguous floors. IMnsHO.

Perhaps we should all include a "ns" in that line when we use it.

Shall we introduce differential heating effects? Nope, its been done.
Shear loads? Nope, its been done.
Core damage suggested by the ejected elevators? Nope, its been done.
The fact that in order to remove floor spaces and thus increase the height of a space that this would be done slowly and in a set order and pattern whereas damage to the building would not follow any such safe pattern.

 

[Christopher7]

I do not believe that there is any significant probability that there was a DFF in the AIE Chris. Why do you seem to be saying that I do?

You say there is a low probability, i say there is no probability, only a remote possibility.

Perhaps we should all include a "ns" in that line when we use it.

Shall we introduce differential heating effects? Nope, its been done.
Shear loads? Nope, its been done.
Core damage suggested by the ejected elevators? Nope, its been done.
The fact that in order to remove floor spaces and thus increase the height of a space that this would be done slowly and in a set order and pattern whereas damage to the building would not follow any such safe pattern.

None of that explains how office fires, burning at different times on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, could have heated a column weighing over 4 ton per floor to 1,000[FONT=&quot]°[/FONT]F on 1 floor, much less over 4 contiguous floors.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST L-11
The 7th Floor slab consisted of 5 in. of 3,500 psi normal weight concrete on top of 3 in., 18 gage
composite metal deck, for a total thickness of 8 in. The slab was reinforced with #5 rebars at 6 in. oncenter
in both directions. Regions of the slab on the south side of the building had 8 in. of formed
concrete without any metal deck. In these regions two layers of steel reinforcing were provided (see
Fig. L–13).

NIST L-50
• [FONT=&quot]H2.7 Collapse Progresses: [/FONT]The horizontal tensile force would tend to pull the line of
columns 74, 71, 68, 65, and 62 towards the east. The general absence of the Floor 7 slab and
braced frames around the center core column line, due to the presence of elevators shafts,
creates a more likely scenario for the simultaneous lateral displacement of the center core
columns without similarly displacing other core columns. The possible result is a failure of
all the columns at their splices, as shown in Fig. L–49.

The horizontal collapse is based on this FALSE statement.
The slab on floor 7 was thicker and stronger than on any other floor.