10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7.

There was NO 10 story hole

<snip>

[FONT=&quot]Shyam Sunder [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lied [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in the so called “Debunking“ article in Popular Mechanics Magazine.[/FONT]
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”

Please review pages 158-160,
as well as the diagram on page 165, and excerpt of which:

Key as depicted on the NIST Report:
Green = no visible damage
Yellow = Window glass broken out
Orange = Granite and underlying truss damage
Red = Damage to outer perimeter structural steel
Blue = not visible

Also review page 167, 168, and 173

And review the data accumulated between the comments and diagrams provided and compare it to the floor plan diagram they provided in the pages you pointed to. Did you review them before making your comment?


Then I ask you Chris, if Shyan Sunder depicted fraudulent data regarding the damage to World Trade Center #7, does this as well implicate that firefighter's on-scene have lied? What is your opinion?

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle

http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

Thank Gravy for having brought attention to these:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

Or shall the handwaving continue?

 

[jaydeehess]

Underground? The debris pile cannot be compared to a coalmine fire.

Because you say so?
I am still wondering how you come up with molten metal renaining molten for weeks/months unless sufficiently insulated and, if it was, how you calculate that it was.

How do you explain the molten metal weeks after the collapse?

Not by invoking , magic as you seem to be doing.

Wrong. The beam has the chemical signature of thermate.

Wrong, it contains sulpher and there was plently of sources for that sulpher.

Exactly?
Please. The air supply in a debris pile is far less than in a ventilated room.

Chris, I have a wood stove with two doors on the front that meet in the middle. When I light a fire in it with both doors wide open the fire burns well BUT if I then close only one door, effectively reducing the cross section of the air supply vent to 1/2, the fire roars and burns much more ferociously.
I am sure you can guess why this occurs.

Are we also clear on the liquid slag eutectic mixture as in my example of solder?

 

[jaydeehess]

Pages 183 to 187 of NCSTAR 1-9 vol. 1 show the debris damage to WTC 7.

There was NO 10 story hole

as described in page 18 of the NIST Appendix L report.
“middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground”
and fraudulently depicted as “Possible Region of Impact Damage by WTC 1 Debris” on pg 23
and as “Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC 1 Debris” on pg 31 and 32.

[FONT=&quot]Shyam Sunder [/FONT][FONT=&quot]lied [/FONT][FONT=&quot]in the so called “Debunking“ article in Popular Mechanics Magazine.[/FONT]
"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.”

You are still argueing Appendix "L"?

The NIST report from a month ago states that structural damage contributed to the speed and fashion of the collapse but states that the fire damage was what caused the collapse.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Once again, fully ventilated fires burn at 1000ºC for a short time. Oxygen starved fires burn at 500 - 600ºC

You've got one quote from one JREF poster that doesn't necessarily relate to the conditions in the WTC7 rubble pile. How hot do well-insulated, oxygen limited fires burn?

How and under what conditions are the strong bonds in the chemical cage broken? Please give a reputable source.

I found some time to look this one up. Here's a good source that goes into some detail:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

"At low temperatures the conversion to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide is low. At 850ºC only 14 mol % of the calcium sulfate is converted to the desired calcium oxide. The remaining calcium sulfate reacted according to reaction (3) to form the unwanted CaS (figure 2). Increasing the temperature improves the conversion of the desired reaction (2). At 1000ºC 73 mol % is converted to calcium oxide. To reach complete conversion to calcium oxide a higher temperature is needed."

The relevant reactions are:

CaSO4 + H2 => CaO + SO2 + H2O (2)
CaSO4 + 4H2 => CaS + 4H2O (3)

So we have the result that at 850ºC, about 14% of the available calcium sulphate can be converted to calcium oxide and sulfur dioxide provided that there's hydrogen available, and that this goes up with temperature to 73% at 1000ºC. There's ample hydrogen available due to oxidation of iron in the presence of water (http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/redox/faq/how-iron-rusts.shtml is a reputable source).

So, we're looking at two competing hypotheses for how the iron was attacked. The first one goes like this:

Iron from the structural elements, and gypsum from the wallboard, was heated close to 1000ºC by well-insulated fires within the WTC7 rubble pile after collapse. Water sprayed on the pile reacted with the iron to form iron oxide and hydrogen. Calcium sulphate from the gypsum wallboard decomposed in the presence of hydrogen to release sulfur dioxide, which reacted with water to form sulfuric acid. This was vaporised at the temperatures in the rubble pile, and was therefore able to attack steel structural members, giving rise to acidic corrosion, thinning members in some cases quite drastically and producing a liquid slag which was a mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide. Since this was a corrosive attack rather than physical melting of the steel members, thinning of cross-sections would be expected from ablation of the surface, and this would be expected to give the almost razor-sharp edges reported. All the materials required for these reactions are known to have been present in the rubble pile, and the only other requirement for them to have taken place in this fashion is the existence of temperatures approaching, but not necessarily as high as, 1000ºC.

Would you like to articulate the thermite hypothesis to a similar level of detail, in particular explaining how thinning of steel members to near-razor sharpness took place?

Dave

 

[GlennB]

You've got one quote from one JREF poster that doesn't necessarily relate to the conditions in the WTC7 rubble pile. How hot do well-insulated, oxygen limited fires burn?
Dave

Chris has one quote from a JREF poster (me, I think) that indicates the sustainable temperature a smouldering fire can reach. Chris, naturally, chooses this to mean that if a 1000°C blazing fire should be smothered in a building collapse then the temperature of objects within the fire must miraculously drop to this level instantly.

However, so far the idea that the fire must have been smothered at all in the collapse remains purely an assertion by Chris. If such a fire ended up in the upper layers of the pile there could be plenty of room for air to enter.

And he has yet to describe (despite repeated requests) how therm?te could possibly affect the steel members in question in the manner observed.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Johnny, gas ovens have built in ventilation for the fire.

Not airtight, air restricted.

You're not getting it.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, post 5002, how does it happen that when I reduce the air channel size by 50% my wood stove burns hotter?

 

[Christopher7]

Please review pages 158-160,
as well as the diagram on page 165, and excerpt of which:
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6954/nistwtc7kj4.png

Key as depicted on the NIST Report:
Green = no visible damage
Yellow = Window glass broken out
Orange = Granite and underlying truss damage
Red = Damage to outer perimeter structural steel
Blue = not visible

Also review page 167, 168, and 173

And review the data accumulated between the comments and diagrams provided and compare it to the floor plan diagram they provided in the pages you pointed to. Did you review them before making your comment?

I have reviewed all the data you mentioned. Have you reviewed the data on pg 183 - 187 ?

There is no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L

Then I ask you Chris, if Shyan Sunder depicted fraudulent data regarding the damage to World Trade Center #7, does this as well implicate that firefighter's on-scene have lied? What is your opinion?

The firefighters were describing the damage shown on pg 183 - 187.
None of them said there was a gouge "floor 10 to the ground".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So the pictures of the huge gash in the building is a fake Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

So the pictures of the huge gash in the building is a fake Chris?

No

The gash was NOT floor 10 to the ground and it is NOT where the graphics on pg 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST report fraudulently depicted it!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent. Did the fraudulent angle come into play when NIST showed that the damage played no part in the collapse initiation, thus destroying your whole argument?

 

[jaydeehess]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent. Did the fraudulent angle come into play when NIST showed that the damage played no part in the collapse initiation, thus destroying your whole argument?

Deja vu

I asked that a few pages back.
Why is Chris still argueing Appendix L, when there is a newer report out that states that although the impact damage did change the fashion of the collapse it did not alter the senario in which the fire damage initiated a global collapse.(the building would only have taken longer to collapse, and twisted differently during collapse had there been no impact damage)

 

[Christopher7]

You're right, the gash was from the roof to the bottom. Even worse.

Wrong!
Look at the debris damage graphics on pg 183 -187
The damage stops at the 5th floor.
All the damage is well west of center [column 22]

But it is amusing how you are trying to use the NIST report to claim there was no hole, and then try to claim the NIST report is fraudulent.

NCSTAR 1-9 debunks NIST Apx. L

The NCSTAR 1-9 report shows the debris damage.
There is no gouge as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L

The debris damage:
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L
DID NOT EXIST!

Those graphics were FRAUDULENT and Shyam Sunder LIED when he said: [FONT=&quot]"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."[/FONT]

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong!
Look at the debris damage graphics on pg 183 -187
The damage stops at the 5th floor.
All the damage is well west of center [column 22]

NCSTAR 1-9 debunks NIST Apx. L

The NCSTAR 1-9 report shows the debris damage.
There is no gouge as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L

The debris damage:
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of NIST Apx. L
DID NOT EXIST!

Those graphics were FRAUDULENT and Shyam Sunder LIED when he said: [FONT=&quot]"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."[/FONT]

There's video of the far side showing the gash from roof to floor. You can't deny that. And no the graphics are not fraudulent. It's a pretty desperate attempt on your part considering that the damage had nothing to do with the collapse and therefore completely shoots down your conspiracy theories.

BTW, any luck finding any physical evidence to support your CD?

 

[Christopher7]

There's video of the far side showing the gash from roof to floor.

Wrong!

The video shows a gash from the roof to about floor 25.

And no the graphics are not fraudulent.

This graphic is FRAUDULENT!

The damage in the area designated "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris"
DID NOT EXIST!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so the gash is much bigger than the one you claim doesn't exist.

This is just sad...The jig is up and the NIST report destroyed your conspiracy theories. Face it, get over it, move on. In all this time you have yet to provide a single piece of physical evidence to support the crackpot theories. Are you just looking for attention now?

And the video shows a gash going well below floor 25, stop lying.

 

[Christopher7]

Ah, so the gash is much bigger than the one you claim doesn't exist.

Wrong!

The gash from the floor 43 to floor 25 was not even included in the final graphic on pg 187 because it was between two columns and therefore insignificant.


The huge gouge that Shyam Sunder described as;

[FONT=&quot] "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."[/FONT]

was NOT included in the Final Draft because:

IT DID NOT EXIST! HE WAS LYING!

And the video shows a gash going well below floor 25

Wrong again.

Here's a composite of screen captures from the video. The 30th floor is just above the red ABC News Live Coverage banner. Everything below floor 27 is obscured by smoke.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I take it, Chris, that you accept that the erosion of the steel was due to corrosion from high temperature in a sulfur-rich atmosphere now, because you've chosen to talk about something else?

It would appear that NIST's initial estimates of the structural damage to WTC7 were qualitatively inaccurate, as photographs and their own revised estimates show that the damage was in other places, although actually more extensive than their original 10-storey estimate. Your own picture shows a gash starting at roof level and extending, by your own admission, at least down to floor 27. Therefore, I think we can indeed say that a 10-storey gash didn't exist, just a 20+ storey gash. As for whether Sunder was lying, you are, in typical conspiracist fashion, excluding the possibility that initial estimates can be wrong. Sunder may well have stated his best estimate at the time, an estimate that has been revised on more thorough study. This is one of the problems with taking an evidence-based, rather than a belief-based, approach to analysis of events. We can't just make stuff up then interpret the evidence to fit it, as you can; if we find out we're wrong, we have to admit it.

So there's your victory: NIST's initial estimate of the damage was incorrect, and they've effectively admitted it was incorrect by using a revised estimate of the damage in the final report and in their collapse calculations. Since you don't want to talk about steel corrosion any more, can we close this thread now?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

I take it, Chris, that you accept that the erosion of the steel was due to corrosion from high temperature in a sulfur-rich atmosphere now, because you've chosen to talk about something else?

I decided to get off that merry-go-round.

It would appear that NIST's initial estimates of the structural damage to WTC7 were qualitatively inaccurate, as photographs and their own revised estimates show that the damage was in other places

Correct.

And Shyam Sunder LIED about where the damage was and how extensive it was.

although actually more extensive than their original 10-storey estimate.

Not by a long shot.

There is NO damage any where near as extensive as:

[FONT=&quot] "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."[/FONT]

Your own picture shows a gash starting at roof level and extending, by your own admission, at least down to floor 27. Therefore, I think we can indeed say that a 10-storey gash didn't exist, just a 20+ storey gash.

A 20 story hole is NOT a 10 story hole and vise versa.

The 20 story hole is the one Capt. Boyle was talking about. It was at the top of the building, not at the bottom, and it was NOT:

[FONT=&quot] "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."[/FONT]

As for whether Sunder was lying, you are, in typical conspiracist fashion, excluding the possibility that initial estimates can be wrong. Sunder may well have stated his best estimate at the time, an estimate that has been revised on more thorough study.

There was NO 10 STORY GOUGE 1/3 THE WIDTH at all!

The graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 FRADULENTLY included this non existent damage and Shyam Sunder LIED about it in Popular Mechanics Magazine!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I decided to get off that merry-go-round.

For a merry-go-round, it seemed to progress surprisingly linearly to a conclusion backed by evidence. Your only decision so far seems to have been to ignore that evidence, which I will therefore continue to take as an admission that you have nothing to add.

The graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 FRADULENTLY included this non existent damage and Shyam Sunder LIED about it in Popular Mechanics Magazine!

From Miriam-Webster:
1 a: deceit , trickery ; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

Can you please present your evidence that Shyam Sunder intentionally, rather than mistakenly, mis-stated the damage to WTC7? Presumably you have evidence, since you're sufficiently certain of your claim to state it in enlarged bold capitals.

Dave