10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Can you please present your evidence that Shyam Sunder intentionally, rather than mistakenly, mis-stated the damage to WTC7?

Dave

The evidence has already been presented. Shyam Sunder did not mis-state the damage, He lied about there being extensive damage where there was none.

[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 was NO damage as extensive or where he said it was.
His statement is consistent with the damage depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST Apx. L report as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
There was NO such damage.

He LIED! NIST LIED!

 

[Dave Rogers]

He LIED! NIST LIED!

This is a three-year-old child's argument. Rather than repeating your claim with bolding and exclamation marks, could you please present evidence that NIST was deliberately presenting an assessment of damage that they knew to be incorrect with intent to deceive, rather than presenting a preliminary and inaccurate assessment of damage that was to be revised later through a prolonged and careful study of all the evidence available?

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Except the Appendix L states this quite clearly.

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

Then it goes onto to state on the graphics.

"possible region of impact damage from debris"

It has two distinct areas of colour on this graphic depicting the conflicting reports.

then on page 35 it states for the graphic "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC1 debris"

This also has two shades for the differing descriptions. They are stating what the reported and possible and approximate damage was as they knew it at that time.

"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." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

I have bolded the important parts of this C7. Also this was not long after the Appendix L was published. He reported what had been reported as approximate damage by others.

Have they changed their view now they have done more thorough and more in depth study? Yes they have.

This is not lying and not fraudulent. There is only one fraud at work here.

 

[Christopher7]

Except the Appendix L states this quite clearly.

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.

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

debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

Then it goes onto to state on the graphics.
"possible region of impact damage from debris"

It has two distinct areas of colour on this graphic depicting the conflicting reports.

Wrong! The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width. Both areas refer to the same 10 story gouge report, not the conflicting reports of "no heavy debris in the lobby area" or "the atrium glass still was intact".

This is not lying and not fraudulent.

[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]

Making this statement as if it were a fact is LYING!

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

He also LIED when he said there was "[FONT=&quot]a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."[/FONT]

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He also LIED when he said there was "[/SIZE][FONT=&quot]a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."[/FONT][/SIZE]

You're once again barfing out material that's a product of a then incomplete investigation.

In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.

When I read the comment in context:

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:


[grizzly add-on: It then proceeds to list some of the conflicting accounts]

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

In other words, it was elaborating on some of the reports they were finding conflicting accounts on. It doesn't look like any preliminary conclusion. Stop cherry-picking, it's incredibly disengenuous

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

Your response is a product of a combination of false dilemma and cherry-picking. Your credibility continues falling at free fall speed, and I thought it couldn't get any lower...

 

[funk de fino]

In direct conflict with that statement are these two statements on the same page.
Wrong! The inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width. Both areas refer to the same 10 story gouge report, not the conflicting reports of "no heavy debris in the lobby area" or "the atrium glass still was intact".

[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]

Making this statement as if it were a fact is LYING!

There were two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with that statement. Shyam Sunder did not mention these conflicting reports in his interview. That is willful deception, LYING!

He also LIED when he said there was "[FONT=&quot]a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."[/FONT]

Chris

You are leaving out info from my post. is this deliberate?

The NIST appendix L covers all possible reported damage. the graphics represent all the possible regione of damage from a view above. It shows the 1/4 to 1/3 damage in two areas.

- middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground


− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

Two slightly similar reports, both marked on the graphic from the plan view.

Barry Jennings also said the lobby area looked like king kong had trashed it and he would have neem one of the last guys to leave?

Sunder is reporting the possible areas of damage to Pop Mechanics as they assessed it from reports at the time. This is not a lie no matter how much you stamp your feet.

NIST report them as approximate and possible. Not lies. Stop stamping your feet about a preliminary report and get back to the final one and give us your concerns.

I hope it does not hark back to your fake photos and super duper silent CD explosive again. Or maybe you will flip flop into thermite again? remember when you used photos to judge times in your fake photos claims? What margin of error were you using? You now find it to your liking to attack NIST for using margin of error for timings?

Hypocrite and fraudulent.

 

[funk de fino]

He also LIED when he said there was "a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours."

except he did not say that C7

this is what is in the article

Second, 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."

I have bolded the parts Pop mechs have added to this piece. Sunder actual words are in direct quotes and what you posted is not in his quotes. onky what they have written

Therefore this is not a lie by Sunder and you have deliberately cherrypicked it hoping no-one would notice.

You have shown yourself up to the lurkers again pal

Fraud indeed C7

 

[Christopher7]

except he did not say that C7
this is what is in the article

[FONT=&quot]Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. "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."

Are you saying that the editors of PM are lying?

There were NO fires on the fifth floor at any time. Someone is lying!

Shyam Sunder is talking about a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor.

Shyam Sunder is LYING!

[/FONT]

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ling would be taking a preliminary report that was based on early speculation and the trying to present it as if it was the final report.

I would say Christopher7 is the liar here. Or perhaps Chris could point out where in teh final WTC 7 report it says that the fuel lines were feeding the fire.

 

[funk de fino]

Second, 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."

Are you saying that the editors of PM are lying?

I cannot possibly say. Why do you not ask them?

There were NO fires on the fifth floor at any time. Someone is lying!

Someone maybe made a whoopsie

ETA - Running away from the previous post?

Shyam Sunder is talking about a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor.
Shyam Sunder is LYING!

No he is not talking about floor 5. His words do not say that. PM have inserted something into his statement that makes it look like he could be but this is incorrect. The bolded part above is not his words. He is talking about the diesel fueling the fires in general and this is in keeping with the working hypothesis at the time.

he is not lying but someone is in this thread

 

[Christopher7]

I cannot possibly say. Why do you not ask them?

Right

No he is not talking about floor 5. His words do not say that. PM have inserted something into his statement that makes it look like he could be but this is incorrect. The bolded part above is not his words. He is talking about the diesel fueling the fires in general and this is in keeping with the working hypothesis at the time.

Wrong. He told PM that there was a 7 hour fire on the 5th floor! Just because they did not quote him exactly doesn't change anything.
The only place in the east end of WTC 7 where diesel fires could occur was the generator room in the north east corner of floor 5.
There were NO FIRES ON THE 5TH FLOOR AT ANY TIME.

He was LYING!


Second, 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."

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Christopher, can you show us specifically where you got the quote from? The Date should be of the most importance.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher, can you show us specifically where you got the quote from? The Date should be of the most importance.

Yes, here is the URL:

Popular Mechanics March 2005
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5


Second, 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."

Shyam is clearly talking about the pressurized fuel line feeding a fire on floor 5.
PM got their information from Sunder.

The diesel fuel fires on floor 5 were the "working hypothesis" at the time.

NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 38
"This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a
fire on Floor 5."



Shyam Sunder LIED when he told PM Magazine there was a fire on the fifth floor and that it lasted for up to 7 hours.

 

[funk de fino]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says."Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time."

I've taken out all other quotes that are not Sunders words. None of this contradicts the working hypothesis of the time.

Show me the lie you claimed by cherrypicking and lying. If you cant you are a liar C7

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here's the most important part Chris:

"Published in the March 2005 issue."

This was part of the preliminary report. This was not a lie, this was their initial hypothesis. To present this as the current hypothesis is an outright LIE. Not a misunderstanding, or cherry picking. And outright dishonest LIE. How do you expect people to think you're looking for "truth" when you sit here and LIE?

 

[Christopher7]

I've taken out all other quotes that are not Sunders words. None of this contradicts the working hypothesis of the time.

Exactly, the working hypothesis was "[diesel] fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

Show me the lie

Second, 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."

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. ​

PM got their information from him.

​

“a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours”

​

This is a lie!
There was NO fire on floor 5 at any time.​

Either Shyam Sunder is LYING or the editors of PM are LYING and Shyam Sunder did not correct them.​

 

[Christopher7]

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)

The problem isn't what effect the 10 story gouge would have, it's the fact that it did not exist and Shyam Sunder said that it did exist.
He LIED.

Shyam Sunder did NOT mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.
He did NOT say "possible damage", he stated it as a fact.

[FONT=&quot]NIST's Sunder tells PM. "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][FONT=&quot]NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

[/FONT]Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.

He flat out LIED twice in the same article.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So Christopher's response is getting caught in a lie is to continue with the same lie? Wow, just wow.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The problem isn't what effect the 10 story gouge would have, it's the fact that it did not exist and Shyam Sunder said that it did exist.
He LIED.

Shyam Sunder did NOT mention that there were two statements in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.
He did NOT say "possible damage", he stated it as a fact.

First off, try reading their publications in context rather than blow off something as a claim in sheer dishonest cherry picking. II don't think the context was so hard to understand, why is it so difficult for you? Here it is agains:

When I read the comment in context:

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

Because you have such a hard time honestly putting things in context I've put the important point in red, italicized, underlined letters. The above describes conflicting accounts, based on the information they had available at the time. Stop your dishonest cherry picking and strawmen claims already...

[/SIZE][/FONT]Shyam Sunder LIED about there being 10 story gouge that scooped out a large portion of the front of the building.

Or he could have been reporting based on information he had at the time. He's certainly not lying about the upper corner damage, as it's well documented. Again why are we using material that's several years old?

He flat out LIED twice in the same article.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

The only liar I see here is you. You dishonestly cherry-picked a listing of conflicting damage accounts and claimed that Sunder was claiming it as his own, and you believe that everything posted in a preliminary investigation is a culmination of final conclusions made by these people before a more complete 3 year investigation.

Working hypotheses doesn't seem to be an important key word to you..... ever

 

[Christopher7]

First off, try reading their publications in context rather than blow off something as a claim in sheer dishonest cherry picking.

The LIE was in context with the rest of the section.
"FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "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." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

By your definition, pointing out any fact is cherrypicking.

Call it what you like, it is still a FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of Popular Mechanics Magazine were LYING!


NIST Apx. L pg 18
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
[This is does not conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
[This is in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west
[This is not in conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

The above describes conflicting accounts, based on the information they had available at the time.

You neglected to include:

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
[This is direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.]

Or he could have been reporting based on information he had at the time.

Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated this non-existent damage as a FACT! They did not mention the two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

He's certainly not lying about the upper corner damage, as it's well documented.

True

Again why are we using material that's several years old?

Because Shyam Sunder and/or PM Magazine LIED about there being a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face [floor 10 to the ground] and fire on the fifth floor.