10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

By your definition, pointing out any fact is cherrypicking.

Hardly my standard. You completely missed the point of what they were making that list for, I told you, and you completely blew right over it... again, for at least the second, if not third time. I underlined it in bold underlined italics and you still didn't see it or chose not to pay any attention to it. I can't help you if you continue to outright demonstrate your utter ignorance of context.

[/B]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.]

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.]

You glided right over this: "Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, ************there are some conflicting descriptions************:"

I cannot highlight it any better than that unless you prefer gigantic bold italicized underline letters with sprinkles and pudding on top. How do you miss this kind of context?

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.

Uh... I gotta ask again... do you even remotely consider the probability that working hypotheses and knowns can change when a more in-depth investigation is carried out? That as new information is discovered in such an investigation hypothesis or for that matter facts thought to have been known at one point can be eliminated or confirmed?

I'd like to be on record here... This is why I am asking you regarding of your use of a several year old document. If what they had then was a working hypothesis, would it be expected that as issues are resolved with preliminary info as a more in-depth investigation is conducted? So far based on your answer this seems to be an impossibilty...

The rest was essentially a repeat of you other comment and te same question I asked above applies.

 

[Christopher7]

************there are some conflicting descriptions************:"

How do you miss this kind of context?

You are the one missing the point.

[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]

Shyam Sunder and the editors of PM DID NOT mention that "there are some conflicting descriptions"

They stated the damage as a FACT!

The damage did not exist.

They LIED!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And Christopher is still LYING by taking information from an early preliminary report and presenting it as if it were current. Why does Chris have to lie so much?

 

[Christopher7]

And Christopher is still LYING by taking information from an early preliminary report and presenting it as if it were current. Why does Chris have to lie so much?

You incessantly misquote me and then call me a liar.

This is your way of denying the fact that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

 

[funk de fino]

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

So, now you have gone from claiming Sunder is lying to Sunder or Pop mechs are lying? Progress I suppose.

You have still to show where Sunder lied in that paragraph. None of his actual words in that paragraph are lies.

Now Pop Mechs cannot be lying as they are reporting what they have been told by investigators based on the knowledge they had at that time.

No-one is lying. Subsequent invesigations have clarified the reports of damage and fires and the latest report relects this.

If we take C7 approach to this then the firefighters who made the reports were all lying also.

If someone tells you that your neighbours and his wife have split, and you repeat it to someone, but then find out later that it was a mistake, were you lying?

 

[funk de fino]

You are the one missing the point.

[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]

Shyam Sunder and the editors of PM DID NOT mention that "there are some conflicting descriptions"

They stated the damage as a FACT!

The damage did not exist.

They LIED!

At the time all they had to go on were some of these reports. Some of the conflicting reports were also similar in that they all described large areas of damage. These are marked in the Appendix L as approximate areas of debri damage and Sunder himself uses the words "about" and "approximately"

Why are the areas of approximate damage on the graphics in differing shades C7?

This is not a lie however much you want to cry about it. It seems that you would rather attack an article published mere months after the Appendix L was published rather than focus on the new report.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, no one LIED.
They stated the situation as they understood it to be at that point in the investigation.

That is why they use such wording as "approximate", "possible" and "working hypothysis".

Sunder and PM forgetting to include "possible" into every sentence is forgivable given that they were not testifying in a courtroom.

Now I ask yet again, why are you argueing a years old preliminary report when the recent report states that the impact damage contributed only to the fashion of the collapse but that he building would have collapsed due to fire induced stresses and damage even if there were no impact damage?

I also ask again why my woodstove burns faster and releases more heat when I reduce the air flow opening by 50%?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, no one LIED.

Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification, that there was a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face and that there was a fire on floor 5.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!

They stated the situation as they understood it to be at that point in the investigation.

There was absolutely NO basis for stating there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

That was a LIE!

That is why they use such wording as "approximate", "possible" and "working hypothysis".

They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

Sunder and PM forgetting to include "possible" into every sentence is forgivable given that they were not testifying in a courtroom.

No it is not!

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. His unqualified statement about the debris damage when there were 2 conflicting statements, and the unqualified statement that there was a fire on floor 5 despite the FACT there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that statement, are inexcusable.

If such statements would not stand in a courtroom then why are you willing to accept them from the WTC 7 lead investigator, in Popular Mechanics Magazine? Is he not required to tell the truth all the time, no mater what the venue?

Now I ask yet again, why are you argueing a years old preliminary report when the recent report states that the impact damage contributed only to the fashion of the collapse but that he building would have collapsed due to fire induced stresses and damage even if there were no impact damage?

I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

I also ask again why my woodstove burns faster and releases more heat when I reduce the air flow opening by 50%?

Subject shift.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You incessantly misquote me and then call me a liar.

This is your way of denying the fact that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

I didn't misquote you, YOU did. I provided an exact quote of what you said. The only one here who has lied is YOU. And you have consistently LIED throughout this thread. The most recent one being you taking a quote from a preliminary report done before the investigation and presenting it as current. A LIE doesn't get any worse than that. You knew full well what you were doing when you told that LIE.

These idiotic libel attempts are just because you know very well that you don't have a single ounce of evidence to support the crackpot controlled demolition claims. And since no one bought into your fib bout it being impossible for the fires to have burned after the collapse probably chaps your ass.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification

Learn the difference between a preliminary report and a full investigation tiger. If you are unable to distinguish the two, then your argument is a lost cause, end of story. I don't know what's worse, you taking the content completely out of context or you calling foul by the very virtue that information was consolidated as the investigation became more in-depth.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!

They were listing the observations that were provided to them, and they explicitly stated that they were conflicting accounts. They listed the accounts to provide clarity. You've deliberately construed the listing as final conclusions from NIST when they are not.

They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

Hurricane Andrew was classified a category 4 hurricane when it hit Homestead in 1992. After post analysis ten years later it was reclassified to a category 5. Were meteorologists lying when they classifed it as a cat 4 hurricane in '92, or were they working off information they had at the time?

You apparently deny that the reports undergo the same changes when information is investigated in greater detail. If you can't distinguish between the preliminary and final report then stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

No, you're effectively claiming that preliminary findings are always final and that information can never change. You've effectively demonstrated this multiple times.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes they did!
They stated as facts, without any qualification, that there was a gouge that scooped out a huge section of the south face and that there was a fire on floor 5.

Both of these statements were NOT TRUE!

Subjects that were clearly designated as preliminary hypothyses, not as bald fact. The fact that you see this as a lie to misleadcomes as no surprise to me as you also considered the mere mention of liquid fuel fires to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

There was absolutely NO basis for stating there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

That was a LIE![

That was a preliminary hypothesis.

They did NOT use those qualifiers in the Popular Mechanics so called "Debunking" article. Shyam Sunder and PM Magazine stated the damage as a FACT!

It was based upon the preliminary hypothesis!

No it is not!

Yep, it is!

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. His unqualified statement about the debris damage when there were 2 conflicting statements, and the unqualified statement that there was a fire on floor 5 despite the FACT there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that statement, are inexcusable.

If such statements would not stand in a courtroom then why are you willing to accept them from the WTC 7 lead investigator, in Popular Mechanics Magazine? Is he not required to tell the truth all the time, no mater what the venue?

A preliminary hypothesis would not be used in a courtroom in the first place. However, in a popular press article concerning the present state of an investigation it is perfectly acceptable. Would have preferred that NIST have remained completely silent on the investigation between Sept 01 and August of this year?

I'm not arguing the Apx. L report, I'm pointing out the FACT that Shyam Sunder and/or the editors of PM Magazine LIED about the 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

Which are indeed preliminary, working hypotheses contained in Appendix "L"!

Subject shift.

Actually I started asking this question when the subject was the supposition that open air fires must burn hotter than air restricted fires, thus my use of the phrase, "I also ask again ....".

 

[Christopher7]

Subjects that were clearly designated as preliminary hypothyses, not as bald fact.

Wrong!

[FONT=&quot]Second, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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."

The fire was stated as a FACT 3 times.
The hypothesis part was that diesel fuel contributed to the fire.

[/FONT]

 

[funk de fino]

Wrong!

[FONT=&quot]Second, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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."

The fire was stated as a FACT 3 times.
The hypothesis part was that diesel fuel contributed to the fire.

[/FONT]

Pop Mechs were mistaken then because none of those words by Sunder say anything you say they do. Retract your claim that he lied. You did use a quote that did not use his words to try and accuse him. Sunder never once says fire in the above paragraph.

If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?

 

[Christopher7]

Pop Mechs were mistaken then because none of those words by Sunder say anything you say they do.

PM Magazine didn't get their information from the tooth fairy, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. He told PM that there was a fire on the fifth floor.

 

[funk de fino]

PM Magazine didn't get their information from the tooth fairy, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Shyam Sunder is the lead investigator. He told PM that there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Proof? You do not know what Sunder told them. You would have to ask them first before calling the man a liar by using something he never said in the article

If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?

 

[Christopher7]

Proof? You do not know what Sunder told them. You would have to ask them first before calling the man a liar by using something he never said in the article

The article was published in March 2005.

Shyam Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 because it was an vital part of the working hypothesis.

NIST Collapse Final April,5 2005 Part IICpg 38 - 39​

The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.

This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.​

Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.​

The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.​

If I am told my neighbours have split up and then repeat this to someone else. Then I find out it is not true. Was I lying or mistaken?

If Shyam Sunder told you that your neighbors had broken up when there was no evidence for that and no reason to believe that, then he was LYING, not you. However, you would owe you neighbors an apology and you would be wise not to believe anything Shyam says about your neighbors in the future lest he make you look like a fool again.

 

[funk de fino]

If Shyam Sunder told you that your neighbors had broken up when there was no evidence for that and no reason to believe that, then he was LYING, not you. However, you would owe you neighbors an apology and you would be wise not to believe anything Shyam says about your neighbors in the future lest he make you look like a fool again.

What if Shyam Sunder believed it was a possibility at the time?

 

[funk de fino]

The article was published in March 2005.

Shyam Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 because it was an vital part of the working hypothesis.

NIST Collapse Final April,5 2005 Part IICpg 38 - 39​

The two 6,000 gallon tanks supplying the 5th floor generators through a pressurized piping system were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day.

This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5.​

Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.​

The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.​

When was it written and when did they contact Sunder?

I have yet to see Shyam Sunders words or confirmation from Pop mechs that he told them there was a fire on floor 5. Only your cherry picking fraud that was not actually his words.

 

[Christopher7]

What if Shyam Sunder believed it was a possibility at the time?

There was NO reason for him to believe there was a fire on the fifth floor. In fact, there was indisputable proof* that even if there was a fire on the fifth floor it would not have been a factor in the collapse. The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a farce from the get go.

* http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7392/copyofe5asn4.png

In the Final draft, they finally admitted [10 times] to what i have been saying for over a year.
As an investigator, Shyam Sunder is incompetent at best.

[FONT=&quot]1-A pg 26 [64][/FONT]​

An under-ventilated fire, in which the air handling system was turned off, but the louvers wereopen. Result: Smoke would have exhausted through the east louvers, and the imagery showed no [FONT=&quot]such effluent.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 44 [82][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The worst-case scenarios[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines, (b) would have[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers.No such smoke discharge was observed.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 85 [47][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]The absence of diesel fuel fires on Floor 5 was consistent with the information from interviews that sometime after 1:00 p.m., OEM and FDNY staff climbed the east stairway of WTC 7 and did not see much damage on Floors 4, 5, or 6 from their viewing location. They made no mention of fire, heat or smoke.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1-9 vol 1 pg 355 [399][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Simulations showed that pool fires associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines . . . . (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, in conflict with the photographic evidence which showed none.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]1-9 vol 2 diesel fuel pg 371 [33][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Result: [/FONT]The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of[FONT=&quot] smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 373 [35][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]A broad range of hypothetical, extreme fires on the 5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]th [/FONT]floor did not produce a fire scenario that was[FONT=&quot] consistent with the visual evidence[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that would have threatened the load bearing capacity of Columns 79, 80, or 81.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot] pg 386 [48][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]these fires would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers. No such[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]emanation was observed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Pg 605 [267][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Additionally, such fires would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 610 [272][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines . . . . would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 613 [275][/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, . . . . would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed.[/FONT]​

 

[funk de fino]

There was NO reason for him to believe there was a fire on the fifth floor. In fact, there was indisputable proof* that even if there was a fire on the fifth floor it would not have been a factor in the collapse. The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a farce from the get go.

So now you go back to the new report? They were carrying out an investigation. They were in the early stages. They had some theories and hypothesis. They have reported them in preliminary reports.

Even in the later presentations it says that although the fuel did not contribute to the collapse it may still have fed fires. The possibility had to be investigated.

It since appears that there initial thoughts were wrong and they have refined and corrected the report for the final draft. This is what happens.

This is not lying. You cherry picked a report and tried to pass it off as Sunders words and that he was a liar. You are being fraudulent here C7.