10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

So now you go back to the new report?

Limit thyself not to any one report my friend, but avail thyself to ALL the information.

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.

By 4-5-05 they hand been investigating WTC 7 for about 3 years. In all that time they failed to see that the photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report rendered the diesel fuel fire hypothesis moot.

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.

Not until December of 2007 did they finally admit their error.

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.

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

 

[funk de fino]

Limit thyself not to any one report my friend, but avail thyself to ALL the information.

That you do not see your failure here is amusing. You pick and choose which report to quote and use to back you up and then you pick and choose which one to say is lying. That you have been reduced to talking about the older reports and investigations in this thread says wonders about your inability to prove the new report wrong when it disproves CD.

By 4-5-05 they hand been investigating WTC 7 for about 3 years. In all that time they failed to see that the photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report rendered the diesel fuel fire hypothesis moot.

I thought they stopped work on WTC7 for the WTC1&2 report? Are you now backing away from your earlier fake photo claims then?

Not until December of 2007 did they finally admit their error.

Now its an error? not a lie? It is the result of further investigations actually C7.

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

Except it is you who is lying when you say he made a statement in a publication claiming this.

 

[Christopher7]

That you do not see your failure here is amusing. You pick and choose which report to quote and use to back you up and then you pick and choose which one to say is lying. That you have been reduced to talking about the older reports and investigations in this thread says wonders about your inability to prove the new report wrong when it disproves CD.

You would like to ignore any fact contained in other reports or publication.

I thought they stopped work on WTC7 for the WTC1&2 report? Are you now backing away from your earlier fake photo claims then?

Not relevant to the fire simulation of the fires on floor 12

Now its an error? not a lie? It is the result of further investigations actually C7.

The error was wasting time and money on a hypothesis that was irrelevant given the data NIST had.
The LIE was stating as a fact that there was a fire on the fifth floor in a national publication and the 4-5-05 report.

Except it is you who is lying when you say he made a statement in a publication claiming this.

My bad. He told PM that there was fire on the fifth floor and they stated it as a fact 3 times.

 

[funk de fino]

My bad. He told PM that there was fire on the fifth floor and they stated it as a fact 3 times.

Proof

 

[Christopher7]

Proof

Your double standard is laughable. You are willing to forgive Sunder for LYING to PM on the lame excuse that they did not quote him directly. The fact that they repeated what he had told them does not get through your denial filter.
Then you call me a liar if I don't get a response exactly right.
Put it in a sock. Who do you think you are kidding?

It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements in a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.

This sentence should read:
It is LYING when the lead investigator makes statements to a national publication and in an official report that have NO basis and are not true.


There is NO basis for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was no fire in the generator room in the north east corner of floor 5 at 2:10 p.m.

Rooms with diesel engines must have some ventilation all the time to prevent the buildup of toxic and explosive vapors.

As it turns out, there was evidence of fire in the north east generator room at about 4:00 p.m. but it was NOT diesel fuel.
This photo clearly establishes that there were ventilation louvers open all the time as i have previously stated.

The "working hypothesis" that diesel fuel fires contributed to the collapse was a FRAUD!

There is NO evidence supporting that hypothesis. It was pure speculation that ignored the evidence.

There is clear evidence that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.


​

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The "working hypothesis" that diesel fuel fires contributed to the collapse was a FRAUD!

There is NO evidence supporting that hypothesis. It was pure speculation that ignored the evidence.

This just about sums up your methodology, thank you for finally answering my question. Strange, science tends to work that way Chris... a working hypothesis was developed on the information they had at the time, for you to assume that they cannot come to a different conclusion after a more thorough investigation shows you utter ignorance... give it a rest... you're using a preliminary report to suggest that they were lying, you twisted the content of parts of the report... Chris it's doesn't get anymore dishonest...

So when they present a theory and it turns out wrong, it's automatically fraud, if they come to a different conclusion after more thorough research it's an automatic lie. Your confirmation bias is utterly through the roof astounding!!!!!! [FACE_PALM]

 

[Bobby]

So at 2:10 there're no fire in the ConEd transformer rooms on the North side of WTC 7, which proves what exactly? Wasn't it the South side of WTC & that suffered most damage from the falling debris of the collapses of WTCs 1 and 2? Does the lack of fires at 2:10 mean that there were no fires in the ConEd rooms later that afternoon (before WTC 7 collapsed, obviously). There's a youtube video of a fireman by a pay phone when a loud explosion is heard, could that have misled the investigators (transformers are incredibly loud when they explode, as anybody within a couple of miles of the FDR and East 14th can attest to when a transformer there blew up a year or so after 9/11).

The still does not prove there were no fires in the transformer rooms, look at the direction the smoke is blowing. If there were fires in the ConEd rooms it's quite possible that air feeding them was passing in through the louvres, with the smoke exiting from the south side of WTC 7. Perhaps this formed part of the working hypothesis before the investigation was underway. Who knows? Why would suggesting that as a possibility make the proponent a liar?

 

[Christopher7]

. . . a working hypothesis was developed on the information they had at the time,

They had this information at the time:

There were no reports or photographs of fire on floor 5 at the time.

There was NO reason to think there was a fire on floor 5.

The above photo proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire on floor 5 at about 2:10 p.m.

Any room containing diesel engines would have to be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

Shyam Sunder and the team of "experts" at NIST failed to recognize this self evident fact and after 3 years of "investigation" and based their working hypothesis on diesel fuel fires that weakened column 79 and caused it to fail.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

In FACT, it was contrary to the information they had at the time.

Including it in an official government scientific document claiming to be an investigation or in PM Magazine was fraudulent.

 

[Bobby]

That photo shows there was not fire emerging from windows on the 12 floor of the east side of WTC 7, it certainly does not prove "beyond all doubt that there was NO fire on floor 12 at about 2:10 p.m.". But there are some on what's that, the 10th or 11th floor?

As for the lower floors (where there are louvres), why can say if there's a fire there? Do forest fires spread in the direction of the supply of air or away from it? From the picture in your post, the difference between the upper and lower floors of WTC 7 was that the fires in upper floors would not have an access to an external air supply until the fires grew hot enough to shatter the windows, i.e the upper floors were shielded from external air movements whereas the lower floors were not.

 

[Christopher7]

So at 2:10 there're no fire in the ConEd transformer rooms on the North side of WTC 7, which proves what exactly?

Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

 

[Bobby]

Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between (here's a clue, in what direction did the smoke blow from WTCs 1 and 2? Towards the East Village, Greenwich Village, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Jersey City)

 

[Christopher7]

My bad!
Excuse me! I meant to say no fire on the 5th floor.
Thank you for the correction.

Correction made to post #5068

 

[Christopher7]

You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between

The smoke vented from the east side as would be expected with a breeze blowing from the north west to the south east.
Its presence clearly proves that the north east generator room was ventilated was would be necessary. Any diesel fire in this room would have vented black smoke.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Nothing.
FYI
The supply line did NOT run through the ConEd transformer room. [see FEMA Ch 5 pg 14-15 and NCSTAR 1-9 vol.2 pg 169]

The room where the diesel fuel fires were supposed to have weakened column 79 was the generator room in the north east corner of the 5th floor. [see NIST L pg 38-40]
This room would have been ventilated and smoke from any fire would have escaped through those vents.

The "diesel fuel fire on floor 5 hypothesis" was baseless speculation!

Christopher7.... I suggest you read this....

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced “large amounts of visible smoke” from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed."

Taken directly from NIST's summary page for the WTC 7 final report.

Why have you not mentioned this?

You know for a fact that there was no fire on the 5th floor? In a ventilated room the smoke from any fires would travel in which direction? Towards the oncoming airflow or away from it? Was the external airflow from the north, south, east, west or anywhere in between (here's a clue, in what direction did the smoke blow from WTCs 1 and 2? Towards the East Village, Greenwich Village, Brooklyn, Staten Island or Jersey City)

Unfortunately the crux of chris's argument is using a document which was based on preliminary hypotheses. While fires could have been ignited on the 5th floor, based on NIST's conclusion they would not have been sustained long enough to contribute to the weakening of the internal structure.

Christopher's error lies in assuming that preliminary hypotheses are final conclusions...

 

[Bobby]

What're the chances of the following comment in NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf making any difference to the twoofers insistence of a controlled demolition of WTC 7?

The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building. NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of the sound of the hypothetical blasts. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and the charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all of the building faces. For instance, if propagation were unobstructed by the other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7. This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. The sound would have been attenuated behind buildings, but this would also have generated multiple echoes. These echoes could have extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possible have had an additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, the soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001.​

I always thought it was suspect that on pretty much all the twoofer sites any video of the collapse of WTC 7 is not accompanied by a sound track of the events. Could it be that removing the live sound is an attempt to mislead the gullible? Shocking.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Apparently you are incorrect and you illustrate it in your own posts.

At the time of the preliminary report a deisel fuel fire was part of the over all working hypothysis. It was not a vital part of it and this is illustrated quite succiently by the fact that it was not a factor included in the recent report.

What part of "preliminary" and "working hypothysis" do you have trouble in understanding that they are not being put forth as absolute gospel fact?


BTW, did you ever answer my question; "how is it that when I reduce the air channel to my wood stove by 50% the fire actually burns faster and hotter?".

 

[jaydeehess]

Has there been a discussion about the recent NIST WTC 7 report in this thread or has Chris decided that he must still saw on about the preliminary report?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7.... I suggest you read this....

"As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/orwould have produced "large amounts of visible smoke" from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed."

Taken directly from NIST's summary page for the WTC 7 final report.

Why have you not mentioned this?

I did. See post #5059. They paraphrased what I had been saying . . . . . 10 times.
NIST knew there was NO fire in the north east generator room for the reason given in the summary page and 10 times in the report.

Unfortunately the crux of chris's argument is using a document which was based on preliminary hypotheses. While fires could have been ignited on the 5th floor, based on NIST's conclusion they would not have been sustained long enough to contribute to the weakening of the internal structure.

Christopher's error lies in assuming that preliminary hypotheses are final conclusions...

Wrong, What I have been saying is, the "working hypothesis" was baseless and Shyam Sunder LIED to PM Magazine when he told them there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

There were NO reports of fire in the generator room on floor 5 and no reason to think there was a fire. The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at about 2:10 p.m.

The "working hypothesis" was fraudulent from the beginning.

 

[Christopher7]

At the time of the preliminary report a deisel fuel fire was part of the over all working hypothysis. It was not a vital part of it and this is illustrated quite succiently by the fact that it was not a factor included in the recent report.

What part of "preliminary" and "working hypothysis" do you have trouble in understanding that they are not being put forth as absolute gospel fact?

The part where Shyam Sunder LIED to PM magazine about there being a fire on the fifth floor.

 

[funk de fino]

The part where Shyam Sunder LIED to PM magazine about there being a fire on the fifth floor.

No, you lied when you tried to pass off magazine editorial words as his. Cherry picking liar.

One photo from FEMA is not enough to go to say that at no time during that day were there no fires on 5 or 6. They had to do further investiagions to confirm this. It was only a working hypothesis that needed further investigation.

Did you read what NIST said about the louvres in the final report?