10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

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

You do understand that the lastest report's conclusions supercede the working hypothysis of the preliminary report?

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

They were doing their own investigation. Deisel fuel fires were one part of the preliminary hypothysis and has now been discarded as unlikely. What part of this are you having a problem with?

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

It was not a "lie" or an "error" it was one hyp[othysis that had to be investigated. It was and subsequent to that investigation it was concluded that such a fire was improbable.

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.

The magazine used the definitive language that there was a fire on the fifth floor. You have yet to show that Sunder used the same language. However all it would point to is imprecise language in describing one part of the preliminary hypothysis!

Will you now get around to discussing the new report? After all it states that no fifth floor fire contributed to the collapse and that the impact damage affected the fashion in which it collapsed (basically allowing the building to twist), but that it would have most probably collapsed due soley to the office fires causing the long span beams , some of which were constrained only on one side, to expand and fail the columns.

So you should be claiming vindication, your claims that the fifth floor deisel fire could not occur, and your contention that impact damage could not have contributed to the initiation of the collapse are included in the report.
Previously I, and others, argued that you were using definitive statements where statements with qualifiers such as 'unlikely' or 'less probable' would be more called for.

I am interested in seeing what definitive statements you will come up with concerning the new report, or do you agree with the new report?

 

[Christopher7]

You do understand that the lastest report's conclusions supercede the working hypothysis of the preliminary report?

Yes

They were doing their own investigation. Deisel fuel fires were one part of the preliminary hypothysis and has now been discarded as unlikely. What part of this are you having a problem with?

There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.

It was not a "lie" or an "error" it was one hyp[othysis that had to be investigated. It was and subsequent to that investigation it was concluded that such a fire was improbable.

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

The magazine used the definitive language that there was a fire on the fifth floor. You have yet to show that Sunder used the same language.

Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.

However all it would point to is imprecise language in describing one part of the preliminary hypothysis!

There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This response to Jayhadees' question...

Yes

followed by all of this...

There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.

There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.

Is a huge non-sequitor.... You agreed that the new information posted by the latest release of the NIST report supersedes the preliminary hypotheses they worked with yet they are still lying for having investigated the possibility in the first place?

 

[jaydeehess]

This response to Jayhadees' question...

Grizzlr Bear, the transposition of two consonants of my username makes it look like I am related to the Greek God of the netherworld.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Grizzlr Bear, the transposition of two consonants of my username makes it look like I am related to the Greek God of the netherworld.

Whoops... every time I see your username I automatically write it that way for some reason... sorry about that

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes

Really? Then why do you continue to argue as if Appendix L was and is the final report?

There was clear evidence that a diesel fuel fire did not exist in the NE generator room and even if it had it would not have sufficient air flow to be a factor in the collapse. If I could figure this out why couldn't all the experts at NIST?
............
The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was baseless and a waste of time and money.
..................

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel in the building and moch of it could not be accounted for and thus it had to be investigated as to whether or not it could have contributed to the fires in the building that initiated the collapse. The only way for it to have done so was via the pressurised line to the east side of the fifth floor. It was prudent and proper to investigate all possibilities despite no empirical evidence of such a fire.

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.
.......
Shyam Sunder let the statements stand. If he had been misquoted, he would have corrected PM.
...........
There were NO REPORTS OF FIRE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR! The statements that there was a fire on the fifth floor are not "impresice", they are FALSE statements.

The imprecision is in not including the word "possible" when describing the fires. If you happened to discuss O.J. Simpson with anyone in the past several years have you always prefaced any reference to crimes with the word 'alledged'?

You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.



,,,,,,,,, and the fact remains that contrary to your contention from the past, which you have repeated quite recently, a diesel fuel fire on the fifth floor, or any diesel fuel fire anywhere in the building was NOT required by NIST to explain the collapse. (not then, not now) We know this for FACT since NIST has rejected the diesel fuel fire as very improbable and did NOT include it in the more recent report which you say that you understand supercedes Appendix L.

 

[jaydeehess]

Whoops... every time I see your username I automatically write it that way for some reason... sorry about that

Hah! I notice that I was rather dyslexic in typing your name, making you appear old and rugged.

 

[Christopher7]

Is a huge non-sequitor.... You agreed that the new information posted by the latest release of the NIST report supersedes the preliminary hypotheses they worked with yet they are still lying for having investigated the possibility in the first place?

No!

The LIE was Shyam Sunder telling PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

 

[Christopher7]

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel in the building and moch of it could not be accounted for and thus it had to be investigated as to whether or not it could have contributed to the fires in the building that initiated the collapse. The only way for it to have done so was via the pressurised line to the east side of the fifth floor. It was prudent and proper to investigate all possibilities despite no empirical evidence of such a fire.

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.

Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

He had the clear evidence that there was NO fire on the fifth floor and a preponderance of evidence that there was no 10 story gouge.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!

 

[Mark Carter]

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor, NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?

 

[Christopher7]

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor, NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?

Mark

Welcome to the forum.

That video was taken before the north tower collapsed.

However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

As has been mentioned before (repeatedly I'll add), when the generators were recovered from the site there was 12,000 gallons of fuel left unaccounted for. In that position, what do you think NIST should have done, investigated it as a possible cause in their preliminary investigation, or otherwise? If otherwise could you specify?

Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

This lie again? Your repeated cherry-picking of content, from a preliminary report no less, is really beating a dead horse... To begin with that claim stems from a list of accounts which NIST provided, and they specifically said that "there were some conflicting accounts". What kind of reading comprehension problems do you have to not connect the context?

He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!

I have already discussed this ad nauseum with you and covered this matter in this post. At this point I can only assume you are either incapable of understanding the context of that report or you intentionally cherry-pick the content and hope that no one else understands the context when they read it. Which is it? That you're capable of posting here with complete words, I'm inclined to believe you're doing the latter.

During the last anniversary of 911 the History Channel had a show about 911 and it showed a film crew entering building No 7 . There was live footage of a film crew going up the escalator to the second floor It showed that there was no hole that went all the way to the floor.

I am aware of a video that was taken of the lobby before the collapse of World Trade Center 1, which as Chris rightly (for once) pointed out. The damage which Chris is disputing was inflicted when WTC 1 collapsed.

NIST has been doing joint operations with the NSA since they worked on the ultra secret "clipper chip" operation in 1993. The NSA and the CIA had offices inside building No 7 . how can you trust what NIST is telling people?

This is a "Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy". That aside why destroy the building to get rid of a few documents? I'm going with Occam's razor, I think the CIA, if they wanted to destroy documents would have zero need to demolish an entire building to cover up damaging documents. In fact I'd argue that they'd save money by doing something less complex and obvious.

Mark
However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Another instance of "Poisoning the Well Logical Fallacy" and could alternately be considered a red herring. Christopher... would you mind addressing the topic concerning WTC 7, rather than going off on tangents?

 

[jaydeehess]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

That would be your opinion. I feel that the fact of the fuel being present and the discovery of the fact that the investigators could not account for all of , that it was prudent and proper to determine for certain whether or not there could have been a undetected fire on the fifth floor. That's my opinion.

Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a 10 story gouge and fire on the fifth floor.

He had the clear evidence that there was NO fire on the fifth floor and a preponderance of evidence that there was no 10 story gouge.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT and let stand a FALSE statement about a fire on the fifth floor.

These are NOT a minor transgressions, they are LIES!

Was that supposed to be a statement directed at my post? To refresh your memory without you having to scroll up, I said;

You do not know that Sunder stated this as a possibility or if he neglected to qualify the statement with that or similar wording.

At the time of printing the possibility was still being thoroughly investigated(slightly more complex than your skimming the photos) and I can certainly forgive Sunder for not requiring a retraction or a writing letter to the editor of PM over a rather minor transgression.

 

[jaydeehess]

However, you are right to question anything the Cheney/Bush administration publishes.

[FONT=&quot]February 19, 2004[/FONT]
More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

Logical fallacy.
As posted on another thread;

A chicken has feathers.
This bird has feathers.
Therefore this bird must be a chicken.

 

[jaydeehess]

I never did understand the 'they demolished an entire building to use it as a giant paper shredder'. If they could somehow squirrel away large quatities of explosives into the building with no one, at all, seeing it done , then it would also have been possible to extract large quatities of docuements to be destroyed in a secure fashion elsewhere.

 

[Christopher7]

As has been mentioned before (repeatedly I'll add), when the generators were recovered from the site there was 12,000 gallons of fuel left unaccounted for. In that position, what do you think NIST should have done, investigated it as a possible cause in their preliminary investigation, or otherwise? If otherwise could you specify?

The amount of fuel missing is irrelevant. The ONLY place the diesel fuel could have effected the initiating event was in the north east generator room on the fifth floor. The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was based on a fire in that room. They had clear evidence that there was NO fire in that room.

This lie again? Your repeated cherry-picking of content, from a preliminary report no less, is really beating a dead horse... To begin with that claim stems from a list of accounts which NIST provided, and they specifically said that "there were some conflicting accounts". What kind of reading comprehension problems do you have to not connect the context?

Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated:
[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]

He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT.

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "[FONT=&quot]there was, in fact"[/FONT]did not include the 10 story gouge, it did.
He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.

 

[Christopher7]

There was clear evidence that there was NO fire in the NE generator room. Investigating something that clearly did not happen was a waste of time and money.

That would be your opinion.

It is also the opinion of NIST.

In the Final draft, they finally admitted [10 times] to what i have been saying for over a year.

[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]​

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The amount of fuel missing is irrelevant.

Of course they had a burning building and fuel having potentially leaked out. Had they not looked into it, one could argue that critics would have cried afoul for negligence in a major investigation of an engineering failure.

Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts.

So this doesn't exist in the NIST L report you're so fond of using as a resource?

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

A reminder I posted this excerpt in full context in post # 5039

I don't feel like breaking this whole thing down for you for the millionth time. I'm not going to teach you reading comprehension either, if that is the problem you have you'll have to resolve it yourself.

He stated:
[FONT=&quot]"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." [/FONT]

He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation? Perhaps even from the excerpt I've pointed out to you? [sarc]Nah! Couldn't be! [/sarc]

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "[FONT=&quot]there was, in fact"[/FONT]did not include the 10 story gouge, it did. He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.

Now that you have brought up his statement to Popular mechanics, how does it impact what was stated in NIST appendix L which you appear fond of using? You did afterall state that Sunder, et al never stated anything about conflicting accounts (something which I've proven you to be incorrect on already).

 

[Crazytimes]

I never did understand the 'they demolished an entire building to use it as a giant paper shredder'. If they could somehow squirrel away large quatities of explosives into the building with no one, at all, seeing it done , then it would also have been possible to extract large quatities of docuements to be destroyed in a secure fashion elsewhere.

That is one of my favorite truther fantasies. As if the government doesnt back any infomation up. They have a large stack of paper files with no backup of information. They are destroying evidence of something by bringing the building down ? Hahaha

 

[Christopher7]

Of course they had a burning building and fuel having potentially leaked out. Had they not looked into it, one could argue that critics would have cried afoul for negligence in a major investigation of an engineering failure.

What critics?
All the self proclaimed "skeptics" are not the least bit skeptical of the NIST report.

Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts.

So this doesn't exist in the NIST L report you're so fond of using as a resource?

So what?
He failed to mention the conflicting accounts in the "debunking" article.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation? Perhaps even from the excerpt I've pointed out to you?

He knew of the conflicting statements at the time but he stated that there was a 10 story gouge as a FACT!

Don't try to double talk around this LIE by saying his use of the phrase "[FONT="]there was, in fact"[/FONT]did not include the 10 story gouge, it did. He stated the 10 story gouge as a FACT without any qualification.

Now that you have brought up his statement to Popular mechanics, how does it impact what was stated in NIST appendix L which you appear fond of using? You did after all state that Sunder, et al never stated anything about conflicting accounts (something which I've proven you to be incorrect on already).

Wrong!