10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

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.
.

"admitted"??? They came to that conclusion after a detailed investigation. You jumped to the conclusion at the outset.

You know when I was a kid, when Jim Henson was just starting out, "Seame Street" had a bit where Grover would be in the foreground and say "Near" , then scamper off to the background and say "Far".

You seem to need that type of lesson with ,"Then" and "Now" , or with "Preliminary hypothysis" and "Final report".

At the time (Then) of the PM article or the printing of Appendix"L" it was your opinion that there could absolutly not possibly be a fire , let alone a deisel fuel fire, on the 5th floor. I, others, and NIST were of the opinion that given that there was deisel fuel present that could have supplied a fire on the 5th floor and given that there was an unaccounted for quantity of fuel, that it was prudent and proper to investigate thoroughly any possibility that a fuel fed 5th floor fire could have occured and escaped easy dectection. This led to the inclusion of a possible 5th floor fire being part (that's only "part" mind you) of the preliminary report known as Appendix"L".

At this time (Now), NIST has done the work required to determine that such a fire had a low probability of occuring. This leaves the whereabouts of the missing fuel a mystery but that is now a very minor concern.

As for the 'gash' , we known that there was indeed a gash or several of them close to each other in the vicinity described and that at the time of the preliminary report it could certainly be discussed as being relevent.

At this time (Now) in the latest (Final report) release NIST has determined that the impact damage affected only the fashion by which the building twisted as it collapsed and that had there been no impact damage and only the fires that the structure still would have failed.


Once again, why are you argueing about items that in the final report, were determined to be of little or no consequence? I would think that since you kept hounding away that the fuel fed fires were absolutly needed by NIST in order to have the building collapse and, you have been proved wrong about that point, that you'd want to shut up about it.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Want to go and look up how many qualified persons commented on Appendix"L"?

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

I'll see your "so what?" and raise you a "so what?".

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

FACT was there was a lot of damage to the south face including in the area closer to the center of the building as well as the SW corner.
Again I say, "so what" if Sunder, in a popular press article conflates this and states that there was a 10 storey gash in the center of the building ( seems to me the SW corner gash was greater than that)!

Now I know that you are looking for signs that evil is afoot, commies under every rock, all is deception, "The Matrix" might be a docuementary,,,,, but come on Chris these items are no longer part of the NIST hypothysis for the collapse of WTC 7.

Did my writing it larger convince you?

 

[Christopher7]

"admitted"??? They came to that conclusion after a detailed investigation. You jumped to the conclusion at the outset.

I looked at the photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and saw the obvious.

16th February 2007, 01:44 AM #900 Christopher7
If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.
This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.
It is not on fire.

The "experts" at NIST did NOT see the obvious and wasted a lot of time and money on a hypothesis that obviously did not occur.

At the time (Then) of the PM article or the printing of Appendix"L" it was your opinion that there could absolutly not possibly be a fire , let alone a deisel fuel fire, on the 5th floor.

Correct.
At the time I based my conclusion on the vents that opened when the generators came on. However, any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.
There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room.

I, others, and NIST were of the opinion that given that there was deisel fuel present that could have supplied a fire on the 5th floor and given that there was an unaccounted for quantity of fuel, that it was prudent and proper to investigate thoroughly any possibility that a fuel fed 5th floor fire could have occured and escaped easy dectection.

You and others [everybody here at 'never doubt NIST' central] missed the obvious just like the experts at NIST.

This led to the inclusion of a possible 5th floor fire being part (that's only "part" mind you) of the preliminary report known as Appendix"L".

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly showed that it did not happen and was therefore a waste of time and money.

At this time (Now), NIST has done the work required to determine that such a fire had a low probability of occuring.

Low probability is double talk! It did not occur.

As for the 'gash' , we known that there was indeed a gash or several of them close to each other in the vicinity described and that at the time of the preliminary report it could certainly be discussed as being relevent.

More double talk.
Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
[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 gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.

He LIED!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

According to Chistopher7, the missing fuel warranted no such investigation, going so far as to call it completely irrelevant. Such high standard of evidence he holds

More double talk.
Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
[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 gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.
He LIED!

You're too busy twisting the words of a preliminary report to the point you're completely oblivious to the context. Better yet, this argument turned into soap opera of repetitious argumentation on the same thing despite having this pointed out to you multiple times. When it was pointed out several times that you intentionally misrepresented the content of the preliminary report, you alternated to a statement by Sunder to Popular Mechanics and recently claimed:

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

I highlighted this a long time ago in red in post #5039 where it was stated on the preliminary investigation. You blew right over it then, and you continue doing so now as if it bears negligible importance to your claims.

 

[Christopher7]

According to Chistopher7, the missing fuel warranted no such investigation, going so far as to call it completely irrelevant. Such high standard of evidence he holds.

A higher standard than you or NIST.
You favor investigating something when the evidence clearly shows it did not occur.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

Shyam Sunder was very specific in his description.
[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 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]was[/FONT][FONT=&quot] scooped out."[/FONT]

There was NO gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south side floor 10 to the ground.

He LIED!

You're too busy twisting the words of a preliminary report to the point you're completely oblivious to the context.

You are the one twisting words.
Shyam Sunder's statement in PM is consistent with the description of damage on page 18;
"middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
and the damage depicted on pages 23, 31 and 32, in the middle - 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7

When it was pointed out several times that you intentionally misrepresented the content of the preliminary report,

Where?

you alternated to a statement by Sunder to Popular Mechanics and recently claimed:

Alternated? Stop playing with words.
I stated the FACTS.

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

I highlighted this a long time ago in red in post #5039 where it was stated on the preliminary investigation. You blew right over it then, and you continue doing so now as if it bears negligible importance to your claims.

Correct.
It does not matter that it was a preliminary report.
It is an official government document.

Including the massive damage described on page 18 in the graphics on pages 31 and 32 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" was fraudulent!
There were two statements on the same page in direct conflict with that damage and a statement in the FEMA report that was in conflict with the 10 stories high part.

Suggesting that diesel fuel may have played a part in the collapse by including it in the summary was fraudulent!
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."
This is a delibrate obfuscation of the facts.
These facts indicate the possibility of a fire in the south west generator room, NOT the north east generator room. A fire in the south west generator room would have no effect on column 79, 80 or 81.

Shyam Sunder misrepresented the evidence in the NIST L report and then LIED about there being a fire on floor five to PM Magazine.
He also LIED about the 10 story gouge when he stated it as a FACT.

He continued these LIES in the 4-5-05 report when he included the non existant damage on page 20 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
On page 38 it states:
"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.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

The LIE continued when Shyam Sunder testified to the New York City Council on September 8, 2006. His entire testimony was about a diesel fuel fire that did not exist.​

 

[roundhead]

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the NIST/Sunder's outright lies and ever changing position regarding WTC7 is this.

They have tried to delay and allow years to pass by, so that when the lame excuse for the collapse was finally rolled out, it was hoped that such a long time has passed, interest would wane in the results, and a bright light wouldnt shine on their lies.

Much like a basketball game where fans leave in the fourth quarter with the home team up by thirty points, and only diehards are left at the final buzzer, those looking for the truth regarding 9/11 havent left their seats, unfortunately for the Govt, and the loyal fans(truthers) are still in attendance.

Anybody who cant clearly smell the stench of the Wtc7 story, have incurable sinus issues.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

A higher standard than you or NIST.
You favor investigating something when the evidence clearly shows it did not occur.​

When you have building fire and fuel generators with an unaccounted for amount of fuel, it's only proper to investigate to possibility and eliminate it as a cause. What do you think investigators do in homicide investigations, or coroners do in autopsies?

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

Big whoop. At what point in the day was it taken? Did any potential fire last that long? NIST has already clarified this.

"Did fuel oil systems in WTC 7 contribute to its collapse?
No. The building had three separate emergency power systems, all of which ran on diesel fuel. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by ruptured fuel lines—or from fuel stored in day tanks on the lower floors—could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to weaken critical interior columns, and/or would have produced large amounts of visible smoke from the lower floors, which were not observed.

As background information, the three systems contained two 12,000 gallon fuel tanks, and two 6,000 gallon tanks beneath the building’s loading docks, and a single 6,000 gallon tank on the 1st floor. In addition one system used a 275 gallon tank on the 5th floor, a 275 gallon tank on the 8th floor, and a 50 gallon tank on the 9th floor. Another system used a 275 gallon day tank on the 7th floor.

Several months after the WTC 7 collapse, a contractor recovered an estimated 23,000 gallons of fuel from these tanks. NIST estimated that the unaccounted fuel totaled 1,000 ±1,000 gallons of fuel (in other words, somewhere between 0 and 2,000 gallons, with 1,000 gallons the most likely figure). The fate of the fuel in the day tanks was unknown, so NIST assumed the worst-case scenario, namely that they were full on Sept. 11, 2001. The fate of the fuel of two 6,000 gallon tanks was also unknown. Therefore, NIST also assumed the worst-case scenario for these tanks, namely that all of the fuel would have been available to feed fires either at ground level or on the 5th floor."

Where?

Posts:
5098
5092
5041
5025
5039

Not surprisingly, you hand waved every one of them. Not to mention you continually ignored the context of the report. The context is quite clear about listing what witness accounts were received that were in conflict. Why are you having such a brain aneurysm in reading this?

Alternated? Stop playing with words.
I stated the FACTS.

And ignoring that important line in a preliminary report is stating facts how again?

"Shyam Sunder DID NOT MENTION that there were conflicting accounts. He stated..."

Correct.

Post #5039 again for you liar.

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

It does not matter that it was a preliminary report. It is an official government document.

I see so you don't care that it was a preliminary investigation. You would rather target a preliminary investigation than deal with a finalized report which underwent more comprehensive research. Your entire argument is one massive affirmation of the consequent and confirmation bias. If the preliminary report is inaccurate, or doesn't fit your conclusion, then the more refined report cannot be any more accurate than the preliminary.

Suggesting that diesel fuel may have played a part in the collapse by including it in the summary was fraudulent!
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."
This is a delibrate obfuscation of the facts.

How pray tell does the quote you posted support your leading statement (green)? I smell a straw man

He continued these LIES in the 4-5-05 report when he included the non existant damage on page 20 as "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".
On page 38 it states:
"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.
• Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath.
• This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5."

Just curious... Do you ignore the content you post? (red)

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the NIST/Sunder's outright lies and ever changing position regarding WTC7 is this.

According to Christopher7 a preliminary report is absolute proof of a lie and if any part of that content changes it's only further proof of a lie regardless of whether or not preliminary hypotheses were discarded as new information was made available.
Speaking of which, if we went by Christopher's standard, in which changes in information automatically equal a lie, then for example I could call the National hurricane center's re-evaluation of Hurricane Andrew a total fraud. By christopher's standard the National Hurricane center claimed for 10 years that Hurricane andrew was a category 4 hurricane when it made landfall, therefore they lied when they upgraded it to a category 5 10 years later.

Perhaps I should grab the pitch forks and put these guys into court martial!

Christopher7's standard of proof is based entirely on the basis that the National Institute of Technologies is a Federal institution and and his own confirmation biases. One could write a book on the numerous fallacies he commits in his argument.

Considering you hold the same position as Chris, you can read my responses to him. You apparently having nothing new to add.

Anybody who cant clearly smell the stench of the Wtc7 story, have incurable sinus issues.

Well if you have anything new to point out then out with it. Christopher's been repeating the same argument for 3 or 4 pages now... It gets boring to have to link him to earlier posts where his gripes have already been addressed. Perhaps you can offer a better standard of debate here, or at the very least substantiate the claims with more elaboration than chris is able to offer?​

 

[Christopher7]

When you have building fire and fuel generators with an unaccounted for amount of fuel, it's only proper to investigate to possibility and eliminate it as a cause. What do you think investigators do in homicide investigations, or coroners do in autopsies?

When you have clear, indisputable evidence that something did NOT occur, investigating it is a waste of time and money.

The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

Big whoop. At what point in the day was it taken? Did any potential fire last that long? NIST has already clarified this.

The photo was taken about 2:10 p.m. [as if you didn't know]
There was NO FIRE in the north east generator room at that time.

There was NO reason to think a fire could get started there after this time.

There was NO reason to think that the damage to the other end of the building would cause the double wall supply pipe to fracture or break in the north east generator room.
Damage to the south west part would fracture or break the supply pipe in or near the south west generator room first. There was NO fire reported anywhere on the fifth floor at any time.
NIST L pg 22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

 

[funk de fino]

I looked at the photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and saw the obvious.

the louver vents would be open.

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

 

[Christopher7]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.​

Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.​

There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.​

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.​

There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

​

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

​

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.

​

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.​

 

[pomeroo]

No!

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

It's fascinating that you agenda-driven cranks do nothing but lie, yet you pretend that every mistake committed by a rationalist is a deliberate falsehood. Well, when you're flogging an absurd, thoroughly discredited fantasy, I suppose you have no choice.

Your evil movement is quite dead. There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. The evidence for their use is, as you know, nonexistent.

 

[pomeroo]

We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.​

Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.​

There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.​

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.​

There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.​

​

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.​

​

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.​

​

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.​

Uh, no, fraud is what you conspiracy liars specialize in. If NIST was perpetrating a fraud, why did the agency abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere? A guy like you can never give up on a false hypothesis. The real reseachers can, and, more importantly, do.

 

[jaydeehess]

You and others [everybody here at 'never doubt NIST' central] missed the obvious just like the experts at NIST.

Jeebus H. kristo! Just about every poster here has pointed out that your favorite bugaboo, the NIST appendix "L" to the WTC report, was a "preliminary" report and that the hypothysis put forward in it were all "possibilities". YOU are pretty much alone in claiming that NIST intended any of them to be definitive answers and, incredibly, YOU continue to behave as if that were the case!

I am not a "never doubt NIST" person. I would like to know what measures can be taken to guard against this occuring to other structures with long span or spans constrained assymettrically suffering a similar fate as WTC 7 and the final WTC 7 report does not go far enough to addressing that.

As for the Appendix "L", it gave many things to think about and outlined many avenues that required investigation. I am confident that they were investigated. So far your problem seems to be what was included in Appendix "L" rather than anything that was excluded. Very cynical of you, though not a surprise to me.

 

[jaydeehess]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

We are discussing what Shyam Sunder said to PM.​

Any room containing diesel engines would have to have some ventilation all the time and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.​

There was obviously NO fire in the north east generator room in the 2:10 p.m. photo.​

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.​

There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

​

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew that the north east generator room had to have vents when Sunder told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

​

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics Magazine.

​

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.​

The diesel fuel fire hypothysis was discarded by NIST after investigation. What part of this do you have so very much trouble with Chris?

You seem to be the type of person who has trouble taking "yes" for an answer. YES it is very unlikely that a deisel fuel fire on the fifth floor occured let alone contributed to the initiation of the collapse. This has beeen stated by NIST over and over again and yet you seem to be trying to take that fact as and use it to somehow 'pin' something on NIST!
Incredible!!!!

 

[funk de fino]

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

I will keep repeating it until you answer.

 

[Christopher7]

The diesel fuel fire hypothysis was discarded by NIST after investigation. What part of this do you have so very much trouble with Chris?

The part where Shyam Sunder LIED about there being a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours when the evidence clearly showed that there was not.

YES it is very unlikely that a deisel fuel fire on the fifth floor occured let alone contributed to the initiation of the collapse.

NIST stated 10 times that diesel fuel fires were not a factor for the reasons self evident in the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.
[see post 5097]

 

[Christopher7]

It's fascinating that you agenda-driven cranks do nothing but lie, yet you pretend that every mistake committed by a rationalist is a deliberate falsehood.

Actually, that's what people here do. You just called me an "agenda-driven crank" and a liar in a vain attempt to ignore the FACT that Shyam Sunder lied when he told the editors of Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

 

[Christopher7]

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD.

If NIST was perpetrating a fraud, why did the agency abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere?

They did NOT abandon it when the evidence led elsewhere.

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

There is no reason to think a fire started after that time.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 vol.1 pg 330
[/FONT]​

Sections 8.9.1 shows that the worst-case scenarios associated with ruptured fuel lines generated fires that could not be sustained long enough, would have produced too little heat to raise the temperatures of the steel to the point of significant loss of strength, and/or would have led to the flowing of smoke out the ventilation louvers*, which contradicts the visual evidence.

1-9 vol.2 pg 371 ​

Result: 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 smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.​

I did not need a computer simulation to see the obvious and neither did the experts at NIST.

*Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.

 

[funk de fino]

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 smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence.

This photo from page 26 of the FEMA report clearly shows that there was NO fire in the north east generator room [louvers] at about 2:10 p.m. [see post 5103]

Any room with diesel generators would have to have ventilation all the time.

C7 what does the Final report say about the louvre vents? from a visibility point of view?

 

[funk de fino]

Actually, that's what people here do. You just called me an "agenda-driven crank" and a liar in a vain attempt to ignore the FACT that Shyam Sunder lied when he told the editors of Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours.

Except you have no proof that is what he told them.