10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Har har. Nothing worse than cocking up trying to correct someone is there?

Its definitive, but they are not Sunders words. Unless you can prove they are?

Please.

Do you seriously think that Shyam Sunder and all the experts at NIST couldn't figure out, as I did, that there was no fire in the north east generator room?

When did you figure that out C7?

As soon as I began looking into the diesel fuel fires in response to a post by:
#762 beachnut
7th February 2007, 10:05 PM
Was there 10,000 gallons/60,000 pounds of fuel in your buildings? NO
Was there 20,000 gallons to run generators to burn in the fire? NO


#778 Christopher7
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
[FONT=&quot]Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.

[/FONT]

In the Appendix L they do not at any time say there was definately a fire in floor 5. They speculate there could have been, and that it needs further investigation.

Correct, but Shyam Sunder [not the tooth fairy] told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours. They stated it as a fact and Mr. Sunder did not correct them.

 

[jaydeehess]

[/LEFT]
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.

,,, and I for one have already congradulated you on having your cursory examination of the photos agree with the computersimulatrion that was used to determine if there was a not-so-obvious method by which a fire could be burning on the fifth floor and not been seen from the outside as being on the fifth floor.

Quote:
In the Appendix L they do not at any time say there was definately a fire in floor 5. They speculate there could have been, and that it needs further investigation.

Correct, but Shyam Sunder [not the tooth fairy] told PM that there was a fire on floor 5 that could have lasted up to 7 hours. They stated it as a fact and Mr. Sunder did not correct them.

To which I already added a similar reply that you made to a counterpoint, "so what?" It makes no significant difference that Sunder did not demand a retraction on this point because everything was based upon a preliminary report in which it it is made quite clear, many times, that a fire on the fifth floor was one possibility that was being investigated and the reported impact damages were variant and in cases contradictory.

You are pretty much counting the number of angels on the head of a pin here Chris, To carry the analogy further, a pin which a preliminary report stated that there could be several and for which the final report stated there were 3 or 4 and you claim that since several could mean 6 that the preliminary report lies.

 

[Christopher7]

It makes no significant difference that Sunder did not demand a retraction on this point because everything was based upon a preliminary report in which it it is made quite clear,

Basically, you are saying that it is OK to LIE about there being a fire on floor 5 in a national publication.
He did not demand a retraction because they published what he had told them.

that a fire on the fifth floor was one possibility that was being investigated

The evidence clearly showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. There was absolutely NO possibility that there was a fire there that could have lasted up to 7 hours. There was NO reason to think there was a fire there at all.

Shyam Sunder knew this when he LIED to PM and PM published that LIE.

and the reported impact damages were variant and in cases contradictory.

You keep ignoring the FACT that he did not say there were conflicting reports. He stated the 10 story gouge as a fact.

We are NOT talking about the preliminary report. We are talking about an article in PM nearly a year after the release of the preliminary report.

Stop saying it's OK to LIE about the facts.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Basically, you are saying that it is OK to LIE about there being a fire on floor 5 in a national publication.

That's your strawman kid... In your world preliminary investigations amount to absolute conclusions. But don't mind me, continue with your games...

He did not demand a retraction because they published what he had told them.

Nothing personal, but is barfing random accusations of deceit wise when you completely disregard the fact that what you're continuing to criticize is a preliminary report, and that both NIST and popular mechanics have updated pages which discuss the results of the more thorough investigation... You seem to be stuck in 2002...

The evidence clearly showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. There was absolutely NO possibility that there was a fire there that could have lasted up to 7 hours. There was NO reason to think there was a fire there at all.

The photo shows no evidence of any ongoing fires at the time it was taken. Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?

Oh, and by the way chris, popular mechanics has an updated page regarding your conspiracy theory: here

Shyam Sunder knew this when he LIED to PM and PM published that LIE.

And the information he was basing his comments on a preliminary report correct? What does this say, about the final report which eliminated any 5th floor fire as a major contributor to the collapse?

You keep ignoring the FACT that he did not say there were conflicting reports. He stated the 10 story gouge as a fact.

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

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

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

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.

Chris.....?

We are NOT talking about the preliminary report. We are talking about an article in PM nearly a year after the release of the preliminary report.

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?

You do realize that the information presented at the time was based on preliminary data right? Don't tie yourself knots now...

 

[Christopher7]

In your world preliminary investigations amount to absolute conclusions.

The evidence in the preliminary report conclusively showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. This did not change in the final report.

Nothing personal, but is barfing random accusations of deceit wise when you completely disregard the fact that what you're continuing to criticize is a preliminary report,

Hello?
I am NOT criticizing the preliminary report!

The photo shows no evidence of any ongoing fires at the time it was taken.

The photo conclusively shows that there was NO fire up until this time.

There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.

The editors of PM did not make this up, they got it from Shyam Sunder.

Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day?

Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?

Oh, and by the way chris, popular mechanics has an updated page regarding your conspiracy theory: here

That does NOT change the FACT that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM in 2004.

And the information he was basing his comments on a preliminary report correct?

What wonderful double speak.
He based his comments on his false assertion that there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Could it be that his statement at the time was based on information that had been gathered during the preliminary phases of the investigation?
You do realize that the information presented at the time was based on preliminary data right?

Correct.
Here is the preliminary data:
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

There was NO fire in the north east generator room or anywhere on the fifth floor at or before 2:10 p.m.


Therefore, Shyam Sunder LIED when he told Popular Mechanics that there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

No, you are the conspiracy liar: you deliberately spread falsehoods to promote a pernicious and preposterous myth. It is not a "fact" that Sunder lied. You are lying when you claim it's a fact. If Sunder made a mistake, he and the other real researchers, were not wedded to it. When the evidence led elsewhere, their findings reflected reality, not their subjective wishes--the opposite of your approach.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

When will you be taking your blockbuster "evidence" to a real news outlet? Oh, never? Why is that?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The evidence in the preliminary report conclusively showed that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m. This did not change in the final report.

And the final report states that fires on the floor in question, if any, did not burn long or intense enough to have contributed to the collapse.......

Hello?
I am NOT criticizing the preliminary report!

NIST Appendix L, and the data used in the popular mechanics article that you're criticizing were published immediately prior to the commencement of the final WTC 7 report. If the investigation data that they were using at the time wasn't preliminary, then what was it?

The photo conclusively shows that there was NO fire up until this time.

It indicates that there was no substantial fire (if any at all) at the time the photograph was taken... NIST has already addressed this in their final report.

This includes factoring in whether or not any such fuel fire would have burned long enough to have spread significantly throughout that floor. If it didn't burn sufficiently long enough, then it's no surprise that visible damage from the vantage point of the photograph wouldn't be apparent.

There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.

Rhetorical question... What does the final draft of the report state regarding the generator fire hypothesis? Will you continue to argue the 2004 preliminary hypothesis in which popular mechanics brings this up, or will you in fact acknowledge that the final draft has sufficiently answered regarding this matter?

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.

You've still failed to substantiate that it was Sunder that even stated this... as has already been pointed out, this is not a direct quotation from him.

source

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."

It doesn't take much reading comprehension to distinguish between what is part of the PM commentary, and that of a direct quotation. The red is what really should have caught your attention.... If you're unable to distinguish the two, return to school, I don't give language arts classes.

Since it's obvious you have no intention of even reading the updated PM site here it is for you:

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires."

From here on if you insist on trying to argue this matter further you'll be linked back to this post. I'm not going to babysit you on reading comprehension skills.

The editors of PM did not make this up, they got it from Shyam Sunder.
[/SIZE][/B]

If you actually paid attention, the building overall burned for 7 hours prior to the collapse. Whether Sunder himself stated to PM directly that floor 5 burned for 7 hours, you've made totally unsubstantiated claims from an excerpt which isn't even a direct quote. And for several pages you've continued at failing to substantiate your claim.

Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Nice dodge... I've bolded where you've made your error. Let me ask you again:

Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken?

What wonderful double speak.
He based his comments on his false assertion that there was a fire in the north east generator room.

"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

no.... I'm actually taking his quote into context, something you have repeatedly failed to do.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST Appendix L, and the data used in the popular mechanics article that you're criticizing were published immediately prior to the commencement of the final WTC 7 report. If the investigation data that they were using at the time wasn't preliminary, then what was it?

Conclusive.
The evidence conclusively proved that there was NO FIRE IN THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM AT OR BEFORE 2:10 P.M.

You are trying to imply that because this conclusive proof was in a preliminary report that it wasn't conclusive.

That's just double talk.

There is absolutely NO possibility of a fire lasting up to 7 hours in the north east generator room.

Rhetorical question... What does the final draft of the report state regarding the generator fire hypothesis?

It is a statement of fact, not a question. And don't try to change the subject to the final report.

Stop denying and dancing around the fact that

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.

You've still failed to substantiate that it was Sunder that even stated this... as has already been pointed out, this is not a direct quotation from him.

Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Your fanatic loyalty to the Cheney/Bush appointed lead 'investigator' forces you to deny the obvious.

 

[funk de fino]

C7, I have yet to see a source for your claims about the louvers?

Which were the ventilations, which were the exhaust? What was covering them on the outside?

Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Except that defence is continually used in court. Someone makes statements to journalist. Journalist writes piece which interprets said statements. When piece comes out the information provided has been incorrectly stated in the piece. Unless you have a transcript of Sunder saying these words then you have nothing. Why dont you take this up with Pop Mechs or Sunder?

You are making accusations based on assumption. You also originally tried to make it look like those words were Sunders by cherry picking them from the piece. You are the liar here not Sunder.

You have cried fake about photos in thread in this forum, are you saying now they are not fake and if so were you lying?

 

[Christopher7]

C7, I have yet to see a source for your claims about the louvers?

Which were the ventilations, which were the exhaust?

[FONT=&quot]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][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]​

That's what I said over a year ago.
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
[FONT=&quot]Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.
[/FONT]

Except that defence is continually used in court. Someone makes statements to journalist. Journalist writes piece which interprets said statements. When piece comes out the information provided has been incorrectly stated in the piece.

When the piece came out, Sham Sunder did not say it was incorrect.

Unless you have a transcript of Sunder saying these words then you have nothing. Why dont you take this up with Pop Mechs or Sunder?

Get serious.

It is perfectly clear that they are both talking about a fire on floor 5

[FONT=&quot]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."

[/FONT]The evidence available at the time was conclusive. There was NO fire on floor 5. Sham Sunder LIED!

 

[funk de fino]

[FONT=&quot]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][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]​

Ok so you are saying NIST used the simulation to prove this. This was not done in 2004. Is that a quote from the report?

That's what I said over a year ago.
8th February 2007, 10:08 PM
[FONT=&quot]Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.
[/FONT]

This was how long after the Pop Mech piece?

What was covering the louvers C7?

When the piece came out, Sham Sunder did not say it was incorrect.

How do you know he even read it? Whats with the childish namecalling of Sunder? How old are you pal?

Get serious.

You would have to if you took it to court C7. You have nothing and you attempted to deceive about the claims for a 7 hour fire on floor five and saying they were Sunders words. You lied.

It is perfectly clear that they are both talking about a fire on floor 5

[FONT=&quot]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."

[/FONT]The evidence available at the time was conclusive. There was NO fire on floor 5. Sham Sunder LIED!

No, it is not, it is only clear to someone who has made ridiculous paranoid and delusional claims many times on this forum. The evidence was not conclusive. Diesel was missing. Where had it gone?

lets see what sunder said and if it was true.

There was no firefighting in WTC 7

= True

"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel for a long period of time."

= true

Now lets look at the Pop Mechs editorial

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours.

= Not true as we know now. Now who said that? Sunder or was it Pop Mechs editorial interpretation of what he said.

However this is not tied to anything that Sunder has said. Anyone saying the fire when talking about WTC7 is not always talking about the fire on floor 5, whatever Pop Mechs printed.

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT="][SIZE=3]The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the [B]louvered openings [/B]on the east side of the building in a very short time. [B]Significant plumes of[/B] [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][B][FONT="]smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence[/FONT][/B][/SIZE][FONT="][SIZE=3].[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[QUOTE="funk de fino, post: 4124604, member: 18244"]Ok so you are saying NIST used the simulation to prove this.

No. A computer simulation cannot tell you that smoke will exit through the louvered openings unless you tell the computer there are louvered openings.

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew there were louvered openings when Mr. Sunder LIED to PM about fires on floor 5.

Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated.


​

 

[Christopher7]

If Sunder made a mistake, he and the other real researchers, were not wedded to it. When the evidence led elsewhere, their findings reflected reality

Not so. The evidence they had at the time proved that there was NO fire on floor 5.

Are you aware that any room containing diesel engines has to be ventilated?

Do you think that Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST did not know this when Mr. Sunder told PM there was a fire on floor 5?

 

[funk de fino]

​

No. A computer simulation cannot tell you that smoke will exit through the louvered openings unless you tell the computer there are louvered openings.

Shyam Sunder and the experts at NIST knew there were louvered openings when Mr. Sunder LIED to PM about fires on floor 5.

Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated.

So you have no source for the open vents? Only a source regarding the auto opening vents?

Ventilation does not have to be vents C7

What was covering the louvers C7?

You have reverted to type and missed out stuff from my post.

 

[Christopher7]

So you have no source for the open vents? Only a source regarding the auto opening vents?

Hello?
[FONT="][SIZE=3]The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the[B][SIZE=7]louvered openings[/SIZE] [/B]on the east side of the building in a very short time. [B]Significant plumes of[/B] [/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=3][B][FONT="]smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence[/FONT][/B][/SIZE][FONT="].[/FONT]

Can you grasp the concept that a room with diesel engines must have ventilation?

What was covering the louvers C7?

How is that relevant?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Conclusive.
The evidence conclusively proved that there was NO FIRE IN THE NORTH EAST GENERATOR ROOM AT OR BEFORE 2:10 P.M.

The photograph in question indicates two things:

• There was no apparent fire at the time it was taken
• any fire that might have been induced by fuel leakage would not have burned long enough or hot enough to have contributed to structural failure.

Continued below...

You are trying to imply that because this conclusive proof was in a preliminary report that it wasn't conclusive.

They had a working hypothesis which had not conclusively established that the fuel lines would have been responsible for any significant fires. And you're blindly cherry-picking from a 2005 article as if NIST itself had assumed there was a "7-hour fire on floor 5." I'm not implying anything other than your dishonesty...

That's just double talk.

Fix yer cherry picking pirate...

It is a statement of fact, not a question. And don't try to change the subject to the final report.

Stop denying and dancing around the fact that

Shyam Sunder LIED to Popular Mechanics about a fire on floor 5 lasting up to 7 hours.


Please. That is the silliest of all defenses.
It is self evident that they got the information from Sunder.

Please review Post #5148 and Post# 5150

Yes! There is NO reason to think a fire got started in the north east generator room after this time.

Have you an answer regarding the remainder of the question?
"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? Clearly fires, if any, as per the conclusion reached in the final draft of the WTC 7 NIST report were not serious enough, or long lasting enough to have contributed to the collapse. How might this affect your ongoing claim?"

I even rephrased the question for you when you interpreted the 1st sentence of this questioning incorrectly:

"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken? [meaning before & after the photo was taken]"

 

[HawksFan]

Perhaps it's just me...lord knows I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree...but I really fail to see the significance of this whole point. What could Shyam Sunder possibly gain by lying to PM in regards to a preliminary hypothesis? And even if he did "lie" and it wasn't the more probable misinterpretation by PM or a misunderstanding on someone's part, what possible relevance could it have now since we have the final report on WTC7 and it doesn't include this alleged fire anyway?

Hell, if all Chris wants is points on something let him have this one. It's completely irrelevant anyway.

 

[Crazytimes]

Perhaps it's just me...lord knows I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree...but I really fail to see the significance of this whole point. What could Shyam Sunder possibly gain by lying to PM in regards to a preliminary hypothesis? And even if he did "lie" and it wasn't the more probable misinterpretation by PM or a misunderstanding on someone's part, what possible relevance could it have now since we have the final report on WTC7 and it doesn't include this alleged fire anyway?

Hell, if all Chris wants is points on something let him have this one. It's completely irrelevant anyway.

Because crazy truthers have to cling on to mistakes in the preliminary reports and explanations to feed their delusions of an inside job. They don't have any actual evidence so these oddities fuel their paranoia

 

[bio]

The photograph in question indicates two things:

• There was no apparent fire at the time it was taken
• any fire that might have been induced by fuel leakage would not have burned long enough or hot enough to have contributed to structural failure.

Continued below...


"Should this photo be deemed representative of the entire duration of the day? In other words, can the picture definitively be deemed representative of any point in time during the day ranging from the time that the fires were initiated in WTC 7, to the time the picture in question was taken? [meaning before & after the photo was taken]"

Is there any "real-world" evidence of fire in the north east generator room, floor 5?