10 story hole in WTC 7

[Grizzly Bear]

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

Christopher's claim, Christopher's burden of proof, unless you'd like to jump in and answer for him. His claim is essentially that his photograph is representative of the entire duration of the day, including before, during, and after the photo was taken. I asked him if he could answer as to elaborate.

At this point whether the 5th floor ever did experience a fire, whatever contribution such would have had on the collapse was at best minimal, and this position is reflected in the current NIST report.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Allow me to illuminate you on Chris' motive in this.

He is , in this case, out show a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the researchers at NIST, the organization as a whole, and specifically S.Sunder, to seed the idea in the general populace that the fires and the impact damge were far worse than was the actuality on 9/11/01. He decried the simple inclusion of a possibility of a fuel fed fire in the preliminary report, he ignored the statement, in the report, that some of the impact damage reports conflicted with each other. Now, some years later he is still attempting to say that the very fact that these were included in the preliminary report and reported upon in PM, shows his case for deliberate misdirection. Orginally Chris claimed that the diesel fuel fed fires were "required" by the NIST hypothysis in order to show how the buildings collapsed. He ignores the fact that he was quite incorrect on that point.(which another person like him would characterize as a lie)

He claims that including the conflicting accounts and mapping the extent of all accounts in a diagram, and including the possibility of a fuel fire is designed to lead the general populace to the conclusion that these caused the collapse. He wishes to also show that PM magazine has actively aided and abetted this supposed act of obfuscation.

Chris ignores the bald fact that PM reported on the final report and that therefore the readership of that magazine now sees PM reporting that NIST has ruled out a diesel fuel fire as causing the collapse and that impact damage played a role only in the fashion by which the building twisted as it collapsed.

So who is it that was deceived then? The readers who have passed away between the two reports? People who went to live under rocks between the two reports? Just how stupid does one have to be in order to read both reports (or both reportings on the reports, by PM) and still believe that diesel fuel fires brought down the building?

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Circumstantial evidence only. The survey of the fuel left after the collapse and how much should have been in them indicates that a large quantity is missing. Thus the impetus to find out if there was a possibility that this fule was consumed in a fire near the zone of initial collapse.

Chris claims that an examination of the photos is all that is needed to abosolutly, positively, definitively claim that there was zero probability of such a fire being there. Therefore, in Chris' mind, NIST's insistence on thoroughly investigating the possibility by doing computer sims on air flow is soley designed to lead the general populace into believeing that such a fire did exist. Furthermore, in Chris' mind, the bald fact that NIST has determined that such a fire had a very low probability of existance makes no difference because the general populace has now moved on and is not even listening to any more NIST reports. This means that they will not question how the building fell, they will still believe that fuel fed fires caused it.(in Chris' mind)

 

[bio]

Christopher's claim, Christopher's burden of proof, unless you'd like to jump in and answer for him. His claim is essentially that his photograph is representative of the entire duration of the day, including before, during, and after the photo was taken. I asked him if he could answer as to elaborate.

At this point whether the 5th floor ever did experience a fire, whatever contribution such would have had on the collapse was at best minimal, and this position is reflected in the current NIST report.

I do not know about "burden of proof" you are talking about. Do you want to drive C7 crazy?
There are photos of the north-east corner, floor 5 in following posts:
post 5145: photo from 2:10 pm. It shows no signs of smoke or flames.
post 5141: photo from 4:00 pm. It shows light signs of smoke.

For me, there was at best a light smouldering fire in floor 5 at 4:00 pm ... but we do not know, from were the smoke came from - perhaps from the above fire?

 

[HawksFan]

Ah, thanks. So my original thought that Chris' point was...eh...pointless was the correct one.

 

[Christopher7]

Ah, thanks. So my original thought that Chris' point was...eh...pointless was the correct one.

There are two points here.

1) Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated the 10 story gouge as a fact and he LIED when he told PM there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours.

2) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There is no reason to think a fire started there after this time.
Therefore, the hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

 

[Christopher7]

Circumstantial evidence only. The survey of the fuel left after the collapse and how much should have been in them indicates that a large quantity is missing. Thus the impetus to find out if there was a possibility that this fule was consumed in a fire near the zone of initial collapse.

The photograph on page 26 of the FEMA report and the statement on page 22* of the NIST report prove beyond all doubt that there was no diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.

*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 were NO FIRES REPORTED ON FLOOR 5 AT ANY TIME.

[FONT=&quot]NIST acknowledged this fact in the Final Draft.
"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]"

They knew this when Shyam Sunder told PM that the working hypothesis was:
[FONT=&quot]"Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

[/FONT]The hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.


The LIES and FRAUD continued in the technical briefing and the Final Draft.

In the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
Page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
Shyam Sunder narrates how this occurred.

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]

They can't even keep it straight which LIE to tell.

 

[jaydeehess]

There are two points here.

1) Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated the 10 story gouge as a fact and he LIED when he told PM there was a fire on the fifth floor that lasted up to 7 hours.

2) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report proves beyond all doubt that there was NO fire in the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.
There is no reason to think a fire started there after this time.
Therefore, the hypothesis that diesel fuel fires may have contributed to the collapse is a BASELESS FRAUD.

I am quite sure that if Hawksfan read any of the last page or two he understood that you are continually re-stating the above Chris.
That is not what he asked about.

Do my posts 5162 and 5163 sum up your position concerning the significance of the above quote?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I do not know about "burden of proof" you are talking about. Do you want to drive C7 crazy?
There are photos of the north-east corner, floor 5 in following posts:
post 5145: photo from 2:10 pm. It shows no signs of smoke or flames.
post 5141: photo from 4:00 pm. It shows light signs of smoke.

For me, there was at best a light smouldering fire in floor 5 at 4:00 pm ... but we do not know, from were the smoke came from - perhaps from the above fire?

Aside from your response to my question making the same mistake as Chris, where I asked about the validity of the photo as a representative of the entire time (I was asking if the photo was representative of circumstances before the photo was taken as well), your conclusion seems to be somewhat similar to the one NIST determined in its final report wherte they downplayed the role of the fuel after investigating it....

If that's the case, then in this instance I don't have any issues with your conclusion, the point is pretty much exactly that which Jaydeehess brings up regarding chris' total reliance on a single photo.

 

[jaydeehess]

<<snip spam>>
The LIES and FRAUD continued in the technical briefing and the Final Draft.

In the NIST technical briefing and the slide show/document titled;
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster August 26, 2008
Page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]
Shyam Sunder narrates how this occurred.

In NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 page 353 [397 on pg counter] it says:
"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 [to the east]

They can't even keep it straight which LIE to tell.

Both show the failure occuring with the floor beams pushing to the west.
If the floor beams were deflecting laterally then it means that they were pushing against the W33X130 girder. They were also sagging so the girder was being pushed west and twisted. The bottom of the girder would be going west while the top being twisted (rotated) eastward. The globall movement of the end of the girder is therefore westward even though the top of it is being twisted counterclockwise(looking south). The girder would come off its seat at the bottom and thus the characterization of it moving west

Diagram 8-26 is more clear concerning this IMO, than is 8-27. The floor beams are pushing west, they are constrained by the W30X130 girder, they also sag twisting the girder but obviously the bottom of the girder will come off the seat as it moves west.

 

[Christopher7]

I am quite sure that if Hawksfan read any of the last page or two he understood that you are continually re-stating the above Chris.
That is not what he asked about.

Do my posts 5162 and 5163 sum up your position concerning the significance of the above quote?

He is , in this case, out show a concerted and deliberate effort on the part of the researchers at NIST, the organization as a whole, and specifically S.Sunder, to seed the idea in the general populace that the fires and the impact damge were far worse than was the actuality on 9/11/01.

I am pointing out that the Bush appointed lead investigator is engaging in a fraud and a cover up as did the Bush appointed controller of the 9/11 Commission Report.

He decried the simple inclusion of a possibility of a fuel fed fire in the preliminary report,

Correct

he ignored the statement, in the report, that some of the impact damage reports conflicted with each other.

Mr. Sunder ignored that statement when he told PM that there was a 10 story gouge.

So who is it that was deceived then?

Everyone who read and believed the so called "debunking" article.

Shyam Sunder and PM did not correct the LIES for 4 years nor did they acknowledge or apologize for the LIES.

 

[pomeroo]

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?

You've been caught lying. You have no actual quotes from Sunder and we have the FACT that NIST's definitive final report on the collapse of building 7 does not rely on a fire on the fifth floor. You keep trying to pretend that you're making a point, but you're just another ineducable conspiracy liar flogging a totally debunked myth.

There were no explosives in WTC 7. Period. Your evil movement is dead.

 

[RedIbis]

You've been caught lying. You have no actual quotes from Sunder and we have the FACT that NIST's definitive final report on the collapse of building 7 does not rely on a fire on the fifth floor. You keep trying to pretend that you're making a point, but you're just another ineducable conspiracy liar flogging a totally debunked myth.

There were no explosives in WTC 7. Period. Your evil movement is dead.

Did you just call NIST's report on WTC 7 "definitive"? That is a lie. Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.

But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.
But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.

It would help if you elaborated why that is your evidence rather than just naming it... Are you relying on the same assumptions Christopher makes entirely from external fires... which NIST warns about in analyzing interior fires?
Short of that, let's cut the semantics unless you'd prefer pointing fingers regarding your definition of extremism....

 

[RedIbis]

Showing the true colors now Red?

No, just some simple parody.

It would help if you elaborated why that is your evidence rather than just naming it... Are you relying on the same assumptions Christopher makes entirely from external fires which NIST warns about in analyzing interior fires?

No, I'm curious how the thermal expansion occurred during a cooling phase. Unless you can provide proof otherwise.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, just some simple parody.




No, I'm curious how the thermal expansion occurred during a cooling phase. Unless you can provide proof otherwise.

The problem during the cooling phase actually wouldn't be expansion if I understand correctly... The problem in cooling would be contraction, which would be equally problematic. Cycles of expansion and contraction would lead to deformation of the structural members and instability, and in WTC 7's case the problem would have been exasperated by the long floor spans... I'm pretty sure someone could explain the matter to you better, but that's the general gist of the issue.

 

[RedIbis]

The problem during the cooling phase actually wouldn't be expansion if I understand correctly... The problem in cooling would be contraction, which would be equally problematic. Cycles of expansion and contraction would lead to deformation of the structural members and instability, and in WTC 7's case the problem would have been exasperated by the long floor spans... I'm pretty sure someone could explain the matter to you better, but that's the general gist of the issue.

And this is theoretical of course since there is no physical evidence of this phenomenon.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And this is theoretical of course since there is no physical evidence of this phenomenon.

Erm... nooooooooooo.... it's an applied concept both in physics and architecture. To name an application, think about the purpose of expansion joints which are intended to help relieve physical strain on two independent components of either a structure or in some cases utilities such as plumbing. It's not theoretical at all, and it is factored into steel construction.

This paper is one of many online publications that deal with the concept... outside of NIST
You should also read sections of appendix 4 in the 2005 specifications as well as other parts of the publication located here to find issues where thermal expansion is considered

This would have happened regardless inside WTC 7, the severity and effect of the structural members would have in part been determined by their spans.

 

[pomeroo]

Did you just call NIST's report on WTC 7 "definitive"? That is a lie. Period. And your evil movement of extremism and pyschopathic sycophancy is dead. You're a liar, and your pants are on fire.

But not enough fire to actually cause the collapse of Column 79.

Still trying to "pull it," liar? You never tire of making a laughingstock of yourself. Remember when you pretended that something--something that could not be expressed in words--relating to a column 79 was your long-sought "smoking gun"? Yes, you looked pretty ridiculous. What did that experience teach you? Nothing, of course, but it should have taught you that when you spout empty rhetoric, you get exposed as a complete fraud.

The NIST Report is definitive in that it lays out a comprehensive hypothesis for the examination of serious researchers. You unscrupulous liars are the antithesis of serious researchers. You peddle your pathetic falsehoods and fabricate bogus science and distort the words of people who don't share your fantasies, but you never actually do anything. You have nothing to offer but your nonsense about imaginary explosives.

Remember, we rationalists are not wedded to NIST as you liars are wedded to your delusions. We are open to correction: you are not. Have you informed Mike Newman of NIST of your findings? Why not?

How dare a silly, dishonest charlatan like yourself accuse someone who values the truth of your own greatest failing!

 

[Christopher7]

Both show the failure occuring with the floor beams pushing to the west.
If the floor beams were deflecting laterally then it means that they were pushing against the W33X130 girder.

Correct

They were also sagging

Incorrect
Neither the Technical Briefing slide show or the Final draft say the beams sagged.
They site axial expansion as the cause of the failure of the girder.

"Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398 °C, all four erection bolts at column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)." [to the east]

On page 33 of the Technical Briefing it states that "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat" [to the west]