10 story hole in WTC 7

[pomeroo]

Correct

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]

Have you informed NIST of your technical criticisms of the final report on WTC 7? Why not?

 

[Christopher7]

You've been caught lying.

I have been misquoted and accused of lying. Please quote what you think is a lie.

You have no actual quotes from Sunder

Wrong.
[FONT=&quot]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]

Shyam Sunder stated that there was a 10 story gouge.
He failed to mention that there were three conflicting reports.

The statement was false!

 

[Christopher7]

Have you informed NIST of your technical criticisms of the final report on WTC 7?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.

 

[pomeroo]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.

Say, that's quite a collection of incompetents the charlatan Richard Gage has assembled. Tony Szamboti has been exposed on this forum by the real engineers. He, unlike you, knows when to quit.

 

[funk de fino]

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]

Well you see C7, this is where I am struggling to keep up with your claims. If you read the FEMA report on page 29 it does not state that the louvers are exhaust louvers like you claim. It states that the auto opening louvers are for combustion air and for cooling.

What do you surmise from this? Where is your source that states there are permanently open louvers? I am not being arsey here I would like to see the source. I do not have the WTC7 Final report handy over here.

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

Can you grasp the concept that not all ventilation system for fuels are louvers that are permanently open?

How is that relevant?

If something is covering the louvers then it would be very difficult to tell if they were open, especially from one photograph? No?

 

[funk de fino]

I have been misquoted and accused of lying. Please quote what you think is a lie.

Wrong.
[FONT=&quot]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]

Shyam Sunder stated that there was a 10 story gouge.
He failed to mention that there were three conflicting reports.

The statement was false!

The larger font words above reference that fact that there were conflicting reports. So does the appendix L. He is referencing claims made about the damage. he is saying there was large damage in the face of the buidling and gives approximate sizes and areas and locations. He is not specific in those.

 

[Christopher7]

Say, that's quite a collection of incompetents the charlatan Richard Gage has assembled. Tony Szamboti has been exposed on this forum by the real engineers. He, unlike you, knows when to quit.

So glad you stopped by to make a lot of stupid personal insults.

Would you care to post something relevant?

NIST has proposed two opposing theories on how the critical girder between columns 79 and 44 failed.

As a skeptic, don't you find this a bit curious?

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17794

Will you address the two opposing theories please.

You know C7, if you put your name to that then you are a blatant hypocrite.

COMMENT: To support NIST’s assertion that there was indeed fire present on floor 12 at 5:00pm, NIST has provided a single photograph from an “unknown source” (Figure 5-152, NCSTAR 1-9, p. 237), that was purportedly taken at around 5:00pm, and shows fire in the two windows that comprise the northwest corner. NIST contends that it has determined that this photograph was taken at approximately 5:00pm, with a margin of error of “at least 10 minutes,” using shadow analysis.

REASON FOR COMMENT: We find it unlikely that NIST could estimate the time the “unknown source” photograph in Figure 5-152 was taken with such accuracy.

SUGGESTED REVISION: NIST must explain how it was able to estimate the photograph’s time using shadow analysis to a margin of error even close to 10 minutes.

You are the guy who, in this forum and indeed in this thread I believe, who used shadow matching to cry fake on photos in the NIST appendix L and others.

It would have been better if you had left off the omissions parts at the end. It makes you look like kooks. I guess you were outvoted on that one eh?

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]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]

The larger font words above reference that fact that there were conflicting reports.

No they do not. They modify and qualify the extent of the damage, they do NOT refer to the conflicting reports.
"was scooped out" is NOT modified or qualified. It is a statement of fact.

 

[funk de fino]

[FONT=&quot]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]

No they do not. They modify and qualify the extent of the damage, they do NOT refer to the conflicting reports.
"was scooped out" is NOT modified or qualified. It is a statement of fact.

Then it is your English which is deficient.

About - means he does not know for a fact

Approximately - means he does not know for a fact

About - he does not know for a fact

Was scooped out - means the building was damaged, this is a fact

He does not state there was a 10 storey hole, a 1/3rd of the face and 25% into the building, from bottom to top. He says there was damage approximate to this. This is approximate because they do not know for a fact because there are conflicting reports

It's not difficult C7

ETA - you seem to have jumped post # 5185

 

[Christopher7]

About - means he does not know for a fact
Approximately - means he does not know for a fact
About - he does not know for a fact

Wrong!
About and Approximately in this case mean 'more or less' referring to the size of the gouge.

Was scooped out - means the building was damaged, this is a fact

It means that the building was damaged as described on page 18 and in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32.

He does not state there was a 10 storey hole, a 1/3rd of the face and 25% into the building and to the bottom, from bottom to top approximately 10 stories. He says there was damage approximate to this.

The description is the same as the 10 story gouge described on page 18 and shown in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32.

He stated the area WAS scooped out. He did not say maybe or possibly.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Can you grasp the concept that not all ventilation system for fuels are louvers that are permanently open?

Yes, some of the louvers will open when the fans come on and some are open all the time.

ETA: NIST does not say where the ventilation louvers were.

 

[HawksFan]

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.

1. Please explain to me what he gained by lying.

2. Please explain to me what point you are trying to make here since the WTC7 report completely discounts the input of diesel fuel in the collapse of the building. Oh, and why it has to be a "baseless fraud" and not just an incorrect hypothesis.

Thank you.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

My bad, you were trying to implicate everyone associated with the NIST WTC 7 investigation before when you decried the inclusion of the possibility of a diesel fuel fire in the working hypothysis summary. That was when you were so insenced that this mention was in the second paragraph of the summary. That indicated to you that it was of the utmost importance to the final judgement that NIST would come up with in the final report.
You were wrong! Perhaps you lied since by any logical reading of the summary there was no evidence at all that a diesel fuel fire was central to the NIST hypothysis!

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

Oh come now Chris. Who would have read the original debunking article? People interested in 9/11 and frequent readers of PM. Who would have read the latest article that indicates that NIST has disgarded the fuel fire possibility as improbable? The very same people who read the first article!! Now tell me Chris if the same people read both articles will they still believe that NIST requires a fuel fire and debris damage to be central to the NIST hypothysis as to how the building collapsed?

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, some of the louvers will open when the fans come on and some are open all the time.
.

I just checked with some former co-workers. This was at an airport and of course there were several diesel back up generators at various sites. My memory was that both the intake and exhaust louvers opened at the same time when the diesel started up. I was correct except in one case, in a small non-directional beacon site where the exhaust did not have louvers. instead it was always 'open' to the outside. Of course in all cases the exhaust is connected to a hose to the outside vent/louver, and in ALL cases the room ventilation louvers only opened when the engine started. IF the engine started but he louvers did not open within a set time then the enginewould shut down.

 

[GStan]

I've been away from the forums for quite awhile, however, for some reason I'm not surprised to see that C7 is still hammering away here. What is shocking to me is that funk and jdh still have the patience to respond. I've just scanned the last few pages, and from what I can tell, Christopher is unable to discern the difference between changes that may occur between a preliminary and final report and lying. Is that pretty much it?

 

[HawksFan]

That's what I'm getting from it.

 

[Norseman]

Reality Check

I will suggest that everybody still posting in this thread conducts a reality check by skimming through the first page of this thread. After nearly 2 years, 130 pages and 5198 posts, including this post, one would think that we still are on page one. It is time to walk. This thread should never have gone beyond page one.

ETA.
Especially take look at post #30 by jaydeehess. I think that sums it all up very well.

 

[Christopher7]

1. Please explain to me what he gained by lying.

An explanation for the collapse of column 79.
The working hypothesis was that a diesel fuel fire heated column 79 to a point where it would fail.

2. Please explain to me what point you are trying to make here since the WTC7 report completely discounts the input of diesel fuel in the collapse of the building. Oh, and why it has to be a "baseless fraud" and not just an incorrect hypothesis.

Thank you.

The point is Shyam Sunder LIED when he stated that there was a 10 story gouge as described on page 18 and depicted in the graphics on pages 23, 31 and 32 of the NIST L report.
He LIED to Popular Mechanics when he told them that there was a fire on floor 5 that lasted up to 7 hours.
He let that LIE stand for 4 years.

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was a FRAUD because the evidence NIST had at the time conclusively proved that there was no fire in the north east generator room, where column 79 was located, at 2:10 p.m.
There was no reason to think a fire got started there after this time.

The NIST report is a scientific document. It must be based on sound science.

"No fires were observed on Floor 5, but the lack of windows and the
presence of fuel systems on the south, west, and north floor areas indicate that fire should be considered as a possibility on this floor."

This is baseless speculation. It is NOT science.
This reasoning ignores the fact that smoke would be coming out of the ventilation louvers which any room with diesel engines must have.
It also ignores the fact that even if there was no ventilation, any fire would be oxygen starved and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

NIST acknowledged these facts in the Final draft.

NIST had the evidence that conclusively proved diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report in June of 2004.

There was absolutely NO justification for the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

 

[HawksFan]

There's absolutely no justification for a CD hypothesis, either, but that doesn't stop people from asking NIST to study the possibility.

They acknowledged the fact that diesel fuel played little to no role in the fires that brought down 7. What's the problem? The fact that they looked into the possibility? That's really what you're upset about?