10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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?

The point is, Shyam Sunder LIED and let those LIES stand for 4 years.

Now he is LYING AGAIN.

In the technical briefing on August 26, 2008 Shyam Sunder said that thermal expansion pushed the girder off its support at column 79 [to the west]

The Final draft says that the floor beams buckeled and rocked the girder off its support. [to the east]

These two theories contradict each other.
They are a matter of public record.

This is inexcuseable. They took 3 years, spent millions of dollars, and they can't even get their story straight.
This is FRAUD.
The entire NIST report is a FRAUD.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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?

It's gotten to the point where I just decided to link to posts which he has seemingly forgotten about by repeating the same argument ad nauseum. Christopher is hell bent on proving that the preliminary report is somehow supposed to present a final conclusion of the entire investigation... essentially that any information that changes regardless of future accuracy is still grounds for blatant accusations of fraud. Unfortunately Christophers continually cherry-picks, Quote Mines, poisons the well, virtually every spectrum of fallacy that deals with presentation. He's ignored 5 or 6 posts from the prelimary report where I showed him the context he continues to deny was there and he ignored it every time. Christopher's claims clearly will not hold in a court of law.

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.

I'm pretty well aware that I'm wasting my time trying to debate with him considering everything I said above. I don't expect to convince him, some people are incurable of their paranoia, and that's how reality is. I'm bored and writing this material kills time, and informs people at the same time who lurk through the topic. Then again, it's getting boring having to post links to posts which already address his repetitious claims.

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.

This isn't 2004 anymore, start discussing 2008 and the final report. It's extraordinarily ironic that truthers, or rather for those who don't like the coining term; conspiracy theorists to criticize NIST by claiming they had not followed the scientific method, yet you expect them to skip steps because of of your opinion. I'd really love to see you try making that same suggestion to investigators of any homicide investigation and see how far you get in your push. I can assure you that your position on how the investigation should have taken place is not only warped but wouldn't even be considered in a standard forensic investigation of any kind.

The rest of your post is answered in the multitude of posts that precede this. Take some time to actually read rather than spit out the same material

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher is hell bent on proving that the preliminary report is somehow supposed to present a final conclusion of the entire investigation

Wrong!

Since you obviously did not read this, I will post it again.

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 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.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Wrong!
Since you obviously did not read this, I will post it again.

Read it, answered to it long ago...

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

Except for the volume of fuel which had gone unaccounted for. You conveniently forget that. But finding out what happened to it and what if any role it played is something you'd rather skip. And of course after their lengthy investigation they've since eliminated it as a substantive contributor to the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Except for the volume of fuel which had gone unaccounted for. You conveniently forget that. But finding out what happened to it and what if any role it played is something you'd rather skip. And of course after their lengthy investigation they've since eliminated it as a substantive contributor to the collapse.

After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by HawksFan
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.

This most ceratainly was not a reason to supposedly lie about such a fire, Chris. That much is patently obvious given that NIST does not now use such a fire as a means by which they explain the failure of column 79, nor did NIST ever claim that this was indeed the cause of that failure in any technical paper that NIST put out.

Your taking a comment in a non-technical, popular press article, in which Sunder apparently over looks saying that such a fire was but one possibility, and trying to make this part of a deep conspiracy to mislead the general public is frankly laughable.

The Final draft says that the floor beams buckeled and rocked the girder off its support. [to the east]

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)

The floor beams buckled laterally therefore one of two things had to occur, either the girder moved towards the beams thus shortening the distance the beams were spanning or the beams were trying to get longer and were constrained from doing so thus buckling laterally. Given that there is no mechanism by which the girder would bend to the east, especially at the ends butting against columns 79 and 44 it is quite obvious that the floor beams were expanding, voila, that is what NIST is stating. While this is occuring though the girder is not constrained against rotating axially and it too has expanded (which broke the connections to the columns giving rise to the girder not being constrained against rotation in any axis).

So as the girder expands it is also being pushed west by the beams and it is also twisting slightly therefore the lower side of the girder passes beyond the seat before the upper side. If you wish to characterize this as 'to the east' you are mistaken.

If You are on a train moving west and you walk to the back are you moving east? If you are on a train moving west and you have a bicycle upside down in the aisle with the axles perpendicular to the line of travel of the train and you spin the wheel, one part of the wheel is moving east while another moves west but where is the wheel going?

I cannot for the life of me see how you construe this as the girder dropping off its seat to the east of its original connection given that it would require that NIST state somewhere in the text that the girder was being 'pulled' by those floor beams rather than 'pushed'. Does the text read anywhere that the beams were pulling the girder east Chris?

 

[jaydeehess]

After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.
....
The NIST report is a scientific document. It must be based on sound science.

Do you know at what point they examined the possibility of a diesel fuel fire using the air flow sims? The lengthy investigation included one part that dealt with the fuel fire.
The photos show, that at the time the photos were taken, a fire is not obvious on the fifth floor.
That's it Chris, that's as far as that can go, it cannot go any further, period. NIST prudently decieded to run sims to determine if there was a way by which a fire could be burning unnoticable from the outside, on the fifth floor. It was determined that there was a very low probability of such an event and thus (in combination with other reasons, the fire could not have lasted long enough or been hot enough) it was concluded that a fuel fire on the fifth floor was unlikely in the extreme to have caused the failure of column 79. That, Christopher, is sound science not a jump to conclusion that you state was all that was needed.

When the PM article came out though all that was available was the photos and the diesel fuel fire was still being investigated as a possibility.

 

[GStan]

After a lengthy investigation?

They had the clear and indisputable evidence that diesel fuel fire was not a factor in the collapse when they released the preliminary report.

Therefore, the missing diesel fuel is irrelevant because it was not a factor in the collapse.

It was not clear and indisputable, thus, the term "preliminary report". When the preliminary report was released, they may even have had more evidence in their possession pointing away from diesel fires than evidence pointing towards it, but still believed that the thorough investigation would point to diesel fires. So the diesel fire hypothesis is what they started with. They changed their minds based on the evidence they found. Their final report explanation may not be perfect, but the explanation they've offered has far more evidence supporting it than any other collapse theory that has been put forth, OTers and CTers included.

Even if you could prove that NIST was lying when it released its hypothesis, which you can't, where is this leading?

Even if you can show Sunder to be a proven liar, which you can't, you'll still be left with a NIST hypothesis that is supported by evidence (fire driven collapse), and on your side, a hypothesis that is supported by zero evidence (controlled demolition).

 

[Christopher7]

Your taking a comment in a non-technical, popular press article, in which Sunder apparently over looks saying that such a fire was but one possibility

Why do you keep making excuses for this guy?
It was NOT a possibility. He LIED.
There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor at any time.
There was NO reason to think there was a fire there.
The lame excuse that a fire on floor 5 would be hard to see ignores the fact that fires produce smoke.

The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is a FRAUD based on NOTHING!

The evidence they had at the time proved that diesel fuel fire was NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE!

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.

The floor beams buckled laterally therefore one of two things had to occur, either the girder moved towards the beams thus shortening the distance the beams were spanning or the beams were trying to get longer and were constrained from doing so thus buckling laterally. Given that there is no mechanism by which the girder would bend to the east, especially at the ends butting against columns 79 and 44 it is quite obvious that the floor beams were expanding, voila, that is what NIST is stating. While this is occuring though the girder is not constrained against rotating axially and it too has expanded (which broke the connections to the columns giving rise to the girder not being constrained against rotation in any axis). So as the girder expands it is also being pushed west by the beams and it is also twisting slightly therefore the lower side of the girder passes beyond the seat before the upper side. If you wish to characterize this as 'to the east' you are mistaken.

The first part is so stupid i almost wrote off the whole thing. The second part is very clever but it does not work.
The floor beam would start to sag and start pulling the girder back before it could expand enough to push the girder off its seat.

Once the bolts on the connection at column 79 failed, there would be no axial restraint and the beam at that end would not buckle as NIST proposes.

I cannot for the life of me see how you construe this as the girder dropping off its seat to the east of its original connection given that it would require that NIST state somewhere in the text that the girder was being 'pulled' by those floor beams rather than 'pushed'. Does the text read anywhere that the beams were pulling the girder east Chris?

They don't use the word pull. You actually have to think about it and figure out that is what they are saying.
"[FONT=&quot]Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and [/FONT][FONT=&quot]rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79[/FONT][FONT=&quot] as shown in Figure 8–27 (b)"

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As the floor started to sag and then collapse, it would pull the girder to the east. The top of the girder would be pulled to the east more than the bottom but the bottom would not be pushed to the west.


The technical briefing slide show made no mention of "rocking".
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]“Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat.” [to the west]
This is accompanied with a slide [pg 32] that shows the girder pushed to the west.

[/FONT]​

 

[Christopher7]

It was not clear and indisputable, thus, the term "preliminary report".

Your assertion that nothing in a preliminary report can be conclusive is incorrect.

 

[Christopher7]

The photos show, that at the time the photos were taken, a fire is not obvious on the fifth floor.

Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Any room with diesel engines has to be ventilated!

NIST prudently decieded to run sims to determine if there was a way by which a fire could be burning unnoticable from the outside, on the fifth floor.

Prudent, my elbow!

There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.

There was no reason to think there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

It was determined that there was a very low probability of such an event

There was no probability.

When the PM article came out though all that was available was the photos* and the diesel fuel fire was still being investigated as a possibility.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

*Not so. And you know that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Tell me Chris, do you have x-ray vision?

Prudent, my elbow!

There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.

But there was a missing quantity of fuel. I brought this up earlier:

It's extraordinarily ironic that truthers, or rather for those who don't like the coining term; conspiracy theorists to criticize NIST by claiming they had not followed the scientific method, yet you expect them to skip steps because of your opinion. I'd really love to see you try making that same suggestion to investigators of any homicide investigation and see how far you get in your push. I can assure you that your position on how the investigation should have taken place is not only warped but wouldn't even be considered in a standard forensic investigation of any kind.

Care to try suggesting to a forensic investigator to ignore a piece of evidence that you think is worthless? Come back with the results, I need a good laugh.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

This is exactly the point that NIST makes in it's final draft...

What you are suggesting however is that they ignore one subset of evidence on the basis that another subset indicates otherwise. This like telling a homicide investigator to not take finger prints because you're so sure of your opinion that you think the finger prints will absolutely not say anything about the crime or establish the identity of an intruder. The photograph acts as a catalyst that establishes that at the time it was taken, there was no evidence of ongoing fire, from it can be established that had there been a fire it neither lasted long enough nor burned hot enough to have factored into the collapse.

The point of investigating the fuel was to determine what contribution, if any, regardless of how long or hot a fire it produced, it played into the collapse mechanisms. If they don't investigate every potential mechanism that plays a factor into the collapse then their models will be that much less accurate. And you don't care

 

[GStan]

The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is a FRAUD based on NOTHING!

The evidence they had at the time proved that diesel fuel fire was NOT A FACTOR IN THE COLLAPSE!

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.

The whole diesel fuel hypothesis is prudent, based on the fact that thousands of gallons of diesel fuel were unaccounted for in the rubble or the soil beneath the rubble.

The evidence they had at the time suggested many many contributing factors to the collapse, and it was appropriate to explore them all, even if it meant that their first best guess ended up being incorrect.

The truth movement is the fraud based on nothing.

 

[Christopher7]

Tell me Chris, do you have x-ray vision?

Smoke can be seen coming out of vents without x-ray vision.

But there was a missing quantity of fuel. I brought this up earlier:

The missing fuel is irrelevant because of the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

This is exactly the point that NIST makes in it's final draft...

Precisely my point thank you very much.

They had this photographic evidence when they started investigating.
They could see that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
[any room containing diesel engines must be ventilated]
There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time.
They knew that even if there was a fire there, it would be oxygen starved and would not be a factor in the collapse.

They knew all this in 2004.

 

[GStan]

The missing fuel is irrelevant because of the photo on page 26 of the FEMA report.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

Was there more evidence available at the time to support this? Do you really believe that one photo in the FEMA report, a snapshot of one moment in time out of seven hours, would be enough for NIST to conclude back then that there was no fire in that room at any point during the day?

And forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered, but why is the possibility of a diesel fire isolated to the generator room? I feel like I remember reading that there were pipes that supplied the fuel from outside the room that could have been compromised, thus feeding a diesel fire that was not in the generator room. That possibility is no longer supported, but was that known conclusively as of the preliminary report?

 

[jaydeehess]

Please.
This photo shows there was absolutely no fire in the north east generator room.

Any room with diesel engines has to be ventilated!

That photo is a snapshot of ONE moment in time. Thus of the preliminary report it cannot logically be stated that a fire on the fifth floor never existed. By saying it you must not only have x-ray vision but also the ability to see the entire day through one photo.

As I stated, the diesel generator rooms I have been in have the louvers open when the generator starts. It gets down to -40 C in these parts and allowing cold air into the room when the gen is not running is a great way to ensure that it will NOT START when called upon to do so. Once it is running the cold air will not affect it. Now NYC does not get as cold as it does here but it gets cold enough. What use is a generator that is cold and has a hard time starting when you need it?
In fact the generators in the Arctic did not use room vent louvers, the gens had a separate air supply hose. The room smelled only slightly of fuel and there were three gensets in it, two of which were always running. The heat from them was also used to heat the surrounding buildings.
You do not need to ventilate carbon monoxide since it will only be created when the gen is running and the louvers will be open then.
There is the possibility of fuel fumes but the gen rooms are all sealed off from the rest of the building.

Prudent, my elbow!
There were no reports of fire on the fifth floor.

There was no reason to think there was a fire on the fifth floor.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

The audit of tye fuel left over after the collapse indicated that there was a significant amount missing. There are a few ways for this fuel to show as missing during such an audit. The only way that would be significant to an investigation into the collapse would be if that fuel had burned off during the fires on 9/11 and only likely to play any role if it burned in the east side of the building.

Thus it would be indeed prudent to eliminate the possibility of such a fire by all methods available such as computer air flow sims. NIST also calculated the amount of heat that would result and determined that such a fire would also not be enough to cause the collapse.
That IS indeed how science works Chris.

There was no probability.

The photo was enough to prove that even if a fire did exist in the north east generator room, it would not have been a factor in the collapse.

*Not so. And you know that.

Really? oh you mean the scant eyewitness reports from inside early on in the day. Once again, that would be pertinent to the early part of the day AND it had to be determined if a fire could occur on the fifth floor that would be unnoticeable from the outside later on in the day.

 

[jaydeehess]

And forgive my ignorance if this has already been covered, but why is the possibility of a diesel fire isolated to the generator room? I feel like I remember reading that there were pipes that supplied the fuel from outside the room that could have been compromised, thus feeding a diesel fire that was not in the generator room. That possibility is no longer supported, but was that known conclusively as of the preliminary report?

Fire occurring elsewhere in the building would have been far removed from the area of column 79 and much less likely to have been involved in the initiation of collapse. The feed pipe actually ran from the basement in the west end of WTC 7 up to 5th floor, accross much of 5th floor and then into the gen room at ceiling level.

The missing fuel could have burned off near the center or west end of the building and been even less noticable but it would not have contributed to the collapse initiation. It also could be only missing on paper if there was sloppy book-keeping on the part of the maintenance of the tanks. Faulty calculation of volume from dip measurements or a faulty gauge or a fuel delivery counted twice, for that matter a small and continuous bit of employee theft ( supplement one's income once a week by taking 5 gallons of deisel to your own truck or car every Friday evening for instance). However only if the fuel was burned would it be significant to the investigation of how the building collapsed.

 

[jaydeehess]

Stop thinking up excuses and face reality. Shyam Sunder LIED.

Stop looking under every bed for boogymen! Next thing ya know you'll be leading the witch or Commie hunt.

 

[GStan]

Stop looking under every bed for boogymen! Next thing ya know you'll be leading the witch or Commie hunt.

Commie Hunt?! Can I sign up for that?

 

[jaydeehess]

Commie Hunt?! Can I sign up for that?

As long as you continue to keep the consonants in the correct order thus not violating rule 10 (it use to be rule 8, I think its rule 10 now )

Better yet let's combine it and hunt for the intersecting subset of Commie witches. They would be the most dangerous after all.

Hmmm using truther logic,,,,,,,,,,, wicked witch of the north is a well known witch, and Commies are "Reds", the color associated with the Republican Party is red, Sarah Palin is from Alaska.
OMIGAWD, Sarah Palin is a Commie witch!