10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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...

Was there more evidence available at the time to support this?

Yes, there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor at any time.
Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would have produce smoke that would have been visible.

The photo on pg 26 of the FEMA report is enough to establish:
1) There was no fire in the north east generator room at or before 2:10 p.m.
2) Even if there was a fire in this room, it would not be a factor in the collapse. A fire with no ventilation could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

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?

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

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?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

There you go again trying to justify leaving out evidence in a preliminary report... Have you suggested anything similar to your local homicide investigators? They should be itching to get some feedback from you on you fantastic ability to determine instantaneously when something can be skipped.

Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

In a preliminary report, was it baseless to investigate what happened to the fuel?

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.

Looks to me like it was part of a subset of other causes being considered, in otherwords, the diesel was stand-alone as a consideration, and they never deemed it a final conclusion:
Source

NIST continues to evaluate the factors that could have caused column 79,
80, or 81 to fail
Possible contributing factors include:

• Damage to components adjacent to truss #2 from debris impact
• Damage to fireproofing from normal activities prior to event or debris
  damage
• Unusual fuel loads (fuel lines, high density of building contents)
  

And while we're here.... I'd like to point out that Outdated information is a subset of logical fallacies.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

You continue to ignore these facts:

1) Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

2)There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and
THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.


Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

 

[Christopher7]

There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and there was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

There you go again trying to justify leaving out evidence in a preliminary report...

Missing fuel is NOT evidence of a fire in the north east generator room.

No reports of fire on floor 5 at any time is evidence that there was not a fire in the north east generator room.

THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.

In a preliminary report, was it baseless to investigate what happened to the fuel?

Investigating the possibility of a fire in the north east generator room when there was NO evidence of a fire is BASELESS SPECULATION.

Investigating the possibility that a fire in the north east generator room might cause column 79 to weaken to the point of failure is BASELESS SPECULATION.

The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was in reference to heating column 79 to the point where it would fail. A potential diesel fuel fire anywhere else would not have effected the initiating event.

Looks to me like it was part of a subset of other causes being considered, in otherwords, the diesel was stand-alone as a consideration, and they never deemed it a final conclusion:
Source

The "working hypothesis" was about a fire in the north east generator room that led to the failure of column 79.

PM Magazine
[FONT=&quot]. . . . 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]

 

[jaydeehess]

You continue to ignore these facts:

1) Any room with diesel engines would be ventilated and any fire would vent smoke through those vents.

2)There were NO reports of fire on floor 5 at any time and
THERE WAS NO REASON TO THINK THERE WAS A FIRE ON FLOOR 5.


Baseless speculation has no place in a scientific document.

Does your browser have a problem? You missed my next paragraph;

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.

Anyway it is YOU who ignores the bald unadulterated FACT that a diesel fuel fire was NOT a requirement by which NIST would explain the failure of column 79. Sunder would have gained absolutly nothing by supposedly lieing in the interview with PM since IF he knew it was not going to be a part of the final draft it would be reported as such in PM at that time.

ETA: removed personal assesment of Chris

 

[Christopher7]

Does your browser have a problem? You missed my next paragraph;

As I stated, the diesel generator rooms I have been in have the louvers open when the generator starts.
There is the possibility of fuel fumes but the gen rooms are all sealed off from the rest of the building.

Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Anyway it is YOU who ignores the bald unadulterated FACT that a diesel fuel fire was NOT a requirement by which NIST would explain the failure of column 79.

Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
[FONT=&quot]. . . . 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]

[FONT=&quot]NIST IIC 4-5-05 Pg 28
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Initiating Event: Thermal-Structural Response of Critical Components[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Columns 79 and 81 at Floors 5-7[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Possible Modes of Column Failure:[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]􀂉[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Squashing (Yielding) of Column[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]􀂉[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cover Plate Weld Failure[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]􀂉[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Failure of Column Splice[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 39
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]• [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]• [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Shyam Sunder's Testimony to the New York City Council 9-8-06
[/FONT] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

[FONT=&quot]His entire statement was about a possible diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.
[/FONT]

 

[pomeroo]

Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
[FONT=&quot]. . . . 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]

[FONT=&quot]NIST IIC 4-5-05 Pg 28 [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]Initiating Event: Thermal-Structural Response of Critical Components[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]Columns 79 and 81 at Floors 5-7[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]Possible Modes of Column Failure:[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]��[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Squashing (Yielding) of Column[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]��[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Cover Plate Weld Failure[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]��[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Failure of Column Splice[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]Pg 39 [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]• [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Critical columns (79, 80, 81) carrying large loads from about 2,000 ft2 of floor area were present on the 5th floor. [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]• [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The 5th floor was the only floor with a pressurized fuel line supplying the emergency power generators. [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=&quot]Shyam Sunder's Testimony to the New York City Council 9-8-06[/FONT]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

[FONT=&quot]His entire statement was about a possible diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room.[/FONT]

How long are you planning to rant mindlessly about statements made years ago and discarded hypotheses?

 

[twinstead]

I remember that the first reports I heard on the radio even before it became aware that it was a terrorist attack on that morning was that a small plane had accidentally crashed into the Pentagon.

Who cares what was discovered later? Further investigation is for losers.

 

[Christopher7]

How long are you planning to rant mindlessly about statements made years ago and discarded hypotheses?

You would like to forget that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them there was a fire on floor 5.
[The working hypothesis was a diesel fuel fire on floor 5]


When will you address the facts?

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

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

So you were wrong about the louvers? They are not exhaust louvers they are for combustion and cooling? Why do you have to snip out stuff C7?

You are very dishonest.

Where is the source that says there are louvers open all the time and that this is the ventilation for the diesel engines? And which ones?

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

 

[pomeroo]

You would like to forget that Shyam Sunder LIED to PM when he told them there was a fire on floor 5.
[The working hypothesis was a diesel fuel fire on floor 5]

I have occasionally posted on this insane thread, but I recognize the futility of it all. What does it take to convey to you the meaning of the word "lie"? A simple concept, really: a statement that is a) untrue; b) known to be untrue by the person making it is a lie. A mistake is not a lie. An opinion that is later adjusted to conform with new information is not a lie.

When will you address the facts?

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

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.

You don't care about facts: you are a conspiracy liar. Will you ever enter the year 2008 and address the NIST Report?

 

[Christopher7]

What does it take to convey to you the meaning of the word "lie"? A simple concept, really: a statement that is a) untrue; b) known to be untrue by the person making it is a lie. A mistake is not a lie. An opinion that is later adjusted to conform with new information is not a lie.

I listed the facts that clearly show Shyam Sunder knew that there was no fire on floor 5 when he told PM there was a fire that could have lasted up to 7 hours.
Furthermore, he knew that even if there was an unseen fire it would not have been a factor in the collapse as it would have no air supply.

You did NOT address those facts.

Instead you just called me a liar. That's a cheap, shoddy way of avoiding the facts.

Again i ask you to address these facts directly.

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

2) There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room on
floor 5.

3) The lame excuse that fires would not be visible because of plenums and louvers ignores the FACT that fires produce smoke.

4) The photo on page 26 of the FEMA report shows NO smoke coming from the north east generator room at 2:10 p.m.

5) If the louvers were closed, any fire would die when the oxygen in the room was consumed.

 

[Christopher7]

Will you ever enter the year 2008 and address the NIST Report?

I have on this thread.
You did not respond to the facts. You just asked a question.

That's a cheap, shoddy way of avoiding a substantive answer.

Please respond to these facts:

Shyam Sunder describes 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
states on page 32: "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat." [to the west]

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]

These two theories cannot both be true.

 

[funk de fino]

What would the covers on the louvers do to the visibility of whether the louvers were open or not? especially from photos?

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you certain that there was no permanent ventilation?

Yes, no full time, continuous ventilation with outside air, none.

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

For a fire inside the gen room when the gen is not running.

Wrong!
The working hypothesis was about diesel fuel fires causing column 79 to fail.

PM Magazine
[FONT=&quot]. . . . 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."

At the time of printing
At the time of printing
At the time of printing
At the time of printing
this was the case for a fire on the fifth floor. Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time? Sure seems like it and of course even you must realize that such a position is completely at odds with reality.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, no full time, continuous ventilation with outside air, none.

OK

If this was the case in WTC 7 then any fire would quickly burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

For a fire inside the gen room when the gen is not running.

Correct, if the louvers were not open, a fire in the NE generator room could not last long due to lack of air.
Therefore it could not be a factor in the collapse.

If the louvers were open, smoke would be pouring out.
There was no fire or smoke reported on floor 5 at any time.

Given these two alternatives, it was clear at the time of printing that diesel fuel fires were NOT a factor in the collapse.

" . . . 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."

At the time of printing this was the case for a fire on the fifth floor.

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

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

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was BASELESS SPECULATION!

Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time?

No

 

[HawksFan]

The whole diesel fuel fire CD hypothesis was is BASELESS SPECULATION!

There. Fixed that for you. Can we move on now?

 

[GStan]

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

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

The whole diesel fuel fire hypothesis was BASELESS SPECULATION!

Have you ever attempted to get in touch with Shyam Sunder to ask him why they used 'diesel fires' as their initial working hypothesis? You can continue to speculate all you want. Everyone here agrees that NIST's initial working hypothesis was incorrect, yet you seem to be the only one here obtuse enough to keep asserting that you know without question that NIST was lying when this hypothesis was proposed.

Why don't you contact Mr. Sunder and explain to him that it was very obvious to anyone who looked at the evidence, even at the time of the preliminary report, that there were no diesel fed fires that contributed to the collapse? Maybe you'll get a shady, sinister, ridiculous answer that could raise some eyebrows amongst the rationalists here at JREF. Or maybe he'll give you a straight answer that you could actually, god forbid, learn something from.

...Or, you can simply keep your fingers your ears, keep your eyes closed, and continue spouting your own baseless speculation.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote jdhess:
Are you really trying to tell us that at the time of printing of that article that NIST was abandoning all other working hypothysis' and that a fire on the fifth floor was the end all and be all at that time?

No

At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse.

The "time of printing" pre-dates, by quite a bit, the final report.
In the final report no diesel fire was claimed to be respsible in any way for the collapse.
Neither was any blast event!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"At he time of printing Shyam Sunder knew that there were NO reports of fire on the fifth floor and that diesel fuel fire was NOT a factor in the collapse."

Chris you are a fraud and a liar. Aside form simply making up this statement, the fact is that the lack of reports does not conclude there were no fires. So at the time the most plausible scenario was exactly what he stated. To claim otherwise is idiocy.

The bottom line is that you have no evidence to support your little CD fantasy so now you are just trying to fling mud to make up for any actual case you have. NIST actually did the work and proved their case. They didn't make a case by trying to put others down. What have you done? Absolutely nothing. If you want to prove NIST wrong, then prove your CD theory. Until then you will not be taken seriously.