10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

One of the dumbest statements is implying that people in the government are capable of covering anything up.

Another denial fallacy. It assumes that the government can't keep a secret. How could you possibly know what you don't know?

Stupid would be stating that they simply say nothing because they don't confess. People sell others out, things get leaked. This would be the first time in history something didn't get leaked.

Subject shift.

Can you deny these fasts?

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

 

[funk de fino]

Your question is stupid. If you don't know the answer to that, you are dumber than a brick.

It is not stupid C7. You just do not like what the answer does to your claims.

There are covers on the louvers. From the outside it is difficult to see wether they are open or not. From one photograph it is almost impossible to see if they are open. These louvers open automatically when the gennies start to draw in air for cooling and ventilation. They are not exhaust or vent louvers as you have claimed. There are not permanently open louvers either.

If it was not possible to determine from the 2:10 photograph if the louvers were open or not then you could not use that photo to say if there was a fire in floor 5 or not.

Therefore, the diesel fire hypothesis should still have been investigated when you take into account the missing diesel and changing smoke colours during the course of the day.

reported for insult also.

 

[Crazytimes]

That's one of the dumbest denier statements. People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

They dont ????? People don't confess to murder ??

Wow....after you saying my statement was dumb.

So tens od thousands of people are covering something up. Nothing has leaked, no one has come forward, they didn't tell a single person who outed them. You are living in a fantasy. Come back to reality.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

However, that's not what people are discussing here. Your earlier claim was that the photographs proved there was no fire on the floor in question at all, and that because of this their investigation into the fuel's contribution to the fire, and ultimate contribution to the collapse was unjustified.

You have apparently shifted goal posts since this issue was first addressed to you. So in response to:

That's one of the dumbest denier statements. People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

This is just another denial tactic to change the subject.

Can you deny these fasts?

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

the bolded, does this mean that you agree that there was a potential fire before the photo was taken on the floor in question? Yet in the context of a preliminary investigation, you disagree that this should have been at least looked into to see if any such fire contributed sugnificantly to the collapse....

 

[GStan]

There's nothing prudent about investigating something when the evidence clearly shows that it was NOT a factor in the collapse. The diesel fuel fire hypothesis was about a possible fire in the NE generator room. There was NO evidence of a fire there and no reason to think there was a fire there. As long as you keep ignoring the fact that there was NO BASIS for the diesel fuel fire in the NE generator room i will keep reminding you of the facts.

There was a large quantity of diesel fuel unaccounted for. Keep ignoring that. Maybe someday it magically won't be the truth anymore. Until that time, it will be enough to have based the initial working hypothesis on. Its enough for me. Its enough for Shyam Sunder. Its enough for the hundreds of professionals at NIST who allowed their names and reputations to be put to the report without objection. Its enough for virtually the entire fire safety and structural engineering community in the entire country. You have not come even close to proving a lie. In fact, your assertion that there was NO BASIS for the diesel fire hypothesis is itself a lie.

The photo clearly showed that even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

How does a single photo clearly show what happened for 7 hours. Aren't you embarrassed to be peddling this crap? The photo shows that there was no fire or smoke coming from the louvres at the exact moment the photo was snapped. That's it. Hell, it doesn't even prove definitively that there was no fire in the room at that time. Air flow fluctuations, oxygen level fluctuations, minor internal collapses. And have you never heard of a backdraft?

AND WHO F***ING CARES ABOUT THIS ANYWAY?

NIST HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BUILDING DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM DIESEL FIRES. THEY'RE NOT HIDING IT. THEY'VE PUT ALL THE INFORMATION THEY'VE USED TO REACH THEIR CONCLUSION IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW. THE ONLY WAY YOUR MORONIC ACCUSATIONS MAKE ANY POSSIBLE SENSE IS IF VIRTUALLY EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND FIRE SAFETY PROFESSIONAL IN THE COUNTRY, EITHER BY THEIR CONCURRENCE OR THEIR SILENCE, IS PART OF THE LARGEST, MOST DEMONIC, HYPER-COMPETENT, (AND AT THE SAME TIME, MOST BLATANTLY RETARDED) CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

 

[GStan]

Another denial fallacy. It assumes that the government can't keep a secret. How could you possibly know what you don't know?


Subject shift.

Can you deny these fasts?

Yes.

1) There were NO reports of fire in the NE generator room at any time.

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence, although since you're starting with such a weak argument, you can't really afford to cut any of the tiny threads holding it together, can you?

2) The photo taken at 2:10 p.m. proves that either there was no fire or any possible fire would not have enough oxygen to burn very long.

Lie. It proves that there was no fire or smoke coming from the louvres at the time the photo was snapped. Since you have no other photos at any other points during the day, the extrapolation you've made from this one photo is just baseless speculation.

3) There was NO reason to think a diesel fuel fire would start there after this time.

There was a large quantity of deisel fuel missing. It was reason enough to think there was a diesel fire. It was the best available hypothesis at that time.

 

[GStan]

That's one of the dumbest denier statements.

You claim CT's statement was dumb, but in response, you post something that is dumb to the 8th power, like this:

People don't just come forward and confess to murder.

<SNIP>

Will you be providing any evidence to back up that claim? Or is that just more of your baseless speculation?

 

[jaydeehess]

It is your blind faith in the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory that won't let you admit that there is no basis for the diesel fuel hypothesis or anything else that goes against your religious fantasy.

I do not believe that there was such a thing as a virgin birth 200+ years ago BUT given that there is one report of such an event I do not count it out entirely.

NIST has stated that there is a very low probability of a diesel fuel fire on the 5th floor of WTC 7 and that even had there been it is highly unlikely that it would have caused the initial collapse. THAT is the conclusion reached by what you refer to as the Cheney/Bush conspiracy theory research organization.

I daresay that all here agree with the NIST finding that such an event is of very low probability. There does exist some small chance but the 'official' word is that it was not a factor.

So much for your accusation of religious dogma.

 

[GStan]

Christopher,

Do you have any comprehension of how a group of scientists at NIST would approach coming up with a hypothesis for what caused building 7 to collapse?

Do you realize all that they would review?

They look at the blueprints for the building.
They look at structural design elements to identify any areas that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the materials used in the building.
They look at building components to identify any materials used that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the contents of the building.
They try to identify any areas whose concentration of flammable contents may have been high enough to make it more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented structural damage to the building.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess what was damaged to the best of their ability and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented fire progression.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess when and where there were fires and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the video of the collapse sequence.
They try to assess what areas of the structure could most likely have failed to produce the observed collapse sequence.

After looking at ALL of this, they would try to identify the area most vulnerable to failure and develop a working hypothesis for what caused the failure. Then they would develop experiments and models to determine the probability of their hypothesis.

After their preliminary examination of the whole body of evidence, as sound scientists, what they would NOT do, (even though you've made it painfully clear that you would do it this way), is abandon what was, at the time, the best available hypothesis simply because of a single photo and absence of evidence in one of the six above-mentioned areas.

Based on the evidence (and lack thereof) you've provided, your claim that NIST/Shyam Sunder was lying by proposing their initial working hypothesis is a 55-gallon heavy-duty garbage bag filled to the top with nothing but fail.

 

[GStan]

No post from Christopher in almost a week. Perhaps NIST got word that he was getting so close to exposing their obvious lies?

 

[notheist]

There's nothing prudent about investigating something when the evidence clearly shows that it was NOT a factor in the collapse.

DUH!!! To determine something was NOT a factor in the collapse you need to INVESTIGATE.

And unlike the conspiracy theorist loons NIST does investigate. They develop a hypothesis and look at the facts. If the facts don't support the hypothesis they dump the hypothesis. That does not imply the original hypothesis was a lie.

Conspiracy theorist on the other hand will never put forth a cogent hypothesis. Better to ask lots and lots of questions and pretend the mass of question and up to something real.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Your question is stupid. If you don't know the answer to that, you are dumber than a brick.

It is not stupid C7. You just do not like what the answer does to your claims.[/quote=C7] The question is both stupid and sarcastic. You know the answer because it is obvious.

There are covers on the louvers. From the outside it is difficult to see wether they are open or not. From one photograph it is almost impossible to see if they are open.

Right

These louvers open automatically when the gennies start to draw in air for cooling and ventilation. They are not exhaust or vent louvers as you have claimed. There are not permanently open louvers either.
If it was not possible to determine from the 2:10 photograph if the louvers were open or not then you could not use that photo to say if there was a fire in floor 5 or not.

You are still ignoring the fact that if the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out and if they were closed any fire there would not be a factor in the collapse.

Do you agree?
If not, why?

 

[funk de fino]

The question is both stupid and sarcastic. You know the answer because it is obvious.

Right

You are still ignoring the fact that if the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out and if they were closed any fire there would not be a factor in the collapse.

Do you agree?
If not, why?

I am not ignoring anything. Your earlier claims regarding the louvers were wrong and now we have established that we can see that one photograph, taken at some point during the day, that does not show whether the louvers are open or not cannot be used to say there was no fire on Floor 5.

How do you know what the air supply in the damaged building would have been for a fire with closed louvers?

This photograph cannot be used as evidence against a fire on Floor 5 that may have contributed to the collapse.

You also missed this part of my post.

Therefore, the diesel fire hypothesis should still have been investigated when you take into account the missing diesel and changing smoke colours during the course of the day.

 

[Christopher7]

I am not ignoring anything. Your earlier claims regarding the louvers were wrong and now we have established that we can see that one photograph, taken at some point during the day, that does not show whether the louvers are open or not cannot be used to say there was no fire on Floor 5

If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.

How do you know what the air supply in the damaged building would have been for a fire with closed louvers?

The damage was to the other end of the building.

This photograph cannot be used as evidence against a fire on Floor 5 that may have contributed to the collapse.

Yes it can, for the reason i stated above.

You also missed this part of my post.

Missing diesel fuel is NOT evidence of a fire at the opposite end of the building. There were no reports of smoke or fire from the north east generator room at any time. There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

 

[funk de fino]

If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.

You cannot say for certain because you were not in the building that day.

It could have been oxygen starved. From one photo you cannot say that there was no fire in that floor therefore it had to be investigated. They did and found out a diesel fuelled fire did not contribute to the collapse. The normal fire was enough.

The damage was to the other end of the building.

All of it? And they knew that at the time?

Yes it can, for the reason i stated above.

No, it cannot be used to rule out any prospect of a fire in that floor during that day.

Missing diesel fuel is NOT evidence of a fire at the opposite end of the building. There were no reports of smoke or fire from the north east generator room at any time. There was NO reason to think there was a fire in the north east generator room.

Missing diesel fuel had to have gone somehwere so they had to investigate if it had burned.

 

[Christopher7]

If the louvers were closed, any fire that might have been would be oxygen starved and therefore not a factor in the collapse.

You cannot say for certain because you were not in the building that day.

Please
The north east generator room was NOT damaged by debris. It was necessarily air tight because of the fans that blew a great deal of air into the room.

The only ventilation was the louvers.

If they were open smoke would be pouring out.

If they were closed a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

It's so simple a child could understand.

It could have been oxygen starved. From one photo you cannot say that there was no fire in that floor / therefore it had to be investigated.

Right / wrong. Even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

They did and found out a diesel fuelled fire did not contribute to the collapse.

They knew that in 2004

The normal fire was enough.

That's another subject. We are discussing the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

The damage was to the other end of the building.

All of it? And they knew that at the time?

Yes, they knew that there was no debris damage on the east and north sides.

No, it cannot be used to rule out any prospect of a fire in that floor during that day.

True

Missing diesel fuel had to have gone somehwere so they had to investigate if it had burned.

Why? It was clear that the diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.

 

[funk de fino]

Please
The north east generator room was NOT damaged by debris. It was necessarily air tight because of the fans that blew a great deal of air into the room.

was it airtight that day after the collapse of the towers?

The only ventilation was the louvers.

How do you know? What about the diesel engine ventilation you say should have been there?

If they were open smoke would be pouring out.

If they were closed a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen

That photograph was one moment in time on that day.

It could not be used to say one way or the other whether a fire was burning on that floor at ay time apart from when it was taken.

It's so simple a child could understand.

Attempted insult noted.

Right / wrong. Even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse.

They knew that in 2004

They did not know that, you are lying again.

That's another subject. We are discussing the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.

We are supposed to be discussing the 10 storey hole.

Yes, they knew that there was no debris damage on the east and north sides.

There was reported damage east of centre

True

Good, this is not what you have tried to claim earlier.

Why? It was clear that the diesel fuel played no part in the collapse.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You are a blatant hypocrite C7. You have used photos to call NIST liars, yet in the same thread you have called photos faked.

You have called NIST misleading for using shadows to determine time yet you have done exactly the same thing to support your arguments.

You have used a magazine articles words to try and say that Shyam Sunder said them.

You will not directly contact the people you are calling liars to get clarification.

 

[GStan]

Christopher,

Do you have any comprehension of how a group of scientists at NIST would approach coming up with a hypothesis for what caused building 7 to collapse?

Do you realize all that they would review?

They look at the blueprints for the building.
They look at structural design elements to identify any areas that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the materials used in the building.
They look at building components to identify any materials used that might have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the contents of the building.
They try to identify any areas whose concentration of flammable contents may have been high enough to make it more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented structural damage to the building.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess what was damaged to the best of their ability and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the verbally reported and photo/video documented fire progression.
(All of it, not just selective pieces that support pre-determined conclusions.) They try to assess when and where there were fires and identify any areas that may have been more vulnerable to failure than others.

They look at the video of the collapse sequence.
They try to assess what areas of the structure could most likely have failed to produce the observed collapse sequence.

After looking at ALL of this, they would try to identify the area most vulnerable to failure and develop a working hypothesis for what caused the failure. Then they would develop experiments and models to determine the probability of their hypothesis.

After their preliminary examination of the whole body of evidence, as sound scientists, what they would NOT do, (even though you've made it painfully clear that you would do it this way), is abandon what was, at the time, the best available hypothesis simply because of a single photo and absence of evidence in one of the six above-mentioned areas.

Based on the evidence (and lack thereof) you've provided, your claim that NIST/Shyam Sunder was lying by proposing their initial working hypothesis is a 55-gallon heavy-duty garbage bag filled to the top with nothing but fail.

Given all that NIST would have to investigate with respect to building 7, why should they have abandoned their hypothesis based on a single photo and absence of evidence?

Why would you not contact them for clarification, if for no other reason than to force them to create another lie in response to your inquiry, thus firming up the case for the eventual prosecution of these alleged crimes?

Does it not give you pause at all that for your allegations to be true, not only does Shyam-Sunder have to be a liar, but also he has to have convinced every scientist who either worked on the report or reviewed it to lie as well about something that is so "obvious" that even an unqualified layman like yourself can identify it?

 

[Christopher7]

Given all that NIST would have to investigate with respect to building 7, why should they have abandoned their hypothesis based on a single photo and absence of evidence?

1) Because it was enough to establish that there was no fire at 2:10 p.m. and no reason to think there was a fire later.
2) There were no reports of fire there at any time.
3) Even if there were a fire there it would not be a factor in the collapse.

The outright refusal to grasp these simple facts shows that everyone here is in denial or getting paid to keep this merry-go-round going around.

Why would you not contact them for clarification, if for no other reason than to force them to create another lie in response to your inquiry, thus firming up the case for the eventual prosecution of these alleged crimes?

Dumb question.
Hey mister, did you lie in this report? No? OK, thank you very much.

Does it not give you pause at all that for your allegations to be true, not only does Shyam-Sunder have to be a liar, but also he has to have convinced every scientist who either worked on the report or reviewed it to lie as well about something that is so "obvious" that even an unqualified layman like yourself can identify it?

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?

 

[Baylor]

1)
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents to further their political agenda. It only requires a few people at the top to falsify a report.

Why do you still fanatically believe and support the Bush administration?