10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[GStan]

Part II of this discussion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

^Ouch! Nice find funk.

Get serious.
You are sidestepping the facts by asking a ridiculous question.
There is no need to talk to Mr. Sunder because the facts are in the FEMA and NIST L reports

So it seems the premise is not correct:

There were NO fires reported in the north east generator room at any time.

Wrong.


With that mind:

Therefore:
Either there was no fire or the louvers were closed.
Any fire that might have been would not have air flow and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

Your conclusions are wrong too.

 

[funk de fino]

Credit goes to MikeW for pulling the PDF here. I have been trawling through the stuff released from the comission, and once C7 appeared back thought this would be a good one for him to chew over.

 

[funk de fino]

Bump for C7

You've run away in the other thread from admitting your false claim. How about manning up for this one?

 

[phunk]

If the louvers were open, smoke from a fire would be pouring out. If they were closed, a fire would burn out when it ran out of oxygen.

Unless of course they were open and feeding air IN to the fire.

You never replied to this suggestion the first time. How about now, since there is testimony backing up the theory?

 

[Christopher7]

You claim that evidence "X" proves that there was no fire at all,

No.
a=no fire
b even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse

a) the louvers are open and there is no smoke coming out = no fire
b) the louvers are closed, if a fire existed, it would be starved for oxygen and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

a+b=Even if there was a fire, it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Are you with me so far?

 

[dtugg]

Chris, is Daniel Nigro a liar?

 

[Christopher7]

Oh dear. What is this?

Someone reporting smoke, fires and burning below floor 7 in WTC7 and someone claiming the generators were burning.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00136.pdf


Now, I may be silly but I believe this guy before someone who was not even there.

He is talking about a fire if the south west generator room at the opposite end of the building from where the collapse began.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, is Daniel Nigro a liar?

No

Do you understand what I wrote in post 5365?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, is Daniel Nigro a liar?

double post

 

[dtugg]

No

Then explain this:

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Did the NWO convince him that WTC7 would fall on it's own even though such a thing is impossible and then blow it up right under his nose?

Is your contention that he is an extremely incompetent sheeple?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No.
a=no fire
b even if there was a fire it would not be a factor in the collapse

a) the louvers are open and there is no smoke coming out = no fire
b) the louvers are closed, if a fire existed, it would be starved for oxygen and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

a+b=Even if there was a fire, it would not be a factor in the collapse.

Are you with me so far?

But then you turn right around at the end and acknowledge the possibility that there was a fire caused by the spilled fuel and in doing so fall back on the very conclusion NIST eventually came to...

Please enlighten me, because you seem quite aware that the photos you use are unrepresentative of the entire duration of the event. Is your backtrack to assume the same conclusion as NIST an indication that the position you hold is based on nothing more than the timing in which NIST came to their conclusion?

 

[Bell]

Then explain this:



Did the NWO convince him that WTC7 would fall on it's own even though such a thing is impossible and then blow it up right under his nose?

Is your contention that he is an extremely incompetent sheeple?

Seems like Christopher7 agrees with Nigro then. WTC7 collapsed due to damage and unfought fires. Thanks for clearing this up, Chris!

 

[funk de fino]

He is talking about a fire if the south west generator room at the opposite end of the building from where the collapse began.

Still a report of fires below floor 7 though isnt it?

Just say yes.

You will show us of course that they were the generators you say they were?

 

[Christopher7]

But then you turn right around at the end and acknowledge the possibility that there was a fire caused by the spilled fuel and in doing so fall back on the very conclusion NIST eventually came to...

It falls in the "anything is possible" category and I only included it to make the point that even if it had occurred, it would have not been a factor in the collapse. The experts at NIST are smart enough to come to that same conclusion, but they either failed to do so or they lied.

Please enlighten me, because you seem quite aware that the photos you use are unrepresentative of the entire duration of the event. Is your backtrack to assume the same conclusion as NIST an indication that the position you hold is based on nothing more than the timing in which NIST came to their conclusion?

There were reports of fires from about 11:30 until the collapse. There was NO fire reported in the north east generator room at any time. NIST knew this in 2004. They also knew that even if there were a fire, it would not be a factor in the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Still a report of fires below floor 7 though isnt it?

Just say yes.

You will show us of course that they were the generators you say they were?

But of course.
[FONT=&quot]Mike Catalano, Former Building Engineer WTC7[/FONT]

Mike said that he was assisting in setting up a triage center on the loading dock. He was out on Vesey Street helping set this up when he was told to call Ed Campbell, the head of the building. He walked inside to call him and the tower fell.
[the loading dock opens under the Promenade on the south west corner of the first floor on Vesey Street]

Mike said that the vents on the top of the building and on the 5th floor sucked in the air and jammed the generators and caused them to bum.

He was referring to the generator rooms at the south west corner of WTC 7 on floor 5.

 

[dtugg]

I see no further comment on Nigro. Hmmmmm.....

 

[funk de fino]

But of course.

So, again, you were wrong.

[FONT=&quot]Mike Catalano, Former Building Engineer WTC7[/FONT]

Mike said that he was assisting in setting up a triage center on the loading dock. He was out on Vesey Street helping set this up when he was told to call Ed Campbell, the head of the building. He walked inside to call him and the tower fell.
[the loading dock opens under the Promenade on the south west corner of the first floor on Vesey Street]


[qimg]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6933/loadingdockqx6.jpg[/qimg]


Mike said that the vents on the top of the building and on the 5th floor sucked in the air and jammed the generators and caused them to bum.

He was referring to the generator rooms at the south west corner of WTC 7 on floor 5.

Thats assumption, not proof or even evidence.

try again.

 

[phunk]

a) the louvers are open and there is no smoke coming out = no fire
b) the louvers are closed, if a fire existed, it would be starved for oxygen and could not burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse.

False dichotomy. You're missing an option:

c) The louvers are open, with a fire in the room, with no smoke coming out.

You're missing an important fact. The generator room must have more than one ventilation path, they can't use the same louvers for both intake and exhaust. Just because there isn't smoke coming out those louvers, doesn't mean there's no fire, the smoke could be going another way.

 

[Christopher7]

False dichotomy. You're missing an option:

c) The louvers are open, with a fire in the room, with no smoke coming out.

You're missing an important fact. The generator room must have more than one ventilation path, they can't use the same louvers for both intake and exhaust. Just because there isn't smoke coming out those louvers, doesn't mean there's no fire, the smoke could be going another way.

c) is not an option. Fire is expanding gases. These gasses [smoke] must go somewhere.

You are not familiar with the vent situation. The intake vents were on the east side and had a bank of fans that blew a large volume of air into the room for intake and cooling. The exhaust [not engine exhaust] louvers were on the north wall. The louvers opened when the generators came on and closed when they were off.

 

[Christopher7]

So, again, you were wrong.




Thats assumption, not proof or even evidence.

try again.

No, it was a logical deduction. Read the whole document. He was at the SW corner. He was describing what was happening at the SW corner. He could not see the NE corner.