10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

chris like magz and christophera likes to see his "thread" bumped up to the top. he's been debunked. end of story. he wont wait till the official report is out, and arguing from the contents of a preliminary reports is like arguing about who is going to win the presidency based off of only 10 states returns

There is a lot of data in the FEMA and NIST[preliminary] reports that will not change in the final report.
You [all] have been using NIST report as evidence for your debris damage/fire theory. Without it, you have nothing except 3 fire chiefs who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
When someone reads the same report and finds in it data that disproves your theory, you say "shut up and wait for the 'final' report"
Will you shut up about the debris damage/fire theory until the final report comes out?

 

[Christopher7]

Jennie C.

The indisputable facts are:
the location of the debris damage [with photographs to confirm]
the data about where the fuel tanks, pumps, pipes, and generators were
the location and progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7
the photographs that confirm the location of the fires

The "In order for debris to get to the supply pipe...." is opinion.

********************************************************

There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [NIST Apx. L pg 18]


Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg


No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

********************************************************

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.


12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

********************************************************

Fires:

There were no diesel fuel fed fires in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.


The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open. [FEMA pg 29]

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

********************************************************

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539


Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26]

********************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.[/quote]

 

[LashL]

He did not run to seek cover under the pedestrian bridge.
He had to walk around and over a lot of debris.

I must have missed the post where you provided evidence of this. Can you please repost it or provide me with a link to where you identified the photographer and obtained his first hand account of what actions he took at the time?

Thanks.

Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

Wait, I'm confused. I thought from your prior assertions in which you claim to know exactly what the photographer did, where he approached from, how he got there, the speed at which he was travelling, and what he must have done, that you actually had evidence to support your suppositions, and that you actually had obtained first hand accounts from the photographer of his actions that day.

1) If that is the case, did you not ask him whether he took a photo such as the one you allege he must have taken? If you forgot to ask him about these important details, PM me with his contact information and I'll ask him myself.

2) If that is not the case, then it would appear that you are making bald assertions without any basis in fact.

 

[Christopher7]

yes you are chris; by stating that the damage they witnessed couldn't be enough to collapse a building (despite all the other factors) you are disputing what they saw.

On the contrary, i am using their statements as part of the proof that
there were NO DIESEL FIRES OR DEBRIS DAMAGE IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT!

 

[Arus808]

On the contrary, i am using their statements as part of the proof that
there were NO DIESEL FIRES OR DEBRIS DAMAGE IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT!

I guess the BIG FREAKING HOLE in the building wasn't enough?

AGAIN, like hte WTC towers, there WAS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING! Diesel started fires CONTRIBUTED to the fires that envoloped through the building. IT WASN:T NECSSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

The debris contributed to damage and hte fires that started within the PENTHOUSE level . IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

The collapse of wTC 1 contributed in FURTHER DAMAGE to wTC 7's south face. it wasn't necessarily the only thing that caused its collapse.

Christophera, YOU aren't using what is stated in the report. YOU twisting the meanings within the report to suit your foregone and unsubstantiated conclusions..

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not

So if you aren't disputing their accounts of the damage, which includes that the building was leaning over, that there was a measurably growing bulge, that the middle of the south face has a large gouge in it with heavy fire visible inside it, that inside the building was creaking, groaning and highly unstable (so unstable that once they cleared it the order went out that no one was to go in) and that the south west corner was ripped off from the 19th floor down, then what's the point of this thread and why has it gone on for 33 pages?

 

[Christopher7]

I guess the BIG FREAKING HOLE in the building wasn't enough?

Right. It was NOT in the area of the initiating event

AGAIN, like hte WTC towers, there WAS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING! Diesel started fires CONTRIBUTED to the fires that envoloped through the building. IT WASN:T NECSSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

Right again. The diesel fires were in the west half of the building.
I listed the location and progression of the office fires in the east half of the building where the initiating event occurred.

The debris contributed to damage and hte fires that started within the PENTHOUSE level . IT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE ONLY THING THAT CAUSED THE FIRES!

Good point
but the initiating event was below floor 13

The collapse of wTC 1 contributed in FURTHER DAMAGE to wTC 7's south face. it wasn't necessarily the only thing that caused its collapse.

True
However, there was NO damage reported to the part of the south wall in front of the area of the initiating event

 

[Christopher7]

So if you aren't disputing their accounts of the damage, which includes that the building was leaning over,

The 'leaning over' statement was made by a guy who works nearby, not a firefighter.

that there was a measurably growing bulge,

In the south west corner

that the middle of the south face has a large gouge in it with heavy fire visible inside it,

The gouge around floor 14, just west of center

that inside the building was creaking, groaning and highly unstable

As one would expect if a bulge were developing in the south west corner

(so unstable that once they cleared it the order went out that no one was to go in)

A prudent decision

and that the south west corner was ripped off from the 19th floor down, then what's the point of this thread and why has it gone on for 33 pages?

Something about an initiating event

Read post #1282 and click on the links to see the data and pictures that verify the facts listed.

If you have a problem with a particular statement, say so.

 

[Arus808]

Something about an initiating event

.

what part of:

there wasn't one thing significant that can be considered the "ONE" initiating event

that you do not freaking understand?

What part of:

THERE WAS A COMbination of events that caused the collapse of WTC 7

do you not understand?

Whta part of :
the firefighters and witnesses that day described what they saw, which supports many of the conclusions that NIST will be coming to,

do you not understand?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Chris, in post 1266 you stated,

"Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely."

Doesn't that admission by you make it rather less than totally indisputable that there was structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event? For example, isn't it possible that a large piece of debris entered the building above floor 12, then caused internal damage by falling through the lower levels of the building, damaging one of columns 79 to 81 on the way? If you admit that, then your statement that there was no structural damage in the area of the initiating event is clearly in dispute. If you don't, I'd like to see your argument as to why such a sequence of events is impossible.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Christophera, YOU aren't using what is stated in the report. YOU twisting the meanings within the report to suit your foregone and unsubstantiated conclusions..

Interesting...

 

[Belz...]

Right. It was NOT in the area of the initiating event

But then how would YOU know how deep the damage went into the building, or what chain events it triggered ?

that there was a measurably growing bulge,

In the south west corner

Which in and of itself indicates something's wrong SOMEWHERE in the building.

 

[JimBenArm]

I think it's time to do with Christopher7 what we did with Christopera. Let him post here all by himself, but not respond to it anymore. He doesn't listen to anything anyone else says, and just repeats the same crap over and over again, even when shown it's totally wrong. So let him stay here and mutter to himself. That's pretty much what's going on anyway.

 

[njslim]

Christopher 7:

There is a lot of data in the FEMA and NIST[preliminary] reports that will not change in the final report. You [all] have been using NIST report as evidence for your debris damage/fire theory. Without it, you have nothing except 3 fire chiefs who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

If case you didn't know, fire chiefs are highly trained - both in class room
and from years of experience to evaluate the structural integrity of a
building to know when to pull their people out. When to seminar 6 months
after 9/11 and heard from the fire chiefs on the scene what they did .

Their assessment of WTC 7 was that the building was highly damaged and
structurally unsound, there was no water (collapse had cut mains), and
with numerous casulties and much of the apparatus on the scene crushed
or damaged it was better to abandon WTC 7. After seeing bulge on
southwest corner ordered surveyor transit positioned to watch for signs of
movement indicating structural collapse. When saw building starting to
move ordered everyone out of area (3PM) and set up collapse zone. This
is what fire chiefs are trained to do.

 

[Jennie C.]

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?

 

[jaydeehess]

There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

post 1282

There you go again. A definitive statement that it is simply out of the question

OK, Chris, try this one. There were no explosives in WTC 7, debris/fire damage brought the building down.

Two definitive statements. On the one hand though we do positively know that there were significant fires and debris damage to WTC 7. Which of the above definitive statements would this known condition (fire and damage) support as circumstantial evidence? It only supports a debris/fire collapse.

On the other hand we have a few people who characterize the sounds they heard as 'explosions'. Which of the two definitive statements does this support? It supports both an explosive CD and a debris/fire collapse since these sounds cannot be ascribe soley to explosions.



Which statement is then backed up more by the circumstantial evidence we have?

 

[beachnut]

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?

The damage of junk hitting WTC7, and the fires that burned out of control and not fought all day. Fires and damage.

If you do not fight fires, the fires make the steel weak and it fails. Why did WTC7 fail since all the heavy people were out? They forgot to take TONS of generators out of the building. I think the building was even built to handle the extra load of the many Generators in the Building.

So as you can see in WTC5 and 6, steel failed and floors fell but no global collapse. May be it was all the weight of junk in WTC7 that helped in the global collapse. Cause simple floors fell due to fires in WTC6 and 5, why would anyone be surprised if the floors in WTC7 failed.

No firemen that understand fire were surprised WTC7 failed. This is why hundreds of firemen there on 9/11 are not idiots marching with Dylan in his LC fraud.

Fire and damage. Or do you mean a major floor failure with real heavy generators falling and knocking out other structures.

Fire. I think someone already said this.

What does Chris want again? Oh, he wants to say explosives did it. Why not find some RDX sounds to prove your point Chris.

 

[jaydeehess]

Good point.
BTW, you've got your stove pipe in upside down. I suggest you rectify this when she's out of town.

.

No, I have it installed correctly.

There are many references you can check, for instance:
http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/mod02/01500596.html

The connector pipe diameter should be as large as the
flue collar (where the connector pipe joins the stove).
When joining sections of the pipe, overlap the joints at
least 2 inches, with the crimped (male) end pointing down
to prevent creosote drip or leak. Many house fires have
resulted from stove pipe joints vibrating apart during a
chimney fire. Secure each joint with at least 3 sheet
metal screws. A fireproof sealant may be used in addition.

Wonder why stove pipes rattle when you have a chimney fire? Because air is being drawn into the pipe between the crimps at every joint.

 

[jaydeehess]

Can't understand how I missed this tidbit;

Chris 7 writes;

It is a very real fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

FEMA pg 28
"there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system"

Somehow FEMA's statement specifically saying there is no evidence to substantiate OR REFUTE becomes "a very real fact that there were NO ....." , in Chris's mind.

Is that
a)critical thinking
OR
b) a sophist twisting of the FEMA statement?

 

[Kent1]

Can't understand how I missed this tidbit;

Chris 7 writes;


Somehow FEMA's statement specifically saying there is no evidence to substantiate OR REFUTE becomes "a very real fact that there were NO ....." , in Chris's mind.

Is that
a)critical thinking
OR
b) a sophist twisting of the FEMA statement?

That's FEMA, read what NIST has to say about that.
There is evidence regarding the discharge of fuel oil. Evidence suggests it did not leak into the ground, but was burned. See my first post in this thread (Post 1120).
Or read the links I posted.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Cheers.

 

[Miragememories]

I must have missed the post where you provided evidence of this. Can you please repost it or provide me with a link to where you identified the photographer and obtained his first hand account of what actions he took at the time?

Thanks.



Wait, I'm confused. I thought from your prior assertions in which you claim to know exactly what the photographer did, where he approached from, how he got there, the speed at which he was travelling, and what he must have done, that you actually had evidence to support your suppositions, and that you actually had obtained first hand accounts from the photographer of his actions that day.

1) If that is the case, did you not ask him whether he took a photo such as the one you allege he must have taken? If you forgot to ask him about these important details, PM me with his contact information and I'll ask him myself.

2) If that is not the case, then it would appear that you are making bald assertions without any basis in fact.

Your really going to hurt your cheek if you keep shoving your tongue into it that hard LashL

MM

 

[Miragememories]

That's FEMA, read what NIST has to say about that.
There is evidence regarding the discharge of fuel oil. Evidence suggests it did not leak into the ground, but was burned. See my first post in this thread (Post 1120).
Or read the links I posted.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
Cheers.

From your NIST reference Kent1;

"No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building."

Ah what evidence?

From the same NIST reference;

"..Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the
slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below..

How definitive is that?

They acknowledge the sand absorbed fuel but neglect to speculate or assess how much fuel might have been absorbed, or provide any information about how widespread the sand was or how much sampling was undertaken. NIST deliberately 'coaches' their wording to diminish the evidence as much as possible when it doesn't lead in the direction they favour.

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

MM

 

[jaydeehess]

Truly reaching for straws are we MM?

The point is that the contamination of the soil is not enough to account for the majority of the fuel that was in the tanks. Where did the fuel go then MM? Obviously it burned, where it burned is not in the tanks since they did not displaythe damage that would accompany having a large quantity if fuel burned in them. The fuel did not all escape to the soil nor did it burn in the tanks.
THAT suggests that it was consumed elsewhere and THAT is suggestive of it being pumped out in a rupture.

I forgot about that post by you, Kent. Thanks, certainly illustrates the error in Chris' definitive, " no fuel fire" statement. (such things get called 'lies' if preformed by others. I am not so damning)

 

[Kent1]

From your NIST reference Kent1;


Ah what evidence?

From the same NIST reference;


How definitive is that?

They acknowledge the sand absorbed fuel but neglect to speculate or assess how much fuel might have been absorbed, or provide any information about how widespread the sand was or how much sampling was undertaken. NIST deliberately 'coaches' their wording to diminish the evidence as much as possible when it doesn't lead in the direction they favour.

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

MM

That's a sad spin, especially if you simply keep reading after, "but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below."
"Also the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus it is likey a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination of this soil."
Its clear when you add up the statements they are stating that if the fuel leaked more would be evident within the areas below.

 

[jaydeehess]

From the same NIST reference;

Quote:
"..Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the
slab showed some fuel contamination but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below..

How definitive is that?

Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.

 

[Kent1]

From the same NIST reference;



Definitive enough to make the definitive nature of Chris' statement wrong.

I guess they can contact or wait for the NIST report for further info.
But I'm guessing this is another boring..."I don't believe NIST/NIST is dishonest" thread.

 

[LashL]

Your [sic] really going to hurt your cheek if you keep shoving your tongue into it that hard LashL

MM

MM, my tongue was most certainly not planted in my cheek, and I'm surprised that you would think so, frankly. Chris didn't answer my post so since you have taken it upon yourself to do so, albeit backhandedly, perhaps you can actually address the specific points of my post and provide information that is responsive to my queries therein. I would appreciate a straightforward response.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, in post 1266 you stated,

"Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely."

Doesn't that admission by you make it rather less than totally indisputable that there was structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event?

Point well taken
The indisputable facts are the ones from the FEMA and NIST reports.
My statement "There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event...." is not totally indisputable.

For example, isn't it possible that a large piece of debris entered the building above floor 12, then caused internal damage by falling through the lower levels of the building, damaging one of columns 79 to 81 on the way? If you admit that, then your statement that there was no structural damage in the area of the initiating event is clearly in dispute. If you don't, I'd like to see your argument as to why such a sequence of events is impossible.
Dave

Any debris hitting WTC 7 beyond column 11 (Spak) [25 NIST] would miss the core columns [see NIST Apx. L pg 6]
In this photo, we can see as far as column 11 (Spak) [25 NIST] on floors 13, 14 and 16;
as far as column 10 (Spak) [24 NIST] on floor 13;
and between columns 10 & 11 (Spak) [24 & 25 NIST] on floor 17.

This eliminates most of the area that debris could have entered and damaged a core column in the area of the initiating event:
Columns 73 to 81 inclusive, below floor 13 [NIST Apx. L pg 31]

A few more frames from this video, with the smoke in different positions, would probably show weather or not there was any damage in the remaining possible area.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Point well taken
The indisputable facts are the ones from the FEMA and NIST reports.
My statement "There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event...." is not totally indisputable.

This eliminates most of the area that debris could have entered and damaged a core column in the area of the initiating event:
Columns 73 to 81 inclusive, below floor 13 [NIST Apx. L pg 31]

A few more frames from this video, with the smoke in different positions, would probably show weather or not there was any damage in the remaining possible area.

OK, so you also admit that there isn't enough visual evidence to be certain that there was no structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event.

The conclusion I have to draw is, therefore, that I cannot agree that there were indisputably neither diesel oil fires nor structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event; and it seems to me that you more or less agree with that point of view.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Just so we are all talking about the same thing: Which of the myriad of events that happened just prior to collapse do you consider to be the initiating event?

For initiating event See NIST Apx. L pg 31 - 33

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is:
the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

 

[Christopher7]

OK, so you also admit that there isn't enough visual evidence to be certain that there was no structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event.

The conclusion I have to draw is, therefore, that I cannot agree that there were indisputably neither diesel oil fires nor structural damage in the vicinity of the initiating event; and it seems to me that you more or less agree with that point of view.

Dave

There is still a small possibility that there was debris damage and a remote possibility that the fuel line was severed in the area of the initiating event.
[If there was not a great deal of ventilation, a diesel fire could not burn hot enough to weaken the support columns]

On the other hand, there is NO evidence that there was debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event.

 

[Dave Rogers]

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is:
the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

Could be very significant, especially if floor trusses were sagging in WTC7 in the same way as in 1 and 2. As the fires burn out, the sagging trusses contract, putting lateral strain on the columns. In WTC2, at least, this seems to have been the cause of catastrophic failure of the exterior columns - see the Trinity Church video for a clear illustration of this failure mode. Could something similar have happened to WTC7?

It's important to note, in any case, that fires burning out can be the final event in a sequence leading inevitably to structural collapse. It's certainly an error to say that once the fires had died down, the building automatically became safe.

Dave

 

[westprog]

There is still a small possibility that there was debris damage

Done the calculation of the energy released when the WTC collapsed? It's really very easy.

 

[Belz...]

"Some fuel contamination". That could be a lot, or a little, and they make no attempt at a calculation...just leave it at "some'", so they can imply "much" was available to fuel the fire that they hoped would explain the impossible high speed total collapse of WTC7.

Impossible high speed collapse ?

How fast would YOU expect it to collapse ?

 

[Belz...]

the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

I see your X-ray vision is better than mine.

 

[JimBenArm]

I see your X-ray vision is better than mine.

Hah! Some fiend god you are!

 

[Jennie C.]

For initiating event See NIST Apx. L pg 31 - 33

One very significant event that happened over 1/2 hour before the collapse is: the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned OUT

No, Chris, I don't want "one very significant event". I want you to tell me what your initial event is. Initial means first. It means one. You pull that phrase like a gun (yes, stolen from True Grit). I want to know what you're talking about.

Don't quote the report: tell me what you mean. Simply stated.

 

[Miragememories]

That's a sad spin, especially if you simply keep reading after, "but none was observed in the organic marine silt/clay layer below."
"Also the sand and soil below the slab was continuous below the adjacent base system tanks, which contained a total of 24,000 gal of fuel. Thus it is likey a fuel leak in any of the tanks would result in fuel contamination of this soil."
Its clear when you add up the statements they are stating that if the fuel leaked more would be evident within the areas below.

Not spin at all.

If you know how much sand is available to absorb fuel. If you sample the area and depth of where fuel is found in the sand, it should be possibly to estimate the volume of fuel absorbed by the sand and thus determine how much remained to fuel fires. By stating some, NIST avoided revealing any calculations that might have argued otherwise.

Clay is a natural moisture barrier and does not readily absorb liquids. The sand would readily soak up any fuel flowing over the clay barrier.
http://www.johnstonsmith.co.uk/fact28.html

MM

 

[Kent1]

Not spin at all.

If you know how much sand is available to absorb fuel. If you sample the area and depth of where fuel is found in the sand, it should be possibly to estimate the volume of fuel absorbed by the sand and thus determine how much remained to fuel fires. By stating some, NIST avoided revealing any calculations that might have argued otherwise.

Clay is a natural moisture barrier and does not readily absorb liquids. The sand would readily soak up any fuel flowing over the clay barrier.
http://www.johnstonsmith.co.uk/fact28.html

MM

They are clearly stating that there would be more fuel contamination of this sand/ soil area. I see nothing showing otherwise. You could always contact the person NIST used if you think they are being dishonest. Otherwise, again, it's clear this is just another hollow "I don't believe them/NIST is dishonest" post. Also from my understanding it wasn't just clay. NIST seems to be stating the fuel never reached the organic marine silt/clay below.


From my understanding clay can be contaminated and it will certainlly help the contamination from going lower.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/content/2xbe7xv6ebc1j362/

 

[Belz...]

Hah! Some fiend god you are!

I can still see through your soul, though.