10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Another 100% wrong statement by a Troofer.

Diesel fuel is used in diesel engines. Diesel engines differ from gasoline engines in one key aspect, namely that the fuel ignition is caused by a combination of pressure and temperature rather than a spark, which is required to ignite gasoline.

In other words, diesel fuel is selected specifically for its explosive properties.

Carry on.

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

 

[Gravy]

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

 

[uk_dave]

I started at wtc7.net

Perhaps NIST would have been a better place to start?

 

[LashL]

Did you show the fire Captain the pictures of the east, north and west sides?

Of course I did. I am not intellectually dishonest like most twoofers are. In addition, this fire Captain is the person who introduced me to a Battalion Chief who was personally at the scene on September 11, 2001.

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer, the squibs, and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire, as the building collapsed.

There were no demolition "squibs"; the statements you refer to are not credible, and you cannot - if you are honest - say categorically that there was no fire in the locations from which much smoke was emanating.

The charges could not have been placed on 9/11.

I agree that demolition charges could not have been placed on 9/11. I contend that they could not have been placed surreptitiously on any other day, either.

On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

You do not know what "opportunity to observe" means, do you?

Is the '10 story gouge' statement sufficient on an 'evidentiary level' ?
What was the 'opportunity to observe' ?

Hello? I have asked you repeatedly about the opportunities to observe of each of the four witnesses you keep citing, and now you are asking me? You really do not know what the phrase means, do you?

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Batallion Chief Fellini's view in the first hours.

Source, please.

Do you think he based his statement on a single observation, from a location where his vision was obscured?

I do not know. Have you asked him?

 

[Christopher7]

I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today. You comment is one of the stupidest I have ever seen in my life. If that's insulting to you, so be it. It's a statement of fact.

And it's "fuel." But I guess since you get everything else wrong I shouldn't expect you to pay attention to the forum software's spell check suggestions either.

You have time to make a lot of posts here.

You have time to see what i'm posting over at the LC forum.

You have time to respond directly to this cracker box.

Why can't you find time to answer the question posed in this thread ?

Do you believe that the:

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

?

Why are you avoiding this question ?

Is it because you can see that the statement evidence in post #94 outweighs the single statement about this gouge ?

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released.

We're discussing a statement in a report that has been released.

Many people have been led to believe that this 10 story gouge actually existed. Until NIST corrects this mistake, i will continue to point it out because it is the most severe damage WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

Yes
Got any more stupid questions?

How about an answer to the question posed in this thread ?

 

[Gravy]

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released.

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!



Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:

I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

 

[beachnut]

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

What a smart fellow;

But diesel fuel has mo energy! MORE

Diesel has 141,700 BTU/gal

Gasoline has 126,200 BTU/gal

Oops diesel does explode; jets use fuel like diesel; was that big fireball. A small explosion? I am not sure how my diesel engine ran; but it was exploding, and your gasoline engine also uses pressure to set off a big explosion of gasoline but the diesel explosion is bigger; mo energy!

So the diesel burns hotter. More energy to weaken the steel.

This is why if you make a fertilzer fuel bomb you should use diesel instead of racing fuel. It make a bigger bang!

More energy. Do you understand chemistry?.

 

[R.Mackey]

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

Non sequitur. Diesel and gasoline cannot be directly compared in terms of volatility, because diesel contains a greater range of volatile compounds, along with its higher energy density. Both diesel and gasoline will give off flammable vapors, with no significant advantage to diesel in terms of safety.

Regarding "injected in a fine spray," perhaps you are unaware that gasoline engines use devices known as fuel injectors, that also jet the gasoline in a fine spray? Yet the gasoline still requires a spark to ignite.

Nonetheless, here's what you originally said:

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

And like I pointed out, this is totally wrong.

There is a standard known as Octane Rating that decribes a fuel's resistance to autoignition, i.e. explosion. Higher octane ratings are used in higher performance engines because it makes the fuel harder to ignite -- a seeming paradox, but this allows one to use higher compression ratios. There is also a related standard known as the Cetane number, the logical opposite describing how well a fuel autoignites, used exclusively for diesel fuel. You can think of this number as describing how quickly the diesel will ignite -- the higher the number, the quicker the ignition, and thus the longer it has to burn completely inside the engine.

Diesel fuel has a dramatically lower octane rating than any gasoline, and therefore is more likely to explode:

A high tendency to autoignite, or low octane rating, is undesirable in a gasoline engine but desirable in a diesel engine.

Thank you, and I hope you've learned something.

The relevant point for WTC 7 is that the large quantities of diesel fuel would certainly ignite, could have deflagrated in big, nasty fireballs, and definitely contributed to the structure's collapse. Your claim that "because it was diesel," it would do none of these things, is completely erroneous.

 

[Gravy]

That's an informative post, as always, Mack. I had never heard of "cetane." This issue made me recall something I've heard many times about U.S. Sherman tanks: that they were considered to be deathtraps when hit because they were gasoline-powered, and burned more easily than their diesel counterparts. Well, I just looked that up, and it appears to be a myth. Here's what Wikipedia (and other sources) says:

Early Sherman models were prone to burning when struck by high velocity rounds. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" (by the Germans who referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"). The British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" and Polish Tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave". This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be repairable. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The common myth that the use of gasoline (petrol) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with AP shells. Further, the diesel-engined M4A2 used by the Marines was considered far less prone to burn and explode than the diesel Soviet T-34.[1] At first a partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up".

 

[Arus808]

That's not a credible resource site.

you should start with sties that are actually backed by a body of credible people:
http://www.asce.org - start here.... let us know what you find.

 

[Christopher7]

Of course I did. I am not intellectually dishonest like most twoofers are. In addition, this fire Captain is the person who introduced me to a Battalion Chief who was personally at the scene on September 11, 2001.

Will this Captain go on record [give their name] as saying that WTC 7 was fully involved after seeing pictures of all 4 sides,
or do we have to take your word for it ?

There were no demolition "squibs"; the statements you refer to are not credible, and you cannot - if you are honest - say categorically that there was no fire in the locations from which much smoke was emanating.

Statements made on 9/11 are the most credible.
Who are you to say which statements are credible and which are not?

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

Categorically? No.
There were no reports of fire or signs of fire in the many areas that were smoking on the way down.

I agree that demolition charges could not have been placed on 9/11. I contend that they could not have been placed surreptitiously on any other day, either.

This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

You do not know what "opportunity to observe" means, do you?

The phrase is self explanatory.
What do you mean by "opportunity to observe"

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Battalion Chief Fellini's view in the first few hours

Source, please.

NIST Apx. L pg 22
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or the lobby area."

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left the 8th floor"

"Cubicle fire was seen along the west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"

I do not know. Have you asked him?

Rhetorical question

Since he was in charge of operations at West and Vesey and it was his responsibility to assess the damage, i'm assuming that Battalion Chief Fellini is competent.
Are you assuming that he is not ?

 

[Christopher7]

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Typical evasive maneuver.
Until they release their new assessment, this is the statement of record.
Maybe you would like to ignore it but i will continue to point out that is incorrect until it is corrected.

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:[/quote]

Thank you for making my point.
You keep talking to me and about me because you can't dispute the evidence in post #94 and

you refuse to answer the question posed in this thread!

Before asking any more questions, answer the one posed in this thread.

 

[Gravy]

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7, resident WTC 7 expert:

"This building is NOT anything close to being 'fully involved"


Fully involved: "Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied."

Fully involved: "A size-up report that indicates that the entire area of a building is so involved with heat, smoke, and flame that immediate access to the interior isn’t possible until some measure of control has been achieved with hose streams."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca: "We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors."

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."


Chris Sarns, sitting at home, without a view of the south side: "I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Disgusting.

 

[Gravy]

Before asking any more questions, answer the one posed in this thread.

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

 

[Coritani]

Will this Captain go on record [give their name] as saying that WTC 7 was fully involved after seeing pictures of all 4 sides,
or do we have to take your word for it ?

He already said it on record. Sorry, but I'll take the opinion of a fireman, who went inside the building, and spend their lives with fires and studying them because their lives depend on it, over your opinion. Sorry, but thats just me.

What are your experiences in fires and firefighting? Were you there on 9/11? Did you go inside WTC 7?

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

Gravy refuted this in the "C7 and C4" thread.

This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

False. It is not an 'escape clause'. WTC 7 has not been proved to be a CD. If you cannot explain how the building was rigged, and you can't, it is evidence against you. Another drop in an ocean of opposing evidence.

 

[LashL]

words words words

You know, I was in the midst of composing a response to your pathetic post when I received a message from my fire Captain beau, who is on duty as I type, that 2 firefighters he knows (also Captains, in fact) died tonight in a flashover so your tripe is going to have to wait.

I hate to say it but I sure hope they didn't die for the likes of you and your twoofer friends.

 

[Christopher7]

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Thank you for making my point with your last 2 posts.

You will not answer the question posed in this thread because you have no answer.

Put up or shut up!

 

[uk_dave]

You will not answer the question posed in this thread because you have no answer.

Put up or shut up!

And Neither Do YOU!

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes means 'not always'
Perhaps it is you that needs to work on reading comprehension.

Oh, my. You mean I'm going to have to EXPLAIN it to you ? Okay, here goes.

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?

Meaning: are explosions ALWAYS caused by bombs.

No

Meaning: not ALWAYS

Sometimes it's part of a CD.

Meaning: when they're NOT bombs, they're CD (which means bombs, of course.)

The logical conclusion is that, even were we to accept your distinction of "bombs" and "CD", your answer is basically that explosions are ALWAYS caused by CD when they're not caused by bombs.

Ergo:

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.

I find it odd that you can actually form sentences if you don't understand those simple words.