Non-Existent Diesel Fuel Fire
Chris SarnsEditor’s note: To this day most people, including many architects and engineers, are not aware that a third skyscraper, World Trade Center Building 7, mysteriously collapsed along with the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The official report on this building’s collapse by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has been challenged by many reputable and credentialed technical professionals. The NIST analysis has not undergone the rigors of scientific peer review – the typical pathway for validating significant scientific theories. Chris Sarns’ research appears in Dr. David Ray Griffin’s book titled "The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7. "A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method. With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST's WTC 7 report has no scientific credibility. A must read for all concerned with the restoration of science to its `rightful place' in our democracy."--John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University; former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology]" The studies below represent years of work by Chris in unraveling some of the most glaring inconsistencies and outright frauds in the NIST report on World Trade Center 7. He demonstrates that the NIST’s theory of the fire-induced collapse of Building 7 is faulty and misleading.
The destruction of this skyscraper on September 11 was truly unprecedented in the history of high-rise buildings. More than 1,900 architects and engineers at AE911Truth are demanding a new investigation.
Chris Sarns has also been deeply involved in the work of AE911Truth, where he provides his expertise on WTC 7.
Part 1 of Chris Sarns’ report, regarding the burned-out fire in WTC 7, is available here.
Part 2 of Chris Sarns' report, examining NIST's claim of thermal expansion, is available here.
Part 3 of Chris Sarns' report, examining NIST's omission of shear studs in its WTC 7 analysis, is available here.
Part 4 of Chris Sarns' report, analyzing NIST's claim of damage to WTC 7 from falling North Tower debris, is available here.
Quotes from the NIST WTC 7 report are shown in "brown"
NIST’s fraudulent diesel fuel fire hypothesis is exposed.
FEMA acknowledges the problem with the diesel fuel fire hypothesis:
"Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation and analysis is needed to resolve this issue." FEMA Chapter 5 p. 31 – May, 2002
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Chapter 5, WTC 7
NIST continues the diesel fuel fire hypothesis despite having the data that proved it did not exist.
"The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of damage at the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5." NIST June 2004 Progress Report, Appendix L p. 51 [pdf p. 55]
June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST SP 1000-5)
Shyam Sunder misinforms Popular Mechanics in the article “Debunking The 9/11 Myths” by telling the writers that there was a fire on floor five of WTC7 that lasted up to seven hours. There was no fire reported on that floor and no reason to think there was one.
PM: "Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7, Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but 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 for a long period of time."
PM Magazine: "Debunking 9/11 Myths" WTC 7 Collapse
"This finding allows for the possibility, though not conclusively, that the fuel may have contributed to a fire on Floor 5." NIST Part IIC April 5, 2005 p.38
NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster – Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster – Part IIC – WTC 7 Collapse – April 5, 2005
In early 2007, the ‘diesel fuel fire’ debate was about the 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel. No one had researched the details of the diesel fuel fire hypothesis.
The FEMA Chapter 5 report contains a great deal of basic information about WTC 7. All the tanks, pipes and generators were in the west end of the building, except for the 4 SSB generators in the north east section of floor 5. The supply line to these generators was the only possible source of a fuel oil fire in the east end of WTC 7 where the collapse began.
The following is from my post at the JREF forum on March 7, 2007:
"There were no diesel fuel-fed fires in the east part of WTC 7 where the initiating event ocurred that led to the collapse."
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 core area, about 90' from the south side of the building." [FEMA p. 14 - 15]
The following is from my post at the Loose Change Forum on Nov. 15, 2007:
"The north east generator room was in the NE corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor. The supply pipe for the generator room was north of the core area, about 90 feet from the south side of the building and at the opposite end of the building from where the debris damage was. All the other diesel tanks, pumps, supply pipes and generators were in the west half of WTC 7.
If the generators were running, and the intake/cooling fans were on, the louver vents would be open.
If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out through the cooling air exhaust vents. If the louvers were closed, a fire would not have sufficient oxygen to burn hot enough to be a factor in the collapse."
There were NO diesel fuel fires in or near the area of initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7
NIST concedes the diesel fuel fire hypothesis on December 18, 2007 p. 6
"The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks."
NIST – World Trade Center Disaster Study
In the final report NIST paraphrases my final post 12 times.
NCSTAR 1-A Final Report on WTC 7
An under-ventilated fire, in which the air handling system was turned off and the louvers were closed. The initial fuel burning rate was fit to the air availability. Result: The sustained air temperatures were not high enough to compromise the structure. p. 30 [pdf p. 72]
An under-ventilated fire, in which the air handling system was turned off, but the louvers were open. Result: Smoke would have exhausted through the east louvers, and the imagery showed no such effluent.
The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines, (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed. p. 49 [pdf p. 91]
Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that pool fires, associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed. p. 51-52 [pdf p. 93-94]
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1
"However, if a large fire penetrated a plenum wall and if the louvers were open, flames might have been visible, and smoke might have emanated from the exhaust openings. NIST found no photographic records or eyewitness accounts of smoke or fires that could be attributed to fires on these two floors." p. 51 [pdf p. 95]
"Simulations showed that pool fires associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines… (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, in conflict with the photographic evidence which showed none." p. 355 [pdf p. 399]
NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2
"Result: The FDS simulation showed that the natural flow from the fire plume would have been out of the louvered openings on the east side of the building in a very short time. Significant plumes of smoke would have been seen emerging from the building within a few minutes of ignition, contradicting the visual evidence." p. 372 [pdf p. 34]
"A broad range of hypothetical, extreme fires on the 5th floor did not produce a fire scenario that was consistent with the visual evidence that would have threatened the load bearing capacity of Columns 79, 80, or 81." p. 374 [pdf p. 36]
"these fires would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers. No such emanation was observed." p. 386 [pdf p. 48]
"Additionally, such fires would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers; however, no such smoke discharge was observed." p. 605 [pdf p. 267]
"The worst-case fire scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed." NCSTAR 1-9 P. 619 [PDF P. 281]
"Simulation of hypothetical, worst-case fire scenarios on these floors showed that poof fires associated with ruptured diesel fuel lines, (c) would have exhausted smoke from the exhaust louvers, which was not observed." p. 621-622 [pdf p. 283-284]