10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

The debris caused the fires but there is no confirmation that the fires caused the collapse.

Very well, then. I suppose we can work on that.

What do you expect as "confirmation" that the fires caused the collapse ? Since you know there were fires; since you know that the fires were caused by the debris and that you know the origin of the debris can be accounted for, since you know that fires cause many buildings to collapse at least partially, and since you probably know that you can't possibly rig demolition charges in a burning, 47-floor building in so short a time; How do you explain the building's collapse if not by the fires ?

Who's playing with semantics?
I interpret around to mean surrounding or next to because of the way they used it in the sentence.
What definition do you choose and why?

I would opt for around meaning "in close proximity", which doesn't necessarily limit the load transfert to the immediate adjacent columns. Since NIST does not seem to specify that in your oft-quoted paragraph, how can you assume what they meant, exactly ? You wouldn't by any chance be using your own personal conclusion as a compass, here ?

The amount of stress to the area of the initiating event was negligible.
If it were significant, NIST would have said so.

Perhaps, but if one thing caused another that caused the collapse, I'd say the first thing has something to do with the last.

[Belz...]

I agree. The effect was to the whole building which means it was shared by all the components of the framework.
The loads would be the greatest next to the severed columns and less to columns further away because each column in turn would resist or take up some of the lateral load.

Bolding mine.

So now you're saying that the loads would be greatest next to the severed columns, which in turn implies that the rest would be distributed among columns that were not "around" the severed ones. Which is it, Chris ? Was it ONLY on the adjacent columns or not ?

[twinstead]

Do you believe them over the engineers at NIST ?

Frankly, I would bet money that they as well would tell you that you don't know what you are talking about

[Newtons Bit]

The floor beams were attached to the girders which spaned between the columns.
As you say, the floor beams had zero capacity ability to twist the girders and hence, the columns.

The hanging floors will create some lateral force.
Actually, they already put in a bending moment into the columns due to the eccentricity of the column, but the reaction of the beam at the column has no bending moment inherient in it. I'm not talking twisting (technically: torque), I'm talking moment (bending). They're two completly different things.

Run your model again using more columns and see what happens, before making that claim.
It's not the NUMBER of columns, it's their stiffness. How many times do I have to say this?

The core columns are capable of carying several times their live load.
No, they weren't. Under Dead + Live conditions, the columns would be at 60% capacity if designed correctly. This live load on the columns is also 50psf, not the 100psf that the floors were designed for. If you had an actual engineering background you'd already know this.

[Christopher7]

What do you expect as "confirmation" that the fires caused the collapse ?
With out the physical evidence, i don't think it can be confirmed.

I read somewhere that a few pieces of WTC 7 steel were salvaged but that's a subject for the C7 --- C4 thread.

Since you know there were fires; since you know that the fires were caused by the debris and that you know the origin of the debris can be accounted for, since you know that fires cause many buildings to collapse at least partially, No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed due to fire.

The Madrid Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete building with light weight perimeter columns on the upper floors that collapsed over a period of time.

and since you probably know that you can't possibly rig demolition charges in a burning, 47-floor building in so short a time;And therein lies the rub.

It had to have been rigged in advance.

How do you explain the building's collapse if not by the fires ?This seems to be the reasoning here:

I don't see how they could rig WTC 7 in advance or how the charges survived the fire, therefore it was not a CD.

I believe it was a CD. The CD thread is here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

I would opt for around meaning "in close proximity", which doesn't necessarily limit the load transfert to the immediate adjacent columns. Since NIST does not seem to specify that in your oft-quoted paragraph, how can you assume what they meant, exactly ? You wouldn't by any chance be using your own personal conclusion as a compass, here ?Close proximity works for me.

The loads would be transferred to the next undamaged column.
That column would bear the load or collapse.
There was no progressive collapse.
There is no reason to think that significant loads were transferred to the area of the initiating event at the other end of the building.

NB pointed out that negative loads could be transferred to the second undamaged column.
In the third column [5 in his model] there was a negligible positive load.

Perhaps, but if one thing caused another that caused the collapse, I'd say the first thing has something to do with the last.Had something to do with yes, but the damage itself did not weaken the area of, or contribute to the initiating event.

Bottom line, people here keep saying or inferring that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.

There is NO evidence in any government report to support that claim.

[Christopher7]

Bolding mine.

So now you're saying that the loads would be greatest next to the severed columns, which in turn implies that the rest would be distributed among columns that were not "around" the severed ones. Which is it, Chris ? Was it ONLY on the adjacent columns or not ?
We were discussing lateral loads, not vertical loads.

Vertical loads would be transferred to the column next to the severed or damaged column.

Lateral loads would be bourn by the whole building with the greatest stress to the columns next to the severed or damaged columns, and less to columns further away.

[aggle-rithm]

And therein lies the rub.

It had to have been rigged in advance.


...and yet another unnecessary entity is born!


This seems to be the reasoning here:

I don't see how they could rig WTC 7 in advance or how the charges survived the fire, therefore it was not a CD.


More than that. There is no EVIDENCE that this was done. In fact, given that NO ONE who worked in this office building noticed all the wiring and charges and other preparations that would be necessary for this to happen, there is substantial evidence against it.


Bottom line, people here keep saying or inferring that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.

There is NO evidence in any government report to support that claim.


Where is evidence of a CD?

[Newtons Bit]

Bottom line, people here keep saying or inferring that the debris damage contributed to the collapse.

There is NO evidence in any government report to support that claim.



So the government doesn't mention it in a rough draft and suddenly it can't ever happen. Let's explain some more. We've seen what happens to moment-frames with the loss of ONE column. WTC7 lost many. In that moment frame (especially the first one I posted), the whole frame moved. The gravity columns (core columns) that are attached to the moment frame go along for a ride. They don't contribute to the lateral stiffness of the building. This causes a displacement in the gravity columns which in turn generates bending moments. It means that the fires had to be a little less hot to cause that column to fail.

[Belz...]

With out the physical evidence, i don't think it can be confirmed.

Then it seems your position is nicely unfalsifiable.

No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed due to fire.

None have been subjected to such conditions. "No Belz... has ever died" is another nice claim that is so precise as to be meaningless. Do you admit that every event has to happen a first time ?

The Madrid Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete building with light weight perimeter columns on the upper floors that collapsed over a period of time.

But it did collapse. It's a good thing it wasn't made only of steel, eh ?

And therein lies the rub.

It had to have been rigged in advance.

Only in the hypothesis that charges WERE used.

Let's just play a hypothetical scenario. Let's say the badguys rig 7 WTC for demolition. They know, somehow, that 1 WTC will collapse, and for some reason they figure a shredder wouldn't adequately get rid of those annoying documents. Nor will a campfire, apparently. But wait! What if 1 WTC debris DON'T fall on 7 WTC and DON'T start fires ? They would've had to cancel their plans for demolitions, right ? And if the fires were too light and they demolished it anyway and NIST began to suspect foul play ?

Your hypothesis not only makes no sense when put into perspective, but also ignores the fact that explosive charges may have been irrevocably damaged by the debris and fires.

What say you ?

The loads would be transferred to the next undamaged column.
That column would bear the load or collapse.
There was no progressive collapse.
There is no reason to think that significant loads were transferred to the area of the initiating event at the other end of the building.

But that doesn't follow from "close proximity". Close proximity entails SOME added loads to columns further away, does it not ? Otherwise we're back at "next to".

Had something to do with yes, but the damage itself did not weaken the area of, or contribute to the initiating event.

That's a contradiction.

[Christopher7]

More than that. There is no EVIDENCE that this was done. In fact, given that NO ONE who worked in this office building noticed all the wiring and charges and other preparations that would be necessary for this to happen, there is substantial evidence against it.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The Hi Ex Teleblaster II eliminates the need for wires.

The charges could have been placed in the elevator shafts and on the 5th and 6th floor without people noticing.
The conspirators would have to control security and maintenance.

You are not a CD expert so don't say "It couldn't be done."

Where is evidence of a CD?See the C7 - C4 thread.

[Disbelief]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The Hi Ex Teleblaster II eliminates the need for wires.

The charges could have been placed in the elevator shafts and on the 5th and 6th floor without people noticing.
The conspirators would have to control security and maintenance.

You are not a CD expert so don't say "It couldn't be done."

See the C7 - C4 thread.


You don't have to be a CD expert to know that they HAVE to sever specific columns with specific amounts of explosives when doing a CD, not just put the charges in elevator shafts and on certain floors.

[JimBenArm]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The Hi Ex Teleblaster II eliminates the need for wires.

The charges could have been placed in the elevator shafts and on the 5th and 6th floor without people noticing.
The conspirators would have to control security and maintenance.

You are not a CD expert so don't say "It couldn't be done."

See the C7 - C4 thread.
And you are a CD expert? Have you run this little fantasy of yours by one? Or does your experience as a carpenter give you super-powers the rest of us are unaware of?

[Newtons Bit]

With enough boom boom, you really just need to get close to the columns. The fireworks from that is pretty obvious though.

[Belz...]

The Hi Ex Teleblaster II eliminates the need for wires.

Perhaps, but it would still take months to set up the explosives; assuming the building was stripped bare.

The charges could have been placed in the elevator shafts and on the 5th and 6th floor without people noticing.

Really ? And could the charges explode without people noticing ?

The conspirators would have to control security and maintenance.

Which miraculously makes them invisible...

[JimBenArm]

With enough boom boom, you really just need to get close to the columns. The fireworks from that is pretty obvious though.
As would the big piles of boom boom laying around beforehand.

[twinstead]

Notice how Chris's answer to the fact there was no evidence of CD is to say it COULD have been, and since we aren't CD experts we can't say it couldn't have been done.

Actually, the correct response Chris would have been to present your CD evidence because of course you would never be like many other CTs and just poke holes in the official story so you can simply insert some pet alternative theory with no evidence to support it, would you? You must have TONS of evidence to support your theory, right?

[Christopher7]

So the government doesn't mention it in a rough draft and suddenly it can't ever happen.
Between FEMA and NIST, they spent between 2 and 3 years researching and studying WTC 7. Too bad there wasn't a blow job involved or they would have had sufficient funds to get the job done in that time.
It may be a preliminary report but it is definitely not a rough draft.

Let's explain some more. We've seen what happens to moment-frames with the loss of ONE column. WTC7 lost many. In that moment frame (especially the first one I posted), the whole frame moved. The gravity columns (core columns) that are attached to the moment frame go along for a ride. Go along for the ride? Please, you said the beams had zero capacity to transfer moment to the column.

Once again, the columns were NOT attached to the floor beams.
The floor beams were attached to girders that spanned between the columns.
The girder and the connection at the column would be much stronger than the beam to girder connection.

NIST said the perimeter frame handled the damage.

You are the only one saying that damage to the perimeter frame had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

They don't contribute to the lateral stiffness of the building.The hell they don't. Moment frames, shear walls and diagonal bracing is necessary throughout the building but the massive core columns provide some lateral stiffness.

Don't tell me you know better.
Are you a member of any engineering society like SEAoNY ?
It's easy to overstate you qualifications when using an alias.
Comments like:
A cantilever effect would create an upward load in the columns furthest from the damage.
and
The core columns go along for the ride.
are ridiculous.

The perimeter moment frame affected only the perimeter columns.
Between the perimeter frame and the columns were two beam connections and a girder connection.
These were not moment frames.

This causes a displacement in the gravity columns which in turn generates bending moments. It means that the fires had to be a little less hot to cause that column to fail.Very little.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were the first to fail.
They were at the other end of the building.
The amount of vertical load transferred to them was zero.
The amount of lateral load was negligible.

[Disbelief]

With enough boom boom, you really just need to get close to the columns. The fireworks from that is pretty obvious though.

But, the hypothesis is that it looks like a CD, therefore it is. They would not just put a bunch of explosives around and blow out columns. To look like a CD, the columns would have to be taken out at certain angles to ensure the collapse happened as planned. Just putting explosives around a bunch of columns would ensure a collapse, but it definitely would not be controlled.

[rwguinn]

:dl:
Between FEMA and NIST, they spent between 2 and 3 years researching and studying WTC 7. Too bad there wasn't a blow job involved or they would have had sufficient funds to get the job done in that time.
It may be a preliminary report but it is definitely not a rough draft.

Go along for the ride? Please, you said the beams had zero capacity to transfer moment to the column.

Once again, the columns were NOT attached to the floor beams.
The floor beams were attached to girders that spanned between the columns.
The girder and the connection at the column would be much stronger than the beam to girder connection.

NIST said the perimeter frame handled the damage.

You are the only one saying that damage to the perimeter frame had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.

The hell they don't. Moment frames, shear walls and diagonal bracing is necessary throughout the building but the massive core columns provide some lateral stiffness.

Don't tell me you know better.
Are you a member of any engineering society like SEAoNY ?
It's easy to overstate you qualifications when using an alias.
Comments like:
A cantilever effect would create an upward load in the columns furthest from the damage.
and
The core columns go along for the ride.
are ridiculous.

The perimeter moment frame affected only the perimeter columns.
Between the perimeter frame and the columns were two beam connections and a girder connection.
These were not moment frames.

Very little.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 were the first to fail.
They were at the other end of the building.
The amount of vertical load transferred to them was zero.
The amount of lateral load was negligible.
:dl:

what else can I say/

[Newtons Bit]

And Christopher7 is now greatly overreaching his carpenter training.



You are the only one saying that damage to the perimeter frame had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.
No, I said it MIGHT. It COULD. It would take a serious analysis to determine if it DID. I know enough to know that I can't just say one way or another without getting down into some pretty deep maths.

The hell they don't. Moment frames, shear walls and diagonal bracing is necessary throughout the building but the massive core columns provide some lateral stiffness.
By "some" do you mean, "a teeny tiny insignificant little fraction that engineers don't bother with because it's irrelevant"? Mathematically, they have ZERO stiffness. Prove me wrong by determining what the stiffness of a shear plate is. Oh wait, that's right, you can't do that math, can you?


Are you a member of any engineering society like SEAoNY ?
I am a member of SEA. We do not like to call ourselves a society. We are an association. Societies get together and plan balls and how to improve their communitiy. SEA gets together and talks about how much cash one can save by doing a shear wave velocity test or how to get owners onboard with specal inspection.


The core columns go along for the ride.

Since the regular gravity columns have no lateral stiffness, any deflection that the moment frames experience will be transfered to the gravity columns. The FLOOR PLATE, aka the diaphgram, is what binds all of the columns together. When one moves, they all move. This deflection causes bending moments to be generated in the gravity columns. You know this as Torque (in this case moment) = Force * Distance.

The reason why rwguinn is laughing, is that you were just wrong on every single thing in that post. It's amazing what a few classes in engineering will teach you.

[Slayhamlet]

It looks like this thread is starting its long, lonely descent into Christopheraville.

Very tragic.

[twinstead]

It looks like this thread is starting its long, lonely descent into Christopheraville.

Very tragic.

I'm waiting for the other c4-coated shoe to drop...

[rwguinn]

I'm waiting for the other c4-coated shoe to drop...

before X7 ever gets around to any kind of logic, the other glass in you avatar will be covered in lace, too. And it will have a sad face as well...

[rwguinn]

Something intelligent perhaps?

you owe me a keyboard. That was entirely too funny.
Must...restrain...humorous.......retorts.........
AAAGGHHH!

[Christopher7]

No, I said it MIGHT. It COULD. It would take a serious analysis to determine if it DID. I know enough to know that I can't just say one way or another without getting down into some pretty deep maths.
Present evidence or be silent.

By "some" do you mean, "a teeny tiny insignificant little fraction that engineers don't bother with because it's irrelevant"? Mathematically, they have ZERO stiffness.The massive columns in WTC 7 had ZERO stiffness.
Hogwash

I am a member of SEA.
Post your real name so we can verify this.

Since the regular gravity columns have no lateral stiffness, any deflection that the moment frames experience will be transferfred to the gravity columns. The FLOOR PLATE, aka the diaphgram, is what binds all of the columns together. When one moves, they all move. Exactly
To move one core column, the lateral force would have to move them all.

[rwguinn]

Present evidence or be silent.
Then whay are you still talking.
Are you attempting suicide by mod? You have been presented calculations and evidence by the textbook load.

The massive columns in WTC 7 had ZERO stiffness. Hey--you got one right!

Hogwash then rescended it immediately. Go look up Column lateral stability in a real textbook somewhere

Post your real name so we can verify this.
As long as there are people like you on the 'net, it ain'tt going to happen. I take that (you said it to me, too) as a not-very-veiled threat

Exactly
To move one core column, the lateral force would have to move them all.
nope. Bending in the transverse beams will impart a really good-sized lateral force. The ratio of vertical force to lateral force is a function of sin(th)/Cos(th), where tan(th)=Displacement(vertical)/L(beam)

[Christopher7]

Bending in the transverse beams will impart a really good-sized lateral force. The ratio of vertical force to lateral force is a function of sin(th)/Cos(th), where tan(th)=Displacement(vertical)/L(beam)
And all that bombastic beetle sweat proves that significant loads were transferred to columns 79, 80 and 81, at the other end of the building.

How do you suppose the engineers at NIST missed such an important contribution to the global collapse of WTC 7 ?

[Newtons Bit]

Probably because if you have a basic knowledge of engineering, it's IMPLIED. The degree into which it affects the other columns is a question, it may be tiny. It may be big. THATS ALL we've been saying. The engineers at NIST know this. They also know that the debris damage alone did not cause the collapse. That doesn't mean the damage wasn't significant. It also doesn't mean that it is significant. What it means is: wait for the actual report.

[chipmunk stew]

The engineers at NIST also knew they had a lot more information to collect on the nature and extent of the damage. To have drawn any further conclusions based on a damage estimate that they knew to be incomplete and inaccurate would have been irresponsible.

Again: wait for the actual report.

[Christopher7]

But, the hypothesis is that it looks like a CD, therefore it is. They would not just put a bunch of explosives around and blow out columns. To look like a CD, the columns would have to be taken out at certain angles to ensure the collapse happened as planned. Just putting explosives around a bunch of columns would ensure a collapse, but it definitely would not be controlled.
Disbelief
Jim Ben Arm
NB
Belz
twinsted

This thread, is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Please post your comments and questions about CD on the CD thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320



You cannot deny that the following statement is true.


There is NO evidence in any government report to support the claim that debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event, or the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Probably because if you have a basic knowledge of engineering, it's IMPLIED. The degree into which it affects the other columns is a question, it may be tiny. It may be big. THATS ALL we've been saying. The engineers at NIST know this. They also know that the debris damage alone did not cause the collapse. That doesn't mean the damage wasn't significant. It also doesn't mean that it is significant. What it means is: wait for the actual report.
OK

Will everyone here stop saying or implying that the debris damage to WTC 7 had a significant effect on the collapse until the final report comes out?

[chipmunk stew]

There is NO evidence in any government report to support the claim that debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event, or the collapse of WTC 7.*
And yet, the hypothesis as it stands is entirely plausible. Funny that.

Wait for the actual report.

*...other than the leaning, bulging, and creaking.

[Arus808]

then will you stop implying that they did not until the final report comes out? how about you stop guessing as to what happened until you get your engineering degree.

[chipmunk stew]

OK

Will everyone here stop saying or implying that the debris damage to WTC 7 had a significant effect on the collapse until the final report comes out?
Sure. So long as you stop saying or implying that the debris damage had no significant effect on the collapse and that there is any evidence of CD.

Deal?

[JimBenArm]

Disbelief
Jim Ben Arm
NB
Belz
twinsted

This thread, is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Please post your comments and questions about CD on the CD thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320



You cannot deny that the following statement is true.


There is NO evidence in any government report to support the claim that debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event, or the collapse of WTC 7.



Excuse me, but until you are made a mod, don't tell me where or what I can post. I don't take any orders from you, dude!

[Christopher7]

And yet, the hypothesis as it stands is entirely plausible. Funny that.

That is a matter of opinion.

[Kent1]

Post #2247 summaries NIST Apx. L pg 36 - 42.

They make it clear that the damage to the perimeter columns did not cause the initiating event. [first part of the framework to fail]

They site core damage and fires as possible causes.

They did not say that the damage to the perimeter columns was a contributing factor.

Do they have to specifically say it wasn't a factor?



Do you believe them over the engineers at NIST ?
Against my better judgement I'm going to post in this thread again.
Actually here's what Sunder (NIST) said in a more recent interview for Popular Mechanics. (Or I should say more recent than the draft report)

"Sunder says it appears the fires worked in conjunction with the damage from debris to weaken the building's structure, but NIST has not determined whether one or the other was the primary instigator of the collapse."

Page 56 Debunking 9/11 Myths

[Christopher7]

then will you stop implying that they did not until the final report comes out?
I will not state it as a fact but i will continue to say i believe it to be true.

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

There is no reason to believe the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 contributed to the collapse. IMO


I am trying to word the statement in a way that we can agree.

There is no evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Excuse me, but until you are made a mod, don't tell me where or what I can post. I don't take any orders from you, dude!
Perhaps you're not familiar with the word "Please".

"Used to add politeness to requests"

Do you know the difference between an order and a request?

[Christopher7]

Against my better judgement I'm going to post in this thread again.
Actually here's what Sunder (NIST) said in a more recent interview for Popular Mechanics. (Or I should say more recent than the draft report)

"Sunder says it appears the fires worked in conjunction with the damage from debris to weaken the building's structure, but NIST has not determined whether one or the other was the primary instigator of the collapse."

Page 56 Debunking 9/11 Myths
When did he make that statement?

He also said that there was a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide from floor 10 to the ground.

This is not true.

Either he is wrong or the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby" are wrong.


Has Mr. Sunder made that statement publicly [like in PM magazine] or just in a book costing $12.98 ?

[chipmunk stew]

That is a matter of opinion.
No. Plausibility, in evaluating a hypothesis, is entirely objective.

The drastically simplified version:
Does it fit the observed data? Yes or no.
Is it falsifiable? Yes or no.
If yes to both, it's plausible.

Plausibility (a matter of objective analysis) has nothing to do with probability (a matter of objective & subjective judgment) or believability (a matter of subjective opinion).

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible. Their subsequent work will falsify, correct, or affirm this hypothesis.

[chipmunk stew]

I am trying to word the statement in a way that we can agree.

There is no evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

Corrected:

The FEMA report and the preliminary NIST draft contain no direct evidence (other than leaning, bulging, and creaking) that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Corrected:

The FEMA report and the preliminary NIST draft contain no direct evidence (other than leaning, bulging, and creaking) that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.
There's nothing in the NIST report about WTC 7 leaning.

That is a 9/11 myth.

The bulging was in the SW corner.

The creaking no doubt accompanied the bulging.

[Kent1]

When did he make that statement?

He also said that there was a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide from floor 10 to the ground.

This is not true.

Either he is wrong or the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby" are wrong.


Has Mr. Sunder made that statement publicly [like in PM magazine] or just in a book costing $12.98 ?

He said "approximately 10 stories" Both may be wrong. We don't know currently the exact size right now. But no doubt the size has changed from the eariler report.
Its in the book. Sometime after the report and before June of last year. Again I quoted the page. Does the price for $12.98 some how lessen the statement?

[chipmunk stew]

There's nothing in the NIST report about WTC 7 leaning.

That is a 9/11 myth.

The bulging was in the SW corner.

The creaking no doubt accompanied the bulging.
No doubt. How does this square with your "no evidence"?

Evidence, remember. Not proof. Evidence supporting a hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis that has to be tested.

This is objective evidence supporting the hypothesis that the debris damage caused significant shifts in the loading of the building. The hypothesis may be wrong (wait for the actual report) but to say there is no evidence supporting it is flat wrong.

[Christopher7]

No doubt. How does this square with your "no evidence"?

Evidence, remember. Not proof. Evidence supporting a hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis that has to be tested.

This is objective evidence supporting the hypothesis that the debris damage caused significant shifts in the loading of the building.
NIST put forth no such hypothesis.

They sited possible debris damage to core columns and fire as the possible causes of the initiating event. [first part of framework to collapse]

[gumboot]

Guys c'mon, you know you're out of your depth. Christopher7 build a house with wooden poles. He knows what he's talking about.

-Gumboot

[Dog Town]

A.There's nothing in the NIST report about WTC 7 leaning.

B. That is a 9/11 myth.


A. It is not out yet!
B. 911 "myths" may be the only thing, you are a leading"scholar" in! Tooo bad for you, this is not one of those things!

Lettering by moi!

[Christopher7]

He said "approximately 10 stories" Both may be wrong.
Can you post his entire statement please?

The firefighters that said there was "no heavy debris in the lobby" gave the most detailed account in the report.

They were not wrong.

We don't know currently the exact size right now. But no doubt the size has changed from the earlier report.It has.

NIST Apx. L June 2004 pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"Middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of south face gouged out from floor 10 to the ground."

In the Final report of April 5 2005 pg 15
"South Face Damage-
middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground"


The 30 to 40 foot deep gouge and the damage attributed to it did not exist.


Its in the book. Sometime after the report and before June of last year. Again I quoted the page. Does the price for $12.98 some how lessen the statement?Not seeing the whole statement and knowing when it was made lessens its value.

[Christopher7]

A. It is not out yet!
We were discussing Apx L June '04

In case you missed it:

There is no evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

[Kent1]

Can you post his entire statement please?

The firefighters that said there was "no heavy debris in the lobby" gave the most detailed account in the report.

They were not wrong.

It has.

NIST Apx. L June 2004 pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"Middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of south face gouged out from floor 10 to the ground."

In the Final report of April 5 2005 pg 15
"South Face Damage-
middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground"


The 30 to 40 foot deep gouge and the damage attributed to it did not exist.


Not seeing the whole statement and knowing when it was made lessens its value.

The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact physical damage to the south face of WTC7. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approx. 10 stories about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
I gave the other. We don't know exactly the damage. So I can't say out deep it was or for how long. The account says "no heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating, black wires hanging from ceiling areas"

However we do have this
After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm
Part's of Barry's account is also in the NIST report. pg 110
In the NIST report a Port Authority Police Office stated in his fall 03 interview that "A large amount of debris crashed through the front center appox. 10th floor down to the ground level. (page109)NIST1-8
Another states 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact.
The NIST report clearly states there are some conflicting descriptions.

[Architect]

Guys c'mon, you know you're out of your depth. Christopher7 build a house with wooden poles. He knows what he's talking about.

-Gumboot


I've met many chippies who believe they know how to design and build buildings better than the trained professionals. But strangely, I have only ever met one chippie who managed to get qualified (as a building surveyor). Peculiar that, eh? ;)

[Christopher7]

The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact physical damage to the south face of WTC7. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom approx. 10 stories about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.
I gave the other. We don't know exactly the damage. So I can't say out deep it was or for how long. The account says "no heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating, black wires hanging from ceiling areas"

However we do have this
After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm
Part's of Barry's account is also in the NIST report. pg 110
In the NIST report a Port Authority Police Office stated in his fall 03 interview that "A large amount of debris crashed through the front center appox. 10th floor down to the ground level. (page109)NIST1-8
Another states 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact.
The NIST report clearly states there are some conflicting descriptions.
Shyam Sunders statement is incorrect.
He said "On about one third of the face to the center and to the bottom aprox. 10 stories and about 25% depth of the building was scooped out."
That would leave a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby.

I have always heard "in the center"

To the center would put the damage west of center.

Barry Jennings cannot be taken literally.
His statement would then be in direct conflict with the professional firefighters who said there was:
"no heavy debris in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas."

NIST Apx L pg 50

"...damage......of core framing is not known"


page 109 NIST 1-8 ?
URL please.


ETA Please read post #1884 for more on the 10 story gouge.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506088#post2506088

[Christopher7]

I've met many chippies who believe they know how to design and build buildings better than the trained professionals. But strangely, I have only ever met one chippie who managed to get qualified (as a building surveyor). Peculiar that, eh? ;)
It really doesn't matter what this chippie hippie thinks.:cool:
The fact is:

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.


BTW A person of your stature should be able to come up with something other than irrelevant questions and childish insults.

[Architect]

Sorry, but there is no point in engaging you in professional, technical debate. You cling to blatant misunderstandings, whilst disparaging the informed views put to you by people such as Newton who clearly do understand the issues at hand.

It's like dealing with TS1234 or ChristopherA, my friend. Analagous to heads and brick walls, I should imagine.

[Belz...]

Gee, Chris. I thought you could answer this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2605426&postcount=2264) post.

[Belz...]

This thread, is about debris damage and fires in WTC 7.

Please post your comments and questions about CD on the CD thread.

Sorry, but your CD hypothesis is very important to this thread, because it seems that this conclusion of yours is preventing you from accepting any evidence or reasoning that contradicts it. I suggest you abandon your CD theory and start from scratch.

You cannot deny that the following statement is true.

There is NO evidence in any government report to support the claim that debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event, or the collapse of WTC 7.

By your own admittance, it did. The only obstacle left is for you to admit that fire destroys buildings; but that shouldn't be too difficult, should it ?

[chipmunk stew]

NIST put forth no such hypothesis.

They sited possible debris damage to core columns and fire as the possible causes of the initiating event. [first part of framework to collapse]

Your statement does not say the NIST put forth no such hypothesis. Your statement says there is no evidence for such a hypothesis. This is flat wrong.

[chipmunk stew]

We were discussing Apx L June '04

In case you missed it:

There is no evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.
In case you missed it:

You're flat wrong.

[aggle-rithm]

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The Hi Ex Teleblaster II eliminates the need for wires.

The charges could have been placed in the elevator shafts and on the 5th and 6th floor without people noticing.
The conspirators would have to control security and maintenance.

You are not a CD expert so don't say "It couldn't be done."

See the C7 - C4 thread.

Look at it this way.

A building collapses. To determine the cause, we look at two possible triggers:

1. A 110-story building fell on it. We know this happened.
2. Someone secretly planted explosives in the elevator shafts. We don't know this happened. In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever that this happened.

Which is a more likely cause of the collapse?

Use your head. It's not that complicated.

[Kent1]

Shyam Sunders statement is incorrect.
He said "On about one third of the face to the center and to the bottom aprox. 10 stories and about 25% depth of the building was scooped out."
That would leave a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby.

I have always heard "in the center"

To the center would put the damage west of center.

Barry Jennings cannot be taken literally.
His statement would then be in direct conflict with the professional firefighters who said there was:
"no heavy debris in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas."

NIST Apx L pg 50

"...damage......of core framing is not known"


page 109 NIST 1-8 ?
URL please.


ETA Please read post #1884 for more on the 10 story gouge.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506088#post2506088

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf

The lobby dispute is difficult to resolve. If we could ask the firefighers and Barry, it would better clear up account. But at least we DO know there was damage in the lobby.

Obviously there are various conflicts of damage as the NIST report clearly states. Interestingly the no heavy debris account is clearly from the same rescued Barry Jennings story.

[Christopher7]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf

Thank you

The lobby dispute is difficult to resolve. If we could ask the firefighers and Barry, it would better clear up account. But at least we DO know there was damage in the lobby.
NIST did ask the firefighters. They gave a professional account of what the saw when leading people out of the building.
Barry is Housing Authority worker trying to escape a build where explosions were going off. He said "the lobby was gone". He was clearly using an expression. He was not trying to accurately describe the damage.

Obviously there are various conflicts of damage as the NIST report clearly states. Interestingly the no heavy debris account is clearly from the same rescued Barry Jennings story.No
Jennings and Hess scrambled down to the lobby.
The People who heard an explosion on the 8th floor were trapped for an hour and a half until they were rescued by firefighters who led them out of the building.


Did you read post #1883 ? I posted the link.
The 10 story gouge is in conflict with 4 other statements.
In the Final report on April 5 2005, they drop the word 'gouge' and just say damage floor 10 to ground.

[Christopher7]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf
Interestingly the no heavy debris account is clearly from the same rescued Barry Jennings story.
I just read NIST NCSTAR1-8 pg 109 and viewed the New Footage video.
You are right, Michael Hess was rescued by the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby"
So we have an accurate, detailed assessment of the damage to the lobby by professional firefighters and a characterization by a layperson.

[Kent1]

Thank you


NIST did ask the firefighters. They gave a professional account of what the saw when leading people out of the building.
Barry is Housing Authority worker trying to escape a build where explosions were going off. He said "the lobby was gone". He was clearly using an expression. He was not trying to accurately describe the damage.

No
Jennings and Hess scrambled down to the lobby.
The People who heard an explosion on the 8th floor were trapped for an hour and a half until they were rescued by firefighters who led them out of the building.


Did you read post #1883 ? I posted the link.
The 10 story gouge is in conflict with 4 other statements.
In the Final report on April 5 2005, they drop the word 'gouge' and just say damage floor 10 to ground.

No Barry was clearly one of the people on the 8th floor with Hess. He was one of the three trapped people. Later he went down to the lobby
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1

Again there are various conflicts. We don't have the full transcript of the interviews which is what I would like to see. from the NIST report

[Christopher7]

Sorry, but there is no point in engaging you in professional, technical debate. You cling to blatant misunderstandings, whilst disparaging the informed views put to you by people such as Newton who clearly do understand the issues at hand.
NB is a self proclaimed expert using an assumed name yet you believe him without question.
His assertion that cantilever effect would create a negative load in the columns furthest away from the damage shows that he is talking thru his hat.
His model shows that a cantilever effect would result in a substantial negative load to column 4 and a small positive load to column 5.
The negative load to column 6 would be negligible and the effect to columns furthest away would be zero.
The effect of severed columns would be the greatest to columns around the severed columns and less to columns further away.
You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out.

[Kent1]

I just read NIST NCSTAR1-8 pg 109 and viewed the New Footage video.
You are right, Michael Hess was rescued by the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby"
So we have an accurate, detailed assessment of the damage to the lobby by professional firefighters and a characterization by a layperson.

Ok, good so at least now you agree on that point.

[Christopher7]

No Barry was clearly one of the people on the 8th floor with Hess. He was one of the three trapped people. Later he went down to the lobby
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=barry_jennings_1

You are right.
See post #2313

In post #2301 you wrote
"First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby..."

This was incorrect.

BTW Thanx again for the URL. It cleared up this point.

[Christopher7]

Ok, good so at least now you agree on that point.
We seem to be 'passing in the night'

Do we agree that the professional firefighters description of the damage is accurate?

[Kent1]

We seem to be 'passing in the night'

Do we agree that the professional firefighters description of the damage is accurate?

Honestly I could go either way. We have a few different accounts. Its clear there was some damage to the lobby. But we don't know how much. When I e-mailed Steve Spak he also mentioned some lower damage to the building. But he was not detailed. There was also a lot of damage and debris in front of the south side as shown from the photos. But I can't say for sure Chris. NIST having access to more detailed information of these accounts stated that there was damage to the middle. However they could very well be mistaken. A lot more information has come in since the report. We know there are new photos, and a damage update from 10/6. Some photos we haven't seen yet will be coming.
Likely we will see more photos soon. But I can't say strongly one way or the other right now.

"First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby..." was simply a cut and paste from the AP article.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

[Kent1]

More interesting info for some people who might not have seen it. From an Italian blog. The bent propeller monument from WTC7.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/12/bent-propeller-monumento-wtc7.html

[Newtons Bit]

NB is a self proclaimed expert using an assumed name yet you believe him without question.
His assertion that cantilever effect would create a negative load in the columns furthest away from the damage shows that he is talking thru his hat.
His model shows that a cantilever effect would result in a substantial negative load to column 4 and a small positive load to column 5.
The negative load to column 6 would be negligible and the effect to columns furthest away would be zero.
The effect of severed columns would be the greatest to columns around the severed columns and less to columns further away.
You don't have to be an expert to figure that one out.

I'm not using an assumed name, I'm using an alias. Mostly because I don't want prank phone calls from your brother truthers while I'm work. My real name is uncommon and it's VERY easy to find me on google. I'm not going to give up my privacy just to show that I have a pedigree. The terms and methods I use here should be more than enough to prove to just about anyone that I know quite a good bit about structural engineering.

Now then, I've said over and over again that it depends on the stiffness of the beam and the stiffness of the column. This is what happens when I use a very stiff beam with a much less stiff column with the exact same model used previously. Here's the picture again if you've forgotten (or if someone is new).
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/16329463f74b202f77.jpg





X Y Z MX MY MZ
N1 .161 436.969 0 0 0 -.634
N2 0 0 0 0 0 0
N3 -.112 466.638 0 0 0 .455
N4 -.033 318.851 0 0 0 .141
N5 -.015 277.542 0 0 0 .069


Well whattya know, the highest uplift is the furthest out. My hat demands an apology for saying it has a hole that can be talked out of.

When you get an engineering degree, or even have a CLUE about statics, you'll get these concepts. But right now, you've proven that all your capable of doing is qoute mining and making assumptions you don't have the education or intelligence to back up. This is why we don't let carpenters design buildings. You've been wrong on EVERYTHING.

[Christopher7]

Honestly I could go either way. We have a few different accounts. But I can't say for sure Chris
We have these accounts.

NIST1-8 pg 109 [163 on pg counter]
A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level.
[this would have taken out most of the atrium glass and left heavy debris in the lobby]

Michael Hess:
"the lobby was gone"

Firefighters reporting "... no heavy debris in lobby areas ... white dust coating...wires hanging from ceiling areas ..."

Reported damage above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass [ground to 5th floor] was still intact.

A firefighter stating:
"only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Chief Fellini [in charge of operations at west and Vesey] said:
"it [debris] ripped steelout from between floors 3 and 6 across the facade on Vesey St.

Do you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge, 30 to 40 feet deep and 60 to 80 feet wide?

NIST 1-8 pg 110 [164 on pg counter]
"The Chief Officer [Fellini] was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side."
[5th floor, above atrium]

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/5259/3ut8.jpg

No logo on east side

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5269/copyofnw12xy.jpg

When I e-mailed Steve Spak he also mentioned damage. But he was not detailed. There was also a lot of damage and debris in front of the south side as shown from the photos.The Steve Spak photo shows floor 12 [some say 10] and above.

There are photos of WTC 7 from every angle except the south east face in the NIST report.

NIST has 25 photos [and 2 videos] of the south side of WTC 7 but they didn't include any photos of the south east part of WTC 7 in the report.

NIST having access to more detailed information of these accounts stated that there was damage to the middle. However they could very well be mistaken.Mistaken about the extent of the damage to the center of WTC 7.

A lot more information has come in since the report. We know there are new photos, and a damage update from 10/6.The Aproach Summary of 12/06 says they obtained new images 8/06 [pg 8] and updated south face damage 10/06 [pg 16].
They did not say what changed.

Some photos we haven't seen yet will be coming.
Likely we will see more photos soon. But I can't say strongly one way or the other right now.There are 4 statements that directly contradict with the 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep [at ground level].

The firefighters who said "no heavy debris in lobby areas" are not incompetent.

Atrium glass intact and the 10 story gouge in the center of WTC 7 cannot co-exist.

Chief Fellini is not incompetent. He would have noticed a 10 story gouge.

The firefighter who reported "only damage to 9th floor at SW corner" is not incompetent.


Either the firefighters and their Chief were wrong or whoever reported the 10 story gouge was wrong.

[Christopher7]

I'm not using an assumed name, I'm using an alias. Mostly because I don't want prank phone calls from your brother truthers while I'm work. My real name is uncommon and it's VERY easy to find me on google. I'm not going to give up my privacy just to show that I have a pedigree.
I understand.

The terms and methods I use here should be more than enough to prove to just about anyone that I know quite a good bit about structural engineering.No

Now then, I've said over and over again that it depends on the stiffness of the beam and the stiffness of the column. This is what happens when I use a very stiff beam with a much less stiff column with the exact same model used previously. Here's the picture again if you've forgotten (or if someone is new).
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/16329463f74b202f77.jpg


X Y Z MX MY MZ
N1 .161 436.969 0 0 0 -.634
N2 0 0 0 0 0 0
N3 -.112 466.638 0 0 0 .455
N4 -.033 318.851 0 0 0 .141
N5 -.015 277.542 0 0 0 .069
Well whattya know, the highest uplift is the furthest out.WTC 7 had 14 columns along the south side, your model has 5.

You can plug in any values you want until you get the desired result.

On pg 5 - 7 of NIST Apx. L, the column, girder and beam sizes are described.
The connections are also described.
Rather than plugging in values, use the data in the NIST report to determine the actual strength of the columns, girders and beams.

BTW: pg 5 "Between the columns there were moment connected girders..."

[Newtons Bit]

Let's try this again.

His assertion that cantilever effect would create a negative load in the columns furthest away from the damage shows that he is talking thru his hat.
His model shows that a cantilever effect would result in a substantial negative load to column 4 and a small positive load to column 5.

I think my model speaks for itself. The largest uplift is on the outside column. It's an EXAMPLE describing a CONCEPT which you fail to get. I'm not going to model WTC7.

Meanwhile, you speak as someone who can never admit he's wrong, even when it only happened a few posts ago. Can you say "troll"?

[rwguinn]

:dl:I understand.

No

WTC 7 had 14 columns along the south side, your model has 5.

You can plug in any values you want until you get the desired result.

On pg 5 - 7 of NIST Apx. L, the column, girder and beam sizes are described.
The connections are also described.
Rather than plugging in values, use the data in the NIST report to determine the actual strength of the columns, girders and beams.

BTW: pg 5 "Between the columns there were moment connected girders..."

Here we go again...
:dl:
Give up, nb--you couldn't get a concept through that wall he's built if you used a diamond bit and dynamite...
I, however, am convinced that you know a bit about structural analysis--even if you are a young whelp!

(I've always wanted to reach curmudgeonhood and use that word!)

[Newtons Bit]

Still using allowable stress methods old man?

[Kent1]

Clearly some of these are wrong. I can't say for certain what the damage is.
Michael Hess didn't say the lobby was gone it was Barry.

We also have some south face glass broken at lower floors after the collapse of WTC2 on the report.
Large debris hole near center around 14th floor
The reported damage above the atrium was 1/4 width of south face

8th 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to the west 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby
Boyle: a hole 20 stories tall in the building. He also talked about "a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. " But we know that it wasn't 20 stories.
Steve Spak mentioned damage below what was shown in the photo.
The 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep is very likely incorrect. Only damage to 9th floor at SW corner is clearly incorrect as we can see from videos and photos. But I think you mean the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner.

Again there are a lot of conflicting and incorrect accounts. I believe much of this will be resolved soon in the upcoming report.

[Christopher7]

Let's try this again.

I think my model speaks for itself. The largest uplift is on the outside column.
In your model, that 'outside' column is only 3 away from the severed column.

In WTC 7 the 'outside' column was 7 columns away.

I take it you are not going to look up the actual values of the columns, girders and beams in WTC 7.

So what did you use as the size and strength of the columns, beams and moment frames in your model?

I will compare that with the actual steel used in WTC 7 and see if you were close.

It's an EXAMPLE describing a CONCEPT which you fail to get. I'm not going to model WTC7. As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

[Kent1]

Double post

[Christopher7]

Clearly some of these are wrong. I can't say for certain what the damage is.
There was a lot of damage to the west half of the south face.

The 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep is very likely incorrect.
Thank you for that much.

It is definitely incorrect.
[unless you think the firefighters and the Chief are incompetent]

[twinstead]

There was a lot of damage to the west half of the south face.


Thank you for that much.

It is definitely incorrect.
[unless you think the firefighters and the Chief are incompetent]

But don't you imply that the firefighters and other experts on the scene who claimed the building was leaning and in imminent danger of collapse are incompetent?

[Christopher7]

But don't you imply that the firefighters and other experts on the scene who claimed the building was leaning and in imminent danger of collapse are incompetent?
One fireman, two blocks away, and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene thought it was leaning.

FEMA did not say it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


we've been over this

[Belz...]

As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

As I said, the only obstacle left is for you to admit that fire destroys buildings; but that shouldn't be too difficult, should it ?

[twinstead]

One fireman, two blocks away, and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene thought it was leaning.

FEMA did not say it was leaning.

NIST did not say it was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


we've been over this

No, we've been over the fact that you ignore the dozens of eye witness accounts that have been posted for you dozens of times by Gravy and others.

So, exactly on who's recommendation was the WT7 and surrounding area evacuated and secured? Some guy 2 blocks away?

[chipmunk stew]

As you say, this is only a concept and does not qualify as evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.
It wasn't presented as evidence. It was presented as a proof of concept that supports the plausibility of the hypothesis that the debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

Additionally, there IS evidence supporting the hypothesis, in the form of bulging and creaking (I'll leave out leaning if you prefer).

This hypothesis may be a red herring. We'll see how it all shakes out in the actual report.

Why are you having such difficulty grasping this?

[Christopher7]

As I said, the only obstacle left is for you to admit that fire destroys buildings; but that shouldn't be too difficult, should it ?
Fires destroys wood framed buildings, and toilet paper factories.

[no more obstacles]

[Architect]

Fire destroys a wide range of buildings, including traditional masonry structures and structural steelwork. This is beyond dispute.

It can also destroy timber framed buildings. I am unaware of any construction professionals or tradesmen in the UK who would use the word "wood" in this context, but am willing to assume that this is a difference in nomenclature between our countries rather than a reflection on your actual skills.

In passing, I note that timber members can (depending on size) actually have a fire performance significantly in excess of steelwork.

Do let me know if you want to argue about the fire resistance of buildings. Its an area I know quite a bit about.

[Newtons Bit]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.

[rwguinn]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.
up to 4" X 4" is lumber
6" x 6" and up is timber.
Over 12" x 12" is telephone poles.
Just my opinion.:D

[Christopher7]

up to 4" X 4" is lumber
6" x 6" and up is timber.
Over 12" x 12" is telephone poles.
Just my opinion.:D
We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.


Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

The Madrid Tower did have a partial collapse of the lightweight perimeter columns on the upper 10 floors.
The reinforced concrete frame below, and in the center, was carrying the weight of the building.

The meridian Plaza had some sagging beams, but it did not collapse.

The Caracus Tower was gutted. Nothing but the steel frame was left in much of the upper floors.
It did not collapse.


I cannot rule out the possibility that office fires could have caused the initiating event in WTC 7 but i think it is very unlikely.

[DavidJames]

I cannot rule out the possibility that office fires could have caused the initiating event in WTC 7 but i think it is very unlikely.I highlighted the important phrase. You don't have the data to make that assessment. Even if you did, you don't have the knowledge or experience to analyze the data. But continue posting your amateur opinions and feel free to accuse innocent people of mass murder. You have the first amendment to protect you. Plus it provides endless amusement.

[Christopher7]

I highlighted the important phrase. You don't have the data to make that assessment. Even if you did, you don't have the knowledge or experience to analyze the data.
True, i have no expertise on fires in high rise buildings but we don't have to be experts to debate the issue.

Up to now i have been mostly summarizing the facts i have found in the FEMA and NIST reports.

We may have differing opinions on weather or not WTC 7 was 'fully involved', and weather or not NIST 'ruled out' debris damage as a factor in the collapse, but as of now, there is no evidence that it was.


But continue posting your amateur opinions and feel free to accuse innocent people of mass murder. You have the first amendment to protect you. Plus it provides endless amusement.It's not something i take lightly. It is the most serious issue of our time.

The truth movement is spreading because many of the people who look at the evidence conclude that the government story is fatally flawed.

[Architect]

Architect:

Timber is big structural members made out of wood
Lumber is smaller pieces.

That's really the only difference.

The point I was making, in passing, was that no contractor or designer in the UK and Ireland would refer to "wood" in the context that Chris did; it's one of these wee points that often marks out the wind-up artists from those who really understand the field. I wondered if it was the same in the US and Canada. If it was, one certainly wouldn't expect a chippie to confuse to two.

Generally speaking wood might be a finishing here, for example a wooden veneer on a ply. Smaller timber elements can be called wood, but in that context one would tend to talk about (say) hardwood mouldings, or softwood panelling, rather than just "wood".

However getting back to my e-mail, which is (if course) a bit off topic, I notice with some amusement that Chris has run away from my comments regarding fireproofing on the basis that he does not, in fact, really understand the effects of fire in tall structures.

[Belz...]

Fires destroys wood framed buildings, and toilet paper factories.

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

[Belz...]

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.

Of course it has. On 2001-09-11.

[Architect]

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.


Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?

[Par]

We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.





Even if there isn’t (and I’m by no means agreeing on that point), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

Fire has not caused a modern high rise steel frame building to collapse.


Is it not the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage?

[Christopher7]

Even if there isn’t (and I’m by no means agreeing on that point), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
It is a statement of fact.

There is nothing in FEMA or NIST reports about debris damage contributing to the collapse.

Please read the following post and see for yourself.

Is it not the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage?Yes it is, and that idea is not supported by the evidence.

[Christopher7]

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event*.
*pg 36 L.3.2

NIST Apx. L pg 36 [pg 40 on pg counter]

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.


http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[Belz...]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

Come on, Chris. You can answer that one, I'm sure.

[Par]

There is nothing in FEMA or NIST reports about debris damage contributing to the collapse.

[...]

Yes it is [the idea that the collapse of 7 was caused by a combination of fire and debris damage] and that idea is not supported by the evidence.


You haven’t addressed my point. I said that even if the idea is unsupported by evidence, it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

[Architect]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?


Come on, Chris, it's a simple question. Especially if you're in the construction industry.

:confused:

[Arus808]

Guys

brick wall
head
dead horse
dizziness
round and round we go


you know...

he has cotton in his ears
you're yelling at a brick wall


Nothing we say, will get through that thick wall he calls a skull.
his eyes a blocked from seeing and understanding what the EXPERTS here have provided.

Can we just stop debating this Christophera clone?

[Christopher7]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?
Yes

[LashL]

Yes


Oops. Wrong answer, chris. Admittedly, I am not a carpenter, but I know that you are wrong in saying that steel is always better than wood when it comes to fires.

Here's a hint: Ask a firefighter whether he would rather fight a fire in an older timber framed structure or a newer steel framed structure.

[Christopher7]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?
I contend that it is possible for fire to cause a partial collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

WTC 7's unique design may have made it more vulnerable to collapse.

On this point, i will wait for the final report.

[Christopher7]

You haven’t addressed my point. I said that even if the idea is unsupported by evidence, it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
"even if" ?

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

The statement is neither generous nor ungenerous, it is simply, true.

[Par]

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

The statement is neither generous nor ungenerous, it is simply, true.



This is the second time you haven’t addressed my point. Perhaps this stems from you not having understood the term “parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html),” which is why I have linked to a definition of it for you. Generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I am saying that, irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

[slingblade]

We seem to have drifted off point, which is:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.



Funny. I read the appendix to which you link, and you seem to be missing its repeated use of the word "debris" throughout as a significant contributing factor in the intitating event.

You do realize that "intiating event" refers to that event which began the actual collapse sequence--not the event that first damaged the building and first started the fires, right?

Anyway, here's the part you didn't quote (bolding is mine, for emphasis):

L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

2. Fires were observed after the collapse of WTC 1. Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13. Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. 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.

You see, it's the impact of the debris that starts the fires. Simple how that works, yes? Otherwise, I think you're suggesting the building spontaneously combusted. Possibly in sympathy with its fellow buildings?

[Architect]

I contend that it is possible for fire to cause a partial collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

WTC 7's unique design may have made it more vulnerable to collapse.

On this point, i will wait for the final report.


That's not the question I asked you Chris, so let's be quite clear; do you, or do you not, support the position that steel framed structures can be susceptible to fires in general?

[Architect]

Oops. Wrong answer, chris. Admittedly, I am not a carpenter, but I know that you are wrong in saying that steel is always better than wood when it comes to fires.

Here's a hint: Ask a firefighter whether he would rather fight a fire in an older timber framed structure or a newer steel framed structure.


Correct. Large timbers (typically in excess of 6" thick") char on the outside, however this acts as protection for the inside which can then continue to act as a load bearing member. Steel, on the other hand, will weaken and fail without fire protection (or if the fire protection is compromised).

If you will, and of course if Chris is really a chippie then he will know this already, an intumescent coating on steel is designed to replicate this barrier layer effect in order to minimise the detrimetal effects of the fire on the steel.

Of course a real chippie would have noted that smaller timbers (note the terminology, Chris) such as floor joists and rafters (which are rarely more than 2 to 2.5" in width) do not benefit from this effect and hence "normal" timber (see, there it is again) framed houses can be very susceptible to fire. Also note that timber or wood (hahaha) surfaces tend to encourage a fast spread of flame without additional protective treatment.

In short, Chris, I think your bluffing about your qualification/expertise in an effort to bolster your strange, strange arguments here. But heck, that's just my opinion.

[Christopher7]

Funny. I read the appendix to which you link, and you seem to be missing its repeated use of the word "debris" throughout as a significant contributing factor in the intitating event.They describe the damage but they never say the perimeter damage had any effect on the initiating event.

They acknowledge that "damage ..... of core framing is not known...".

They were wrong about "damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at floors 8 or 9."

That should read "columns 66 to 75"

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4191/wtc7fl8edit2ak2.png



3. The initiating event may have included a number of structural components. ....... Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A, ....."

They do not mention perimeter damage.

You do realize that "intiating event" refers to that event which began the actual collapse sequence--not the event that first damaged the building and first started the fires, right?
Right

[Par]

Christopher7: You still haven’t addressed my question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2615162&postcount=2358).

[rwguinn]

Christopher7: You still haven’t addressed my question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2615162&postcount=2358).:deadhorse

You were correct the first time: Christopher7 is convinced that absolutely nothing that happened prior to the initiating event had anything to do with the collapse. Everything was fine until the initiating event, and had it not been for the initiating event, the building would have stood.
Therefore, the initiating event was CD.
Simple, huh?

[slingblade]

They describe the damage but they never say the perimeter damage had any effect on the initiating event.


I sincerely appreciate your answering me. (I honestly expected to get laughed at. I'm a delicate little flower. ;))

But I still see this report as saying something different than you see.

I'm an expert, too, but not at buildings or construction, flying or demolition.
I'm an expert in English. And I read for comprehension.

When I want to understand complex writing, the first thing I read is the conclusion, and then I read the body. The conclusion summarizes everything nicely and helps you figure out what the body is saying. Now, I did read this whole document, this appendix. I scanned it from start to end first, then carefully read the conclusion, and then re-read the body with equal care (and now with higher comprehension). It's a reliable technique.

What's happening in this document, we call back-mapping. In this case, it is close to all you can do since the building is gone. These investigators know the ending--now they have to follow the ending backwards, in order to find the beginning.

And what they say is this:

L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios
For the collapse to have started, there must have been a component or group of components that failed first, referred to here as the initiating event, as shown in Fig. L–36. The initiating event may have included structural components severed or damaged by falling debris (I1.1) and/or structural components affected by fires (I1.2).

And this very plainly indicates damage from debris was a possible contributor to that intiating event. The use of careful language here ("may have," "and/or," and so forth) is because the building is gone. All they have are the same things we all have now: witness reports, photos, videos.... Artifacts. It is now, and has been since 2001, impossible to tell with 100% accuracy exactly what happened. But I'm betting they came very close.

[/I]They acknowledge that "damage ..... of core framing is not known...".

They were wrong about "damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at floors 8 or 9."

These bits are taken out of context, and doing so can lend them the appearance of having a meaning they do not, in fact, have.

Here is the first snippet, in full context:

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69to 78 at Floors 8 or 9

The sentence I have bolded above shows why taking this out of its context lends it a different meaning. Your quote, the italicized bits, "damage...is not known," is very different from "the extent of damage...is not known." The former says there is no damage, while the latter says "it was damaged, but exactly how much, we aren't sure."

Thus, your quote is disingenuous. I hope you didn't mean it to be.

As to your second quote, above:
They were wrong about "damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at floors 8 or 9."
That should read "columns 66 to 75"


They were wrong that it was reported? Because that's all that says. It says those numbers were reported. Those reporting could have gotten the numbers wrong, true. But that would not be NIST's error. In fact, the language used is quite painstaking--the report is very careful to point out that a certain amount of this report is based on conjecture.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_5604464f5c775d941.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5859)


3. The initiating event may have included a number of structural components. ....... Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A, ....."

They do not mention perimeter damage.

Yes, they do, but earlier. You have to read and accept the summary as a whole. You cannot separate a bit of it and say "X was never said!" If X was said in a previous paragraph, it doesn't need to be repeated in each of them. Once was enough, if you read the summary as a whole.

The entire paragraph in question reads:

3. The initiating event may have included a number of structural components, though the relative role of impact damage and fire need further investigation. Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75, 78, and 78A, the east transfer girder (which supports column 78A and frames into transfer truss #2), and adjacent framing and floor systems.

That is some tortuously careful language use there. And they openly admit the relative role of impact damage and fire needs further investigation. It is quite clear to me the writer of this document was doing his darnedest to say "Look, we will probably never know for certain, and we need to look at it some more. A lot of this is still conjecture. At the moment, however, this is our best guess."

In that case, Chris, I would not even begin to take this report as some kind of conclusive evidence of much, as you appear to be doing. It's far too iffy in this form, and at this time.

Again, pulling out snippets and making them dance the "absolutely certain" dance is disingenuous. This particular dog can't hunt.

I do thank you, however, for your respectful reply to me, and hope I have shown the same respect in replying to you.

[rwguinn]

I sincerely appreciate your answering me. (I honestly expected to get laughed at. I'm a delicate little flower. ;))

But I still see this report as saying something different than you see.

I'm an expert, too, but not at buildings or construction, flying or demolition.
I'm an expert in English. And I read for comprehension.

When I want to understand complex writing, the first thing I read is the conclusion, and then I read the body. The conclusion summarizes everything nicely and helps you figure out what the body is saying. Now, I did read this whole document, this appendix. I scanned it from start to end first, then carefully read the conclusion, and then re-read the body with equal care (and now with higher comprehension). It's a reliable technique.
.

THank you Thank yoiu Thank you!
As an engineer, used to this sort of thing, I read the stuff exactly as you are saying. Perhaps I missed some of what ChristopherX was doing because I knew what the report said, and was seeing the whole paragraph instead of the bit he grabbed.
"May have/could be the result of" is tech speak for "this is the most likely event, but there is a certain amount of uncertainty"
I think the twoofers are so poor at reading, and so good at cherry picking because they have to keep repeating things paragraph to paragraph. At least, that's how they get attention!
Did I say Thank you!?

[slingblade]

Did I say Thank you!?

:D You did. And you're welcome.

[twinstead]

Slingblade, as a non-technical observer, I also must say thank you. Chris is taking things out of context and trying to shove them down our throats.

You succintly stated why he is not only technically wrong, but wrong in his interpretation of the report as well.

[Newtons Bit]

And this is why they don't let engineers write papers without english people help. Good job slingblade.

[AZCat]

And this is why they don't let engineers write papers without english people help. Good job slingblade.

I proofread some of the writing from our office for this very reason. Unfortunately one of my bosses is fond of sending off emails before I have a chance to check them, and he has possibly the worst spelling and grammar I've seen from a professional. Mine's not stellar, but at least I'm coherent.

[Christopher7]

I sincerely appreciate your answering me. (I honestly expected to get laughed at. I'm a delicate little flower. ;))

But I still see this report as saying something different than you see.

L.3.2
"The initiating event may have included structural components severed or damaged by falling debris. (I1.1)"

I1.1
"The initiating components may have included perimeter or interior columns that were severed or damaged by falling debris...."

I2.1
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or south west facade."
I3.1
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

I2.2
"Interior columns may have been severed or damaged by impacting debris."
I3.2
"If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately."

And this very plainly indicates damage from debris was a possible contributor to that intiating event. Yes, debris damage to the interior columns, not the perimeter columns.

It clearly rules out the damage to the perimeter columns as the cause of the initiating event.

They do not mention damage to the perimeter columns as a contributor to the initiating event.

They mention debris damage to the core columns and/or fire as the possible causes.

They separated the damage to the perimeter columns and the possible damage to the core columns for a reason.

They were in different areas of the building.

There is nothing in this section to suggest that damage to the perimeter columns contributed to the initiating event, quite the opposite.


These bits are taken out of context, and doing so can lend them the appearance of having a meaning they do not, in fact, have.

Here is the first snippet, in full context:
[see post 2365]
The sentence I have bolded above shows why taking this out of its context lends it a different meaning. Your quote, the italicized bits, "damage...is not known," is very different from "the extent of damage...is not known." The former says there is no damage, while the latter says "it was damaged, but exactly how much, we aren't sure."

Thus, your quote is disingenuous. I hope you didn't mean it to be.You're right, i did take that out of context.
By including damage to fireproofing, they are pretty safe.
Damage to a core column is likely but not certain.

This is the only report of possible damage to core columns.

It is not in the area of the initiating event.

As to your second quote, above:

They were wrong that it was reported? Because that's all that says. It says those numbers were reported. Those reporting could have gotten the numbers wrong, true. But that would not be NIST's error. In fact, the language used is quite painstaking--the report is very careful to point out that a certain amount of this report is based on conjecture.
No, the people reporting the damage did not know the numbers of the core columns. They reported elevator cars in the hallway north of the elevator shaft.
Someone at NIST screwed up. They did not accurately compare the floor plan showing the column numbers with the one showing the location of the elevator shafts.

Yes, they do, but earlier. You have to read and accept the summary as a whole. You cannot separate a bit of it and say "X was never said!" If X was said in a previous paragraph, it doesn't need to be repeated in each of them. Once was enough, if you read the summary as a whole.They ran the perimeter damage and the elevator cars in the hallway together, even through they were in different areas and non related.

By including the damage to the perimeter columns in the summary, they imply it contributed to the initiating event but they do not indicate what the connection was.

That is some tortuously careful language use there. And they openly admit the relative role of impact damage and fire needs further investigation. It is quite clear to me the writer of this document was doing his darnedest to say "Look, we will probably never know for certain, and we need to look at it some more. A lot of this is still conjecture. At the moment, however, this is our best guess."

In that case, Chris, I would not even begin to take this report as some kind of conclusive evidence of much, as you appear to be doing. It's far too iffy in this form, and at this time.People here and elsewhere, say that this report is evidence to support the official story:

"WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire"

As you just stated, it's far to iffy in this form, and at this time.

I'm saying:

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.


I do thank you, however, for your respectful reply to me, and hope I have shown the same respect in replying to you.Yes, thank you.

[Architect]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?

Come on Chris, this is an easy one. Why the wait?!

[Par]

There is NO evidence that debris damage had a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.


I’ll try a forth time: Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) explanation. Don’t you think?

[twinstead]

I’ll try a forth time: Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html) explanation. Don’t you think?

Answer the question CHRIS--It's a good one. If there were NO evidence of anything, which explanation makes the most sense?

eta: Chris we aren't using the report to prove our case, BTW, we're using it to describe why we think the official explanation makes the most sense. Yea, they might not be totally, 100% sure, but it kind of is the quintessential educated guess, I think.

[slingblade]

Answer the question CHRIS--It's a good one. If there were NO evidence of anything, which explanation makes the most sense?

eta: Chris we aren't using the report to prove our case, BTW, we're using it to describe why we think the official explanation makes the most sense. Yea, they might not be totally, 100% sure, but it kind of is the quintessential educated guess, I think.


Absolutely. This really is a highly educated guess, and they aren't done investigating.

I don't live in the world of Absolute Certainty. I know how rare a thing that is. Most things in life don't come anywhere near "absolutely certain." I can accept that there are always going to be things we will never know about this. I can accept extrapolation.

The case is not so shaky that having to extrapolate certain things makes the report untenable. After having read the appendix as carefully as I did, I feel confident I have read the best and most parsimonious explanation of the events in WTC 7's collapse. That it was a natural event which followed from the severe damage suffered by the building. There was no CD, no intrigue, no plot. Nothing but tragedy.

Reading this appendix only reinforced my opinion.

[Christopher7]

Chris

For the avoidance of doubt; do you content that fire cannot cause serious damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?
No

[Architect]

No

Are you sure? Because if you are indeed stating that fire cannot cause serious damage to steel structures, then I'd like to open another thread where we can explore this issue further. This will save me clogging up your current WTC7 discussion.

[Christopher7]

Even if there isn’t (and I’m by no means agreeing on that point), it’s still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
I looked up your $4 word and answered your question in the next post.

parsimonious: frugal
very frugal or ungenerous

bombastic: pompous language
language that is full of long or pretentious words, used to impress others

[Christopher7]

Are you sure? Because if you are indeed stating that fire cannot cause serious damage to steel structures, then I'd like to open another thread where we can explore this issue further. This will save me clogging up your current WTC7 discussion.
What part of 'no' don't you understand?

Your question was silly and argumentative. That's why i didn't answer it the first time.

slingblade is a serious person who makes thoughtful relevant posts.

You are not.

[Architect]

What part of 'no' don't you understand?

Your question was silly and argumentative. That's why i didn't answer it the first time.

slingblade is a serious person who makes thoughtful relevant posts.

You are not.


Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?

[Par]

Christopher7: You look to be going to practically any lengths – including intentionally misinterpreting my posts – to avoid answering my question. I wonder why.



parsimonious: frugal
very frugal or ungenerous



As I’ve already said, generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I’m using the term “parsimonious” because I’m referring to the principle of parsimony (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). If you’re unfamiliar with it, then please click the link; this is the third time I’ve provided you with it, after all.

So the question still stands:

Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, the idea that WTC7 collapsed due to fire, debris damage or a combination of those two factors is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

[Christopher7]

Absolutely. This really is a highly educated guess, and they aren't done investigating.

I don't live in the world of Absolute Certainty. I know how rare a thing that is. Most things in life don't come anywhere near "absolutely certain." I can accept that there are always going to be things we will never know about this. I can accept extrapolation.

The case is not so shaky that having to extrapolate certain things makes the report untenable. After having read the appendix as carefully as I did, I feel confident I have read the best and most parsimonious explanation of the events in WTC 7's collapse. That it was a natural event which followed from the severe damage suffered by the building. There was no CD, no intrigue, no plot. Nothing but tragedy.

Reading this appendix only reinforced my opinion.
You believe that the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is the best and most frugal explanation.

You reject other explanations out of hand, even though WTC 7 imploded.

CD's cause high rise buildings to implode.

CD cannot be ruled out.

If you don't live in a world of absolute certainty, why are you absolutely certain that WTC 7 was not a CD?

[Architect]

Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?


<cough>

[Christopher7]

Christopher7: You look to be going to practically any lengths – including intentionally misinterpreting my posts – to avoid answering my question. I wonder why.
As I’ve already said, generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I’m using the term “parsimonious” because I’m referring to the principle of parsimony (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html). If you’re unfamiliar with it, then please click the link; this is the third time I’ve provided you with it, after all.

So the question still stands:

Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, the idea that WTC7 collapsed due to fire, debris damage or a combination of those two factors is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?
No

[Architect]

Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?


ahem?

[Par]

No


I see. So, what is a more parsimonious explanation?

[Christopher7]

Okay then, put your money where your mouth is.

I shall start another thread; the basis for the discussion will be that structural steelwork is indeed susceptible to weaking, damage, and in extreme cases failure due to fires. You will make the case that this is incorrect and (if I understand correctly) that "normal" fires cannot cause sufficient damage to lead to significant problems.

Fair enough?
Get serious.
Your reading comprehension is zero.
I answered your question "no".

That means, i do not contend that fire could not weaken steel framework, or cause a failure.

[Dave_46]

<snip?
I notice with some amusement that Chris has run away from my comments regarding fireproofing on the basis that he does not, in fact, really understand the effects of fire in tall structures.

I strongly suspect that conspiracy fantasists do not understand the effects of fire in/on any building.

Dave

[Architect]

Well he certainly doesn't understand the structural issues but seems very good at speaking down to folk like Newton who clearly do.

[Dave_46]

Correct. Large timbers (typically in excess of 6" thick") char on the outside, however this acts as protection for the inside which can then continue to act as a load bearing member. Steel, on the other hand, will weaken and fail without fire protection (or if the fire protection is compromised).

If you will, and of course if Chris is really a chippie then he will know this already, an intumescent coating on steel is designed to replicate this barrier layer effect in order to minimise the detrimetal effects of the fire on the steel.

<snip>

I wish I had a copy of a photograph I saw when I worked at TRADA. It showed a building after a fire, with steel members draped over timber beams still in position after the fire.

And you really shouldn't confuse him with technical words like intumescent.

Dave

[twinstead]

I see. So, what is a more parsimonious explanation?


This makes me curious as well. We know NIST is not perfect or even complete yet, but what scenario makes MORE sense than the official explanation given the available evidence?

[Christopher7]

I see. So, what is a more parsimonious explanation?
That is a subject for another thread.

This one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

[Architect]

I wish I had a copy of a photograph I saw when I worked at TRADA. It showed a building after a fire, with steel members draped over timber beams still in position after the fire.

And you really shouldn't confuse him with technical words like intumescent.

Dave

Most experience chippies I know are at least aware of intumescent coatings. But then most chippies I know don't use the word "wood" to describe structural timber.........;)

[LashL]

That is a subject for another thread.

This one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?

[Miragememories]

No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?

Why don't you just restate the question C and contextualize it while your at it?

MM

[Christopher7]

No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?
I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.

[twinstead]

Face it MM and Chris. The 'official story' is laid out in minute detail for all to see. It's not hidden, it is available for critique by anybody on Earth.

Nobody can know 100% for sure about anything, but what competing theory has been laid out in as much excruciating detail? How many legitimately peer-reviewed papers, or any for that matter, have been submitted that make more sense than the 'official story' to experts in the relevant fields?

Your movement isn't making many fans out of the millions of interested laymen like me.

Why do you think that is?

[Architect]

Hey, that's not fair! We're not ignoring you, we're taking the piss!!

But point taken, I'll leave you to your discussion in peace.


But I still don't think you're a real chippie.

[twinstead]

I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.

BS. There is also no evidence for any alternate theory you may come up with. You are using the tried and true technique of trying to blast holes in a theory you disagree with and shoving your own unsupported by evidence theory in its place by default and we aren't buying it.

Nobody changed the subject. The answer to your OP could have just as well been "so what?"

[LashL]

I have stated many times that this thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

You want to avoid the fact that;

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.

No, I am certainly not trying to change the subject, to bury a post, or to attack you. I was simply pointing out that answering a proper question as part of a discussion would have been a prudent thing to do. You do your credibility no favours when you avoid a legitimate question.

Nor does it help to constantly restate the same old nonsense that you have stated a hundred times before. Repetition does not make it true.

[Par]

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.

bychanging the subject.

Architect, Par, Dave, twinstead and now you, are trying to ignore and bury post #2382 by changing the subject and/or attacking me.


I’m not trying to ignore it; I’m saying that it’s entirely academic. To get my previous question answered, I had to ask it on five separate occasions. Hopefully the answer to this one will be somewhat more forthcoming, but, anyway, here’s try number two:

What is a more parsimonious explanation?

[Architect]

Typical lawyer, demanding answers and posing akward questions! Curses!


Right, I'll leave you in peace on this thread for now....

[Miragememories]

No, I am certainly not trying to change the subject, to bury a post, or to attack you. I was simply pointing out that answering a proper question as part of a discussion would have been a prudent thing to do. You do your credibility no favours when you avoid a legitimate question.

Nor does it help to constantly restate the same old nonsense that you have stated a hundred times before. Repetition does not make it true.

And calling it nonsense doesn't make that true either!

MM

[Miragememories]

Face it MM and Chris. The 'official story' is laid out in minute detail for all to see. It's not hidden, it is available for critique by anybody on Earth.

Nobody can know 100% for sure about anything, but what competing theory has been laid out in as much excruciating detail? How many legitimately peer-reviewed papers, or any for that matter, have been submitted that make more sense than the 'official story' to experts in the relevant fields?

Your movement isn't making many fans out of the millions of interested laymen like me.

Why do you think that is?

Maybe I see the answer to your question in your chosen avatar..ya think..or maybe ya don't.

Regarding WTC7 I see avoidance of the obvious in excruciating detail.

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

They might partially collapse or disintegrate over time but die a quick death? A modern square block 47-storey building? Come on. They must pay you well to agree to the OCT.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

MM

[LashL]

And calling it nonsense doesn't make that true either!

MM

Except that it is, as has already been shown.

[Miragememories]

Except that it is, as has already been shown.

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

Such omnipotence must be pleasing but it only works in the dreamland they obviously originate from C.

You continue to see that which you wish to see.

My mind has not been warped by having to defend the guilty so I'm free to see things clearly.

I really wish you could knock that chip off your shoulder, forget about your ego and actually re-examine what's gone down.

MM

[Architect]

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!


Damn. I'm back.


MM. Let me be quite clear. I'm an architect who works on tall buildings. Amongst the subjects I had to study at university were structures, and I have 15 years of post qualification experience. Humour me, and assume that I do actually understand the issues at hand.

So tell me. How do you believe that the collapse should have occured, and what do you mean by "drop"?

[LashL]

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

Such omnipotence must be pleasing but it only works in the dreamland they obviously originate from C.

You continue to see that which you wish to see.

My mind has not been warped by having to defend the guilty so I'm free to see things clearly.

I really wish you could knock that chip off your shoulder, forget about your ego and actually re-examine what's gone down.

MM

Tsk, tsk, miragememories. Such silly and baseless personal attacks. You really ought to work on your repertoire. Not only are your silly and baseless personal attacks against the rules, they are also boring.

I would suggest that you make efforts to absorb facts and evidence and use those as the starting point of your research. Clinging to preposterous conspiracy theories that are founded upon nothing but innuendo, supposition, cherrypicking, distortion, quote-mining, and outright deceit, as members of the "Truth" movement do, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Reality, facts, evidence. These are the things that you should strive toward.

On the up side, at least you appear to have abandoned your prior lies about me, in that you appear to acknowledge in this most recent post of yours that I am a lawyer and not a secretary.

But what is it that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty"? This appears to be another stellar example of either your lack of reading comprehension skills or your lack of research skills. I am not sure which.

[twinstead]

Maybe I see the answer to your question in your chosen avatar..ya think..or maybe ya don't.

Regarding WTC7 I see avoidance of the obvious in excruciating detail.

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

Buildings don't DROP. Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

They might partially collapse or disintegrate over time but die a quick death? A modern square block 47-storey building? Come on. They must pay you well to agree to the OCT.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

MM


Oh give me a freakin' break. You are basing your entire argument on what the collapses LOOKED like, all the while ignoring the countless experts who have gone on record, and describing IN MINUTE DETAIL how a building could just 'drop' without CD.

If they pay ME to agree to the OCT, the must pay the VAST MAJORITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON EARTH to agree.

Talk about big pockets...

[Miragememories]

Tsk, tsk, miragememories. Such silly and baseless personal attacks. You really ought to work on your repertoire. Not only are your silly and baseless personal attacks against the rules, they are also boring.

I would suggest that you make efforts to absorb facts and evidence and use those as the starting point of your research. Clinging to preposterous conspiracy theories that are founded upon nothing but innuendo, supposition, cherrypicking, distortion, quote-mining, and outright deceit, as members of the "Truth" movement do, is lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Reality, facts, evidence. These are the things that you should strive toward.

On the up side, at least you appear to have abandoned your prior lies about me, in that you appear to acknowledge in this most recent post of yours that I am a lawyer and not a secretary.

But what is it that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty"? This appears to be another stellar example of either your lack of reading comprehension skills or your lack of research skills. I am not sure which.

Personal?

Well maybe if you weren't so certain in your remarks I could be less emphatic in my responses.

And please..that reply was hardly an attack. You are so melodramatic.

I'm sorry to be boring. You find so much to be boring.

Thank you for the advice. I will file away all the preposterous conspiracy theories like those proposed by the 911 Commission, NIST, your partner, etc.

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world. Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Reality, facts and evidence. Hmm. So as a lawyer, you honestly place those ahead of what your client might have to say that conflicts with them?

I thought lawyers were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with getting their clients acquitted?

Regarding your professional status, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you say you are. You can pretend to be any kind of professional you wish.

Lawyers like to influence those who sit in judgment, whether they be the lone judge or the 12 person jury. They don't care so much about the truth as much as what they can make the listener think. I've served on 2 juries so I'm not totally inexperienced in this phenomenon.

I've observed many of your posts. They are nothing but calculated performances that reveal little concern about thoughtful content and every concern about power presentation. It may please the JREF fan club, but I've met many people at higher levels than yourself and your style only comes across as very juvenile and that of a camp follower.

MM

[Miragememories]

Oh give me a freakin' break. You are basing your entire argument on what the collapses LOOKED like, all the while ignoring the countless experts who have gone on record, and describing IN MINUTE DETAIL how a building could just 'drop' without CD.

If they pay ME to agree to the OCT, the must pay the VAST MAJORITY OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ON EARTH to agree.

Talk about big pockets...

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

[twinstead]

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

There are qualified experts who disagree. Take it up with them

[Architect]

Why should I give you a break?

Living in fantasyland, you're impregnable. The silent majority can be interpreted as the supportive vast majority.

I'm far from basing my argument on what the collapses "looked like".

All these OCT WTC 1,2 & 7 collapse hypotheses are based on the belief of a 'DROP'.

NIST, Greening etc., all those who base their belief that the collapse mechanism was a wave of overwhelming kinetic energy, have to accept the concept of a 'sudden DROP'.

A 'DROP' that in the cases of WTC 1 and 2, was so fast as to generate enough kinetic energy that the intact structure below offered virtually no resistance.

A 'DROP' that mysteriously occurs through a one storey height because damaged and undamaged columns bearing the upper load of the building suddenly 'SNAP' in unison.

Columns that weren't struck by any new impacts.

The only remaining threat to these columns was heat. Heat which tends to effect the properties of steel gradually, rather than suddenly.

Supposedly, taking whomever's pet theory you wish, whether it be NIST's, Greening's etc., somehow this heat threat managed to cause instantaneous structural failure so rapidly (SNAP) that the upper structures of WTC 1 and 2 were able to achieve this incredible high speed 'DROP' necessary to impose sufficient kinetic energy on the solid, stable, intact structure below and force it to collapse with virtually no ability to resist.

And this is not fantasy?

MM

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.


ETA: Mackay and others; nane of yer imperial pish. Metric this time, eh?

[twinstead]

MM there comes a time when arguments from incredulity just cease to cut it. It's time now to put up or shut up.

If you think you have the education and experience to debate your theory with the myriad of experts who have no problem with the 'drop' then do so.

Until then, with all due respect, STFU

[Miragememories]

MM there comes a time when arguments from incredulity just cease to cut it. It's time now to put up or shut up.

If you think you have the education and experience to debate your theory with the myriad of experts who have no problem with the 'drop' then do so.

Until then, with all due respect, STFU

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

There is not enough firm data to firmly argue the actual collapse mechanism with any certainly.

NIST admits they have not more than a hypothesis.

They created 10,000 final pages from probably 100,000 pages of raw notes and even then they stop at 'collapse initiation'!

The NIST report is founded on what they feel are an accumulation of logical assumptions because they lack the accumulation of real data that would serve them more credibly.

One example in particular, I just read here, today, here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, a post from Pilots for Truth, this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

It was too difficult at those speeds. Finally, on his 10th attempt, the trainer succeeded in colliding with the WTC but he had to reduce his speed to close to landing speed. NIST had to use extreme aircraft speed to make their collapse simulation work!

I understand the enormity of the problems faced by NIST in trying to analyze the collapses. They assumed some facts, dismissed others, made educated guesses and ultimately derived a simulation that achieved a collapse initiation.

Some experts feel the lengths NIST went to in accepting some values while discarding others was quite satisfactory. Considering all the parameters that effected the end result, and the magnitude of the ranges of acceptability at play, the assumptions, the lack of hard data, the limitations of the model, the bias of a forgone conclusion that impact and fire damage most certainly lead to collapse initiation, etc., the experts simply can't credibly argue through the use of model simulation, some laboratory tests and academia alone that they know the answer!

If it was as simple as presenting formulae and technical explanations as you folks keep attempting to do, NIST wouldn't have wasted so much money, time and effort on generating that 10,000 page tome.

Their defenders are merely regurgitating the NIST document and aren't adding anything new..that hardly counts as numerous independent experts doing their own critical examination. That's just 'rubber stamping'.

Even Greening, a fomer favorite son here, frequently sourced as an argument for explaining the collapses, he now has stepped back and is highly critical of the NIST WTC Collapse Report.

MM

[LashL]

*sigh*

Personal?

Yes, it is "personal" when you choose to make the focus of your post about another poster rather than the substance of their post.

Well maybe if you weren't so certain in your remarks I could be less emphatic in my responses.

The only thing "emphatic" about the responses you refer to is that they are emphatically baseless, factless, and devoid of meaningful content.

And please..that reply was hardly an attack. You are so melodramatic.

By definition, posting such as you did is a "personal attack" in that it focuses on criticizing another poster rather than the content of the post. There is certainly no melodrama on my end. I am simply setting you straight on basic terminology. Note that I do so without reference to such things as "omnipotence," "dreamland," "warped minds," "chips on the shoulder," or "ego," - unlike your post - are you getting it yet?

I'm sorry to be boring.

Apology accepted. But please try to avoid reiterating the same old, tired, lame, nonsensical, unsubstantiated, silly crap in the future.

You find so much to be boring.

Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

Thank you for the advice. I will file away all the preposterous conspiracy theories like those proposed by the 911 Commission, NIST, your partner, etc.

Kindly list what you consider to be preposterous conspiracy theories proposed by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, and my partner. I do not think that you can name a single one, and I think that you know that, but it will be interesting to see your answer.

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world.

I harbour no obsessive beliefs, thus do not cling to same. Kindly elaborate on what you meant by this. Please be specific.

Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Do I really need to point out to you that this is yet another baseless personal attack with no foundation in facts, evidence or reality?

Reality, facts and evidence. Hmm. So as a lawyer, you honestly place those ahead of what your client might have to say that conflicts with them?

I do, indeed.

I thought lawyers were less concerned with the truth and more concerned with getting their clients acquitted?

You thought wrong.

You appear to be confused about the role of a criminal defence lawyer (whose job it is to ensure that an accused person gets a fair trial and that the prosecution be required to prove its case) and you seem to misunderstand the rule of law as it appears that you think adhering to it amounts to a disregard for the truth. You are wrong.

You also failed to respond to my question above about what it is that compels you to insinuate that my mind has "been warped by having to defend the guilty". Had you taken the opportunity to try to figure out why your insinuation was incorrect, that may have given you some insight into why you are continuing down the path of poor reading comprehension and/or poor research.

'Tis far better to journey down the better path of reading comprehension and research than to continue to display your ignorance.

Regarding your professional status, I have no way of knowing who you are or what you say you are. You can pretend to be any kind of professional you wish.

It is not true that you have no way of knowing who I am or what I say I am. I have offered you the opportunity to verify my credentials for yourself, in person, at a location convenient to you, at a time convenient to you, and on a day convenient to you, but you have declined.

Lawyers like to influence those who sit in judgment, whether they be the lone judge or the 12 person jury. They don't care so much about the truth as much as what they can make the listener think. I've served on 2 juries so I'm not totally inexperienced in this phenomenon.

Oh, look, a sweeping generalization. And BS, too.

I've observed many of your posts. They are nothing but calculated performances that reveal little concern about thoughtful content and every concern about power presentation. It may please the JREF fan club, but I've met many people at higher levels than yourself and your style only comes across as very juvenile and that of a camp follower.

Oh, look, another sweeping generalization. And BS, too. And yet another personal attack. Gee, big surprise, that.

Now, with all of that out of the way (do you seriously wonder why I find your posts boring and tedious), do you have anything of substance to say about the events of September 11, 2001? Anything at all?

[Architect]

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.


So, is that a yes or a no MM? Do you wish to open a thread where we can debate structural issues at length, on the understanding that we will be going into issues in depth where necessary and will expect you to respond likewise?

Or is it all bluster?

[LashL]

MM

As I've mentioned before, I'm a qualified architect working on tall buildings and have studied structures at university level. If you want to take this onto a new thread then I'm willing to debate it with you. I would imagine that some of the others who have studied structures will as well. Just to warn you, however, that we will be talking structural mechanics and figures in some depth, and will expect you to do likewise. Personal incredulity will not cut it.


ETA: Mackay and others; nane of yer imperial pish. Metric this time, eh?

I certainly hope that miragememories will take you up on this, Architect, and not try to change the subject and weasel out.

But I won't hold my breath.

[twinstead]

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

There is not enough firm data to firmly argue the actual collapse mechanism with any certainly.

NIST admits they have not more than a hypothesis.

They created 10,000 final pages from probably 100,000 pages of raw notes and even then they stop at 'collapse initiation'!

The NIST report is founded on what they feel are an accumulation of logical assumptions because they lack the accumulation of real data that would serve them more credibly.

One example in particular, I just read here, today, here in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, a post from Pilots for Truth, this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

It was too difficult at those speeds. Finally, on his 10th attempt, the trainer succeeded in colliding with the WTC but he had to reduce his speed to close to landing speed. NIST had to use extreme aircraft speed to make their collapse simulation work!

I understand the enormity of the problems faced by NIST in trying to analyze the collapses. They assumed some facts, dismissed others, made educated guesses and ultimately derived a simulation that achieved a collapse initiation.

Some experts feel the lengths NIST went to in accepting some values while discarding others was quite satisfactory. Considering all the parameters that effected the end result, and the magnitude of the ranges of acceptability at play, the assumptions, the lack of hard data, the limitations of the model, the bias of a forgone conclusion that impact and fire damage most certainly lead to collapse initiation, etc., the experts simply can't credibly argue through the use of model simulation, some laboratory tests and academia alone that they know the answer!

If it was as simple as presenting formulae and technical explanations as you folks keep attempting to do, NIST wouldn't have wasted so much money, time and effort on generating that 10,000 page tome.

Their defenders are merely regurgitating the NIST document and aren't adding anything new..that hardly counts as numerous independent experts doing their own critical examination. That's just 'rubber stamping'.

Even Greening, a fomer favorite son here, frequently sourced as an argument for explaining the collapses, he now has stepped back and is highly critical of the NIST WTC Collapse Report.

MM

So, you are saying that YOU know more than these experts. Am I correct?

Every expert who disagrees with you is simply 'rubber stamping' a report that they probably don't even read, much less understand, am I correct?

You think that the NIST report is crap, and all the experts who agree with it are simply parroting some ideological agenda without even understanding what the NIST is saying, am I correct?

Just who do you think you are?

[Par]

So, the idea is something along the lines of: “You’re a criminal defence lawyer, so you’d be perfectly happy about lying to cover up the murder of thousands of American citizens.”

Just what kind of mentality must someone have in order to come out with that sort of offensively bigoted non-sequitur?

[Slayhamlet]

So, the idea is something along the lines of: “You’re a criminal defence lawyer, so you’d be perfectly happy about lying to cover up the murder of thousands of American citizens.”

Just what kind of mentality must someone have in order to come out with that sort of offensively bigoted non-sequitur?

You have to remember, this is the same creep who compared Gravy to Hitler and modern structural engineers to Nazi era eugenicists. He hasn't a shred of decency, let alone credibility.

[slingblade]

You believe that the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is the best and most frugal explanation.

In reference to this appendix only: yes, I feel this explains what happened and how to WCT 7. As far as frugality, the term really is parsimony, and there is a link in a previous post to a definition of the principle. It really is helpful, and I hope you are either familiar with it or will become so.

Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" is also very helpful, and I recommend that, as well.

You reject other explanations out of hand, even though WTC 7 imploded.

To reject "out of hand" is to reject without even looking. I have not done that. I have looked at and examined many possible explanations, for several years. None fit the events save for what I saw happen: Two planes hit two buildings, and their subsequent collapse damaged several other buildings, one of which collapsed that same day.

CD's cause high rise buildings to implode.

They do, indeed. But these buildings collapsed.

CD cannot be ruled out.

I feel reasonably (not absolutely) certain it can. I have no cognitive problems with the events of 9/11/01. I don't have to imagine bombs to accept the evidence of my eyes, and of experts: I saw those buildings fall. They were not imploded by controlled demolition. They were brutally damaged, and they fell.

If you don't live in a world of absolute certainty, why are you absolutely certain that WTC 7 was not a CD?

I didn't say I was absolutely certain. But I am as sure as I can reasonably be. If new evidence comes along, I will examine it with an open mind. The evidence I've seen so far informs my opinion that the WTC towers were hit by terrorist-manned planes, and they collapsed due to the damage they suffered.

I've been looking at all of this for years--long before I ever joined this forum. I was part of this forum before we ever had a CT subforum, so I didn't join to discuss this matter.

Before I joined JREF forums, I got snagged by the "where's the plane at the Pentagon?!?" query, and was roundly made fun of for it by friends on another list (who normally believe anything they hear), so I figured that if these ladies weren't buying it, I needed to look at it much harder.

I did. And realized I'd been suckered mightily. Not too long after that, I made the fortunate choice to take a college course on parapsychology (a debunking course), in which Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" was our textbook. At the same time, I joined JREF forums.

And to quote Frost, that has made all the difference.

I'm not a fan of labels, but if I had to choose one, I guess right now I'd go with LIHTI, but not doggedly so. Actually, my label would be more like:

EAFTLSYHCTTISWANOHAU.

Every Administration For The Last Sixty Years Has Contributed To This In Some Way, And No One's Hands Are Unsoiled.

But as far as some kind of deliberate government plot?
Nah. I really doubt it.

[Belz...]

Guys

brick wall
head
dead horse
dizziness
round and round we go


you know...

Wait, wait... this is a riddle, right ?

I got it! I got it!!

It's a dishwasher, right ??

[Belz...]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

Yes

Oh! That's really unfortunate, but thanks for playing. You are utterly, completely, overwhelmingly wrong. Guess that's why you don't work with steel buildings.

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

You are being dishonest here. What you are saying is that there is NO evidence that the FIRES contributed to the collapsed, because you've admitted that the debris started the fires.

slingblade is a serious person who makes thoughtful relevant posts.

You are not.

Says the person who won't respond to the wood vs steel posts proving him wrong.

CD cannot be ruled out.

Oh ? So the lack of visible and audible explosions, the nonsensical nature of that hypothesis and the fact that no trace of the explosives were found doesn't bother you ?

[Belz...]

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

And here is exposed succintly the difference between skeptics and CTers. You rely on your inexperienced observation. People here rely on expertise of how things really work, despite subjective observation.

You hand-wave expert opinions, and yet expect your "observations" to be taken more seriously ?

Buildings don't DROP.

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they ?

Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

Indeed.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

Of course you'd wonder this. To the uneducated, things seem so simple, so obvious that only a dishonest person with an agenda could possibly disagree, right ?

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6080463f5270dbb87.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5580)

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world. Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Is that supposed to convince anyone ? Or was that a prelude to an actual argument ?

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

And what are YOU pushing ? Fact ? Based on what ? Your ignorance.

this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

Well, he's not a very good pilot because some non-pilots made it on the first attempt.

[Christopher7]

BS. There is also no evidence for any alternate theory you may come up with.
There is evidence, you just deny it.

You are using the tried and true technique of trying to blast holes in a theory you disagree with and shoving your own unsupported by evidence theory in its place by default and we aren't buying it.You are half right. I'm pointing out the misleading claims made by those who believe WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage.

jaydeehess started a thread to discuss CD's [at my request] so we could discuss that issue separately.

[Christopher7]

No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?
This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7

I will be glad to respond to questions about CD's on the thread i listed.

[Gravy]

There is evidence, you just deny it.Sorry, your interpretation of a video doesn't count as evidence.

Remember that you said you had plenty of evidence for a conviction, based solely on videos?

So what are you going to do about it? Will you finally be a man and display the courage of your convictions, or are you content to whine on internet forums?

Is this it, then? All done, Chris? Your plan is to change the world by whining on the internet?

Ed, I pity these intellectual cowards who've deluded themselves into thinking that they're accomplishing something beyond making public fools of themselves.

[Christopher7]

Oh! That's really unfortunate, but thanks for playing.
You're welcome.

You are utterly, completely, overwhelmingly wrong. Guess that's why you don't work with steel buildings.True

You are being dishonest here. What you are saying is that there is NO evidence that the FIRES contributed to the collapsed, because you've admitted that the debris started the fires.Wrong. I have stated that the debris damage did not have a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

It has NOT been established that fires played a roll in the collapse.

You are stating as fact, [I]a set of assumptions that NIST says "needs more investigation".

How can you be so sure when NIST doesn't know for sure?

Says the person who won't respond to the wood vs steel posts proving him wrong.The steel v wood game is a diversion and has nothing to do with debris damage to WTC 7.

Oh ? So the lack of visible and audible explosions, the nonsensical nature of that hypothesis and the fact that no trace of the explosives were found doesn't bother you ?I will discuss those issues on the C7 - C4 thread.

[Christopher7]

Sorry, your interpretation of a video doesn't count as evidence.
You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.


Remember that you said you had plenty of evidence for a conviction, based solely on videos? In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brianer for most people.


So what are you going to do about it? Will you finally be a man and display the courage of your convictions, or are you content to whine on internet forums? I make copies of Loose change and the 4 min. video i made and give them to everyone who will look at them.
Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

Is this it, then? All done, Chris? Your plan is to change the world by whining on the internet?By debating here, i have learned that there is no solid evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

Ed, I pity these intellectual cowards who've deluded themselves into thinking that they're accomplishing something beyond making public fools of themselves.Talk to yourself much?

[Christopher7]

In reference to this appendix only: yes, I feel this explains what happened and how to WCT 7.
NIST isn't at all sure. Why are you?


To reject "out of hand" is to reject without even looking. I have not done that. I have looked at and examined many possible explanations, for several years. None fit the events save for what I saw happen: Two planes hit two buildings, and their subsequent collapse damaged several other buildings, one of which collapsed that same day.Many buildings were damaged by the collapse of the Trade Towers. Only WTC 7 collapsed.

They do, indeed. But these buildings collapsed.WTC 7 imploded. [FEMA pg 30]
That's a very unique form of collapse.

I feel reasonably (not absolutely) certain it can. I have no cognitive problems with the events of 9/11/01. I don't have to imagine bombs to accept the evidence of my eyes, and of experts: I saw those buildings fall. They were not imploded by controlled demolition. They were brutally damaged, and they fell.
The discussion here is WTC 7.

There was no debris damage anywhere near the first columns to fail [columns 79, 80 and 81].

[Belz...]

Wrong. I have stated that the debris damage [itself] did not have a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

It has NOT been established that fires played a roll in the collapse.

Nice try at a dodge, but it won't work. You admitted that the debris started the fires, but you steadfastly refuse to admit that steel buildings can be destroyed by fire:

The steel v wood game is a diversion and has nothing to do with debris damage to WTC 7.

No, it isn't, because admitting to it would shatter your claim that steel buildings can't be destroyed by fire. You know this.

I will discuss those issues on the C7 - C4 thread.

Oh, come on. A simple yes or no will suffice.

[Belz...]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

Double strawman. We think that a whole lot of people THINK that 7 WTC was a CD.

In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brianer for most people.

That's why we use experts in courts, lest the jury make a decision based on ignorance.

Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

So you're saying that this impression could be wrong ?

By debating here, i have learned that there is no solid evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

I'm sure that's a lie. You "knew" that from the start.

[chipmunk stew]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brainer for most people.
It would have to be, wouldn't it?

[Christopher7]

Nice try at a dodge, but it won't work. You admitted that the debris started the fires, but you steadfastly refuse to admit that steel buildings can be destroyed by fire:
Wrong

In post #2376, in answer to the question:

"Do you contend that fire cannot cause seriously damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?"

I answered "No"

In post #2387 i said:

"I do not contend that fire could not weaken steel framework, or cause failure."

Oh, come on. A simple yes or no will suffice.There are 3 statements in that question.

1) The government has collected over 6,000 video clips and has kept them from the public for 5 and 1/2 years.

The visual and audio evidence, one way or the other, is no doubt contained in those video clips.

2) We disagree on the "nonsensical" nature of the CD hypothesis.

3) As for the "no trace of explosives", most of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Thanks to some volunteers from SEAoNY, a few pieces of WTC 7 were salvaged and analyzed.

I will post the results on the C7 - C4 thread.

[slingblade]

NIST isn't at all sure. Why are you?

My mouth is crammed full of your words. Please stop.
I have explained why I can accept this interim NIST appendix: It fits the available evidence best. But I am not closed to receiving new evidence, when and if such becomes available. If it does, I will examine and weigh it. To this point, this explanation is acceptable, and far more likely than CD.

See, I don't have to completely rule CD out in order to accept the more likely and more evidence-supported opinion.

I've never been to the moon, but I feel it more likely to be made of something other than green cheese. I've never been deep-sea diving, but I feel Atlantis likely never existed.

Many buildings were damaged by the collapse of the Trade Towers. Only WTC 7 collapsed.

You do realize that all you did was slightly rephrase my last sentence? And that, essentially, you've just agreed with me? Did you mean to?

WTC 7 imploded. [FEMA pg 30]
That's a very unique form of collapse.

Implosion is controlled demolition. WCT 7 collapsed from severe structural damaged caused by both debris damage and fires. I read the report. I studied the images. I am able to accept the [tentative]conclusion.

The discussion here is WTC 7.

Fine. We can pretend towers 1 and 2 had nothing to do with this. It wouldn't be true, but if it makes you happy....

There was no debris damage anywhere near the first columns to fail [columns 79, 80 and 81].

(PP L-51, L-52) The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses become available.


You want so much for this to be concrete proof. It is not. It is a hypothesis. A working hypothesis, which by its very definition indicates change can be anticipated in future.

Now, the best question: why are you trying to convince me? Go try to convince them, NIST. Tell them how they got it wrong. With me, you're just spinning in your wheel. Why do you even care if anyone here supports your theories or not?

Go tell the people who matter. Go do something meaningful and stand up for what you believe in.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

All this internet crap, all of it, makes the CDCT adherents look like hamsters in a giant wheel.

[CHF]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD. No offense Chris, but it really doesn't matter whether you or other people "can see that WTC 7 was a CD."

Do engineers see things that way? Do demolition pros? Have they written any papers on the matter?

If not then I'm afraid uneducated opinions are of no value whatsoever.

Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

Looks like? Sure didn't take you long to back down, did it?

I think WTC7 looks like a CD. In fact I think most people do. So what?

I also think Gravy looks like Robert Deniro. Does that mean he is? Should we investigate?

[Christopher7]

Double strawman. We think that a whole lot of people THINK that 7 WTC was a CD.
A lot of other people THINK debris damage contributed to the collapse in spite of the fact that there is NO evidence to support that belief.

So you're saying that this impression could be wrong ?
No, some people are more certain than others.

I'm sure that's a lie. You "knew" that from the start.No.

Last August i was debating with Gravy. He insisted i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

I found a conundrum on pg 18.
The 10 story gouge was in conflict with "no heavy debris in the lobby" and "atrium glass was intact".

Since then i have learned from FEMA and NIST reports that:

there is NO evidence of diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7

there is NO evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event

there is NO evidence that the debris damage to the south east face of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event

Just last week i learned that Chief Fellini [in charge of operations at WTC 7] was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side.
He would have seen and reported a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to ground.
The 10 story gouge, described on pg 18 and shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32, did not exist.
The damage attributed to this gouge did not happen and the reference to this damage in the Summary is incorrect and misleading.

[Gravy]

He would have seen and reported a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to ground.Thanks for your opinion. And you're afraid to contact Fellini...why?

The 10 story gouge, described on pg 18 and shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32, did not exist.You're right. It was more like 43 stories, although narrower.

The damage attributed to this gouge did not happen and the reference to this damage in the Summary is incorrect and misleading.Thanks for your opinion. Anything else, then?

[Christopher7]

I have explained why I can accept this interim NIST appendix: It fits the available evidence best.
The available evidence is:

There was no debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event, only office fires.

But I am not closed to receiving new evidence, when and if such becomes available. If it does, I will examine and weigh it. To this point, this explanation is acceptable, and far more likely than CD.
I respect your right to believe that office fires caused a core column to fail, and that caused WTC 7 to implode into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds.

See, I don't have to completely rule CD out in order to accept the more likely and more evidence-supported opinion.
OK

You do realize that all you did was slightly rephrase my last sentence? And that, essentially, you've just agreed with me? Did you mean to?We agree that many buildings were damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, some more severely than WTC 7.

Implosion is controlled demolition.FEMA pg 30

"If the collapse initiated at the transfer trusses, this would explain why
the building imploded."

WCT 7 collapsed from severe structural damaged caused by both debris damage and fires.There is NO evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.
[other than starting the fires]

I read the report. I studied the images. I am able to accept the [tentative]conclusion.It was NOT a [tentative] conclusion.
It is a set of assumptions that "appears possible".

Now, the best question: why are you trying to convince me? Go try to convince them, NIST. Tell them how they got it wrong. With me, you're just spinning in your wheel. Why do you even care if anyone here supports your theories or not?They are not theories.

They are statements of fact from the FEMA and NIST reports.

Go tell the people who matter. Go do something meaningful and stand up for what you believe in.Everyone matters.

Devout deniers will ignore the facts but those capable of critical thinking will accept the facts i have listed and realize that:

There is NO evidence for anything other than office fires in the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

No offense Chris, but it really doesn't matter whether you or other people "can see that WTC 7 was a CD."
Actually, it is the smoking gun that will expose the 'evil doers'.

Do engineers see things that way?I haven't researched that yet but here is a very qualified person who takes issue with the NIST report on the Trade Towers.

James G. Quintiere Ph.D.
http://www.firescience.com/firescience/resources/authors/quintere.aspx
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf

Do demolition pros?Danny Jowenko


I think WTC7 looks like a CD. In fact I think most people do. So what?Thank you

If it looks like a CD then it is possible that it was a CD.

Denial of this possibility is just a statement of personal incredulity.

[beachnut]

There is NO evidence for anything other than office fires in the area of the initiating event.
Was not the first time steel was made weak by fire and collapsed. Your point? Are you like the concrete chris?

Too bad there were no sounds of CD. Darn. Your concrete core is showing. If you only understood sound.

[Christopher7]

Thanks for your opinion. And you're afraid to contact Fellini...why?
Get serious. There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.

You're right. It was more like 43 stories, although narrower. There was no 43 story hole.
There is no evidence of any hole below floor 10 other than the "steel ripped out between the 3rd and 6th floors" that Chief Fellini described.

"The only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the south west corner"
Do the math.

Chief Fellini made his way to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, just east of center.
Perhaps you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge or a 43 story hole.

Any major damage that went from floor 10 [or more] to the ground would have left heavy debris in the lobby area.
There was no heavy debris in the lobby area.

Thanks for your opinion. Anything else, then?"There was no gouge in the middle of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground"
is a statement of fact supported by the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

You have been misleading people with your double talk and misrepresentations of the facts [like a 43 story hole].

I am pointing out the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports that refute these misrepresentations.

[Gravy]

Actually, it is the smoking gun that will expose the 'evil doers'.You've been quite confident of that for about a year now.

I've got $1,000 for the charity of your choice that says no evildoers are indicted or prosecuted for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, within the next two years. Since you're so sure, you'll have no problem putting up your own grand, right?

[Gravy]

Get serious. There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.
You're telling a witness what they should have reported, but you won't speak to that person? That's pure cowardice. How sad. I thought you cared about the truth.

I'll give you another chance: will you contact any firefighter who was either making decisions about WTC 7 or who is quoted as seeing its south side damage? Yes or no?

[slingblade]

I respect your right to believe that office fires caused a core column to fail, and that caused WTC 7 to implode into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds.

Well, we disagree, and that's just how it is. We both got a little snippy, but I think we at least managed to have a fairly civil conversation.

So, thanks for that. I'm sure we both wish we could make each other see what seems so obvious to each of us. But, we can't. I think you're adding in stuff that wasn't there, and you think I'm missing stuff that really is.

I guess we'll both just keep on keepin' on. :cool:

[Christopher7]

Well, we disagree, and that's just how it is. We both got a little snippy, but I think we at least managed to have a fairly civil conversation.
What? me snippy? Please.....:rolleyes:

So, thanks for that. I'm sure we both wish we could make each other see what seems so obvious to each of us. But, we can't. I think you're adding in stuff that wasn't there, and you think I'm missing stuff that really is.

I guess we'll both just keep on keepin' on. :cool:It is refreshing to debate with someone who stays on subject.

[Christopher7]

You've been quite confident of that for about a year now.

I've got $1,000 for the charity of your choice that says no evildoers are indicted or prosecuted for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, within the next two years. Since you're so sure, you'll have no problem putting up your own grand, right?
Wrong

[Dave Rogers]

I haven't researched that yet but here is a very qualified person who takes issue with the NIST report on the Trade Towers.

James G. Quintiere Ph.D.
http://www.firescience.com/firescience/resources/authors/quintere.aspx
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf


This doesn't support your case in any way whatsoever. Quintiere is arguing that the fireproofing may have been less than NIST state, that the fuel load in the areas of the fires may have been very much greater, and therefore that much less removal of fireproofing would have been required to produce a collapse - almost diametrically opposed to the standard CD-ist stance that the fire couldn't have caused the collapse. He also repeats the mistake that NIST claim that no metal was heated to greater than 250C; in fact, their paint analysis technique was only able to measure temperatures up to 250C because at higher temperatures the paint was entirely removed; this leads him to suggest that floor collapse was the dominant mechanism in WTC2 and possibly WTC1, and he suggests that floor collapse is more likely than NIST suggests. If this is your smoking gun, it's pointing at your foot.

Dave

[Christopher7]

You're telling a witness what they should have reported,
Wrong
but you won't speak to that person? Right

That's pure cowardice.Wrong

How sad. I thought you cared about the truth. Right

I'll give you another chance:What a guy

will you contact any firefighter who was either making decisions about WTC 7 or who is quoted as seeing its south side damage? Yes or no?
No

You are a master of avoiding the facts by repeating the same rediculous question.

No one should be bugging the firefighters. They gave their statements to the proper authorities so we could read them.

The ststements in the NIST and FEMA reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Your failure to respond directly to the subject of this thread [again] will make it clear to all that you're just blowin smoke.

Speaking of smoke, i just got a letter from NIST - FOIA

I can purchase the 25 photos and 2 videos of the south side of WTC 7 for $239.25 with the following conditions:
If the cost of search and duplication is less than the estimate, they will send me a refund.
If the cost is more, i will have to pay the difference.
Charges are assessed weather or not responsive documents are located and weather or not any of these documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Such a deal.

If i don't send them a check within 30 days, my request made on Feb. 6 will be closed.

You said that i could have all the 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos that NIST collected and withheld from the public for 5 1/2 years, for a measly $13,700.

Such is not the case.

The people at NIST - FOIA never heard of such an offer.

Furthermore, the videos and photos of WTC 7 are not available to anyone at any price until the 'investigation' is done.

There is no firm date on when the investigation will be completed.

[Gravy]

So, Chris, you say you know better than them, but you refuse to talk to the people who were there, risking their lives. It's hard for me to put into words the contempt I have for that cowardly position.

Chris, can you define "a smoking gun?" We seem to have different ideas about that. Please fill me in, m'kay?

[Gravy]

WrongThat's a lie.

No one should be bugging the firefighters. They gave their statements to the proper authorities so we could read them.YOU said you can judge better than they. Are you changing that statement or not?

The ststements in the NIST and FEMA reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?Of course I do. But it's YOUR claim, and you won't speak to the people who were there.

Speaking of smoke, i just got a letter from NIST - FOIA

I can purchase the 25 photos and 2 videos of the south side of WTC 7 for $239.25 with the following conditions:
If the cost of search and duplication is less than the estimate, they will send me a refund.
If the cost is more, i will have to pay the difference.
Charges are assessed weather or not responsive documents are located and weather or not any of these documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Such a deal.Are you COMPLAINING? That's the lowest price for a smoking gun in the history of firearms.

You said that i could have all the 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos that NIST collected and withheld from the public for 5 1/2 years, for a measly $13,700.

Such is not the case.

The people at NIST - FOIA never heard of such an offer.
Tell it to Dylan Avery. He made that claim publicly.

So are you going to buy the photos?

[Belz...]

"Do you contend that fire cannot cause seriously damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?"

I answered "No"

In post #2387 i said:

"I do not contend that fire could not weaken steel framework, or cause failure."

EXCELLENT! Let's see what we have, here:

1- The debris from 1 WTC is what started the 7 WTC fires.
2- Fires can destroy steel frame buildings.

I believe the thread is now over. In fact, I think ALL your threads are over (or are belong to us, depending).

1) The government has collected over 6,000 video clips and has kept them from the public for 5 and 1/2 years.

The visual and audio evidence, one way or the other, is no doubt contained in those video clips.

Speculation. You're now arguing from ignorance.

2) We disagree on the "nonsensical" nature of the CD hypothesis.

Fair enough.

3) As for the "no trace of explosives", most of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Circular reasoning. You're still arguing from ignorance.

[Belz...]

A lot of other people THINK debris damage contributed to the collapse in spite of the fact that there is NO evidence to support that belief.

You must think that was a very clever retort. You're the only one here who's claiming certainty in these matters.

In fact, you've admitted yourself that the chain of events: debris -> fires -> collapse, was possible.

No, some people are more certain than others.

The more certain, the less credible.

Last August i was debating with Gravy. He insisted i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

I found a conundrum on pg 18.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. You "knew" in advance what you wanted to find.

The 10 story gouge was in conflict with "no heavy debris in the lobby" and "atrium glass was intact".

And did you bother to think that, maybe, the hole wasn't in the lobby ?

And what about the huge hole we can see in the pictures ?

there is NO evidence of diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7

And are you aware that other types of fires exist ?

there is NO evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event

Which you, yourself, agreed is irrelevant.

there is NO evidence that the debris damage to the south east face of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

I'd like to hear your alternate hypothesis; and yes, it has everything to do with this thread.

He would have seen and reported a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to ground.
The 10 story gouge, described on pg 18 and shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32, did not exist.

Fascinating. I don't know how you can take the lack of a particular report on the part of one person, and ignoring all the rest, hand-wave the evidence that we have that it DID exist. Hey, look, what's this ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

[Belz...]

There was no debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event, only office fires.

And Gunderscored knows fires can't destroy buildings. No, wait. You said that was wrong. What're you left with, anyway ?

I respect your right to believe that office fires caused a core column to fail,

It seems to me like you're contradicting yourself.

and that caused WTC 7 to implode into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds.

How fast would you expect it to take ?

We agree that many buildings were damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, some more severely than WTC 7.

We also agree that they weren't 47-floor high.

There is NO evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.
[other than starting the fires]

Yes, and that's precisely what we're saying. IT STARTED THE FIRES.

There is NO evidence for anything other than office fires in the area of the initiating event.

Indeed, debris-induced office fires that brought the building down. Case closed.

There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.

How terribly convenient.

Perhaps you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge or a 43 story hole.

How about all that smoke ? Oh, that's right. X-ray vision.

If it looks like a CD then it is possible that it was a CD.

Non sequitur. If I project the hologram of a duck on the moon, is it suddenly possible that there's a giant duck on the moon just because it looks like one ?

[Christopher7]

So, Chris, you say you know better than them, but you refuse to talk to the people who were there, risking their lives. It's hard for me to put into words the contempt I have for that cowardly position.
It is impossible and improper to contact the firefighters of 9/11.

Your righteous indignation is a farce.

Chris, can you define "a smoking gun?" We seem to have different ideas about that. Please fill me in, m'kay?Anyone who has seen a few building implosions on TV can see that WTC 7 was a CD.
I respect your right to believe otherwise.

[Christopher7]

YOU said you can judge better than they. Are you changing that statement or not?
My disagreement is with the 3 or 4 firefighters who said WTC 7 was fully involved.

Of course I do.It's easy to say "i have evidence" and refuse to say what it is.

What evidence or statements do you have to refute the statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that i have listed?

But it's YOUR claim, It is a statement of fact.

There are 4 statements that clearly refute the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

If you know of any statements to the contrary, please enlighten us.

If you fail to do so, it will be obvious that you were just blowin smoke.


Are you COMPLAINING? That's the lowest price for a smoking gun in the history of firearms.Excellent point


Tell it to Dylan Avery. He made that claim publicly.When? where?

So are you going to buy the photos?Yes, when the investigation is complete.

[Gravy]

It is impossible and improper to contact the firefighters of 9/11.Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis. It's easy to tell them apart from other people because they wear bunker gear and ride on big red trucks with sirens. Some have even written books about their 9/11 experiences. Hundreds and hundreds have given inerviews. What's your excuse?

Your righteous indignation is a farce.Your claim to be "investigating" anything, and to have posession of a "smoking gun" that will convict the "evil doers" is a childish fantasy.

Anyone who has seen a few building implosions on TV can see that WTC 7 was a CD.Your opinion, which you express for the umpteenth time, is not supported by any more evidence than the first time you said it. You are behaving like a child.

Edit: Avery made the claim about the photos on a radio show in 2006. Then again, he also claimed to have purchased the WTC blueprints in 2006.

[Christopher7]

EXCELLENT! Let's see what we have, here:

1- The debris from 1 WTC is what started the 7 WTC fires.
2- Fires can destroy steel frame buildings.
Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO


Speculation.True

Circular reasoning. You're still arguing from ignorance.Circular, my foot.
The critical evidence of what caused a high rise building to implode was destroyed.
If core/perimeter frame buildings are subject to global collapse, it is essential to know where the problems are.
This is now impossible.
Destruction of vital evidence, whatever the cause of the collapse, was irresponsible.

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"

There is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629725#post2629725

[twinstead]

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO

And what exactly again qualifies you to make that statement in direct opposition to the majority of structural engineers on Earth?

[Kent1]

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO


True

Circular, my foot.
The critical evidence of what caused a high rise building to implode was destroyed.
If core/perimeter frame buildings are subject to global collapse, it is essential to know where the problems are.
This is now impossible.
Destruction of vital evidence, whatever the cause of the collapse, was irresponsible.

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"

There is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629725#post2629725

Barnett and others who worked on those samples certainlly don't think that. They came up with likely sources of the "hot corrosion" years ago. I would suggest e-mailing Barnett or Erin Sullivan who worked on the samples like I did.

[Christopher7]

Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis.
You live in NY, i don't.

It's easy to tell them apart from other people because they wear bunker gear and ride on big red trucks with sirens.As a devout sarcasimist, i like that one. :D

Some have even written books about their 9/11 experiences. Hundreds and hundreds have given inerviews. So what?

Do any of them say there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18?

Your opinion, which you express for the umpteenth time, is not supported by any more evidence than the first time you said it. False

I recently found out that Chief Fellini made his way thru the debris to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, which means he could see the area where the 10 story gouge would have been if it had existed.

For the umteenth time, the statements i have listed clearly refute the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.

Your failure to post the statements you say you have, that would refute the statements i have listed, shows that you were just blowin smoke again.

Edit: Avery made the claim about the photos on a radio show in 2006. [/quote]
That's a bit vague.
Please provide proof.

[Christopher7]

And what exactly again qualifies you to make that statement in direct opposition to the majority of structural engineers on Earth?
What statement is that?

[twinstead]

What statement is that?

This one:

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

[Christopher7]

Barnett and others who worked on those samples certainlly don't think that. They came up with likely sources of the "hot corrosion" years ago. I would suggest e-mailing Barnett or Erin Sullivan who worked on the samples like I did.
Did they answer your email, if so what did they say?

It's easy to say "i have information but i won't tell you".

[Christopher7]

This one:
A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

[Kent1]

Did they answer your email, if so what did they say?

It's easy to say "i have information but i won't tell you".
I agree its easy for me to make a claim that's why I think you should e-mail him yourself.

However he stated
Gyp wallboard, Likely
Heating oil Likely
Acid Rain

He's also not happy about being misrepresented by the CT'ers

I asked if I could post his reply at one of the major websites and he stated that he'd rather people talk to him directly.

[CHF]

Chris,

I asked: "Do engineers see things that way?"

To which you respond:

I haven't researched that yet but here is a very qualified person who takes issue with the NIST report on the Trade Towers.

You haven't researched that yet??? I find this amazing.

You claim that WTC7 was an obvious demolition that will bring the evil doers to justice and yet you haven't gotten around to the engineers yet. What on earth are you waiting for, Chris???


As for Danny Jowenko his acknowledgement that he was merely guessing based on video evidence and his lack of interest in the subject since indicates that he's not all that sure of his initial recation. Maybe you should contact him and ask.

If it looks like a CD then it is possible that it was a CD.

If your case was based on more than just "looks like" then yes, it would be a real possibility.

Yet when we add in FDNY testimony and a curious lack of charges going off (they make a very loud bang) your demolition theory is left with very little.

[twinstead]

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

Dude. The authors and contributors of the NIST report reads like a who's who of eminent structural engineers in the US.

How many times must the list be presented to you?

[Newtons Bit]

Lets say every engineer in my office think WTC7 was brought down by fire. That's 12. Only several thousand more to go.

[twinstead]

Lets say every engineer in my office think WTC7 was brought down by fire. That's 12. Only several thousand more to go.

You know, that's what pisses me off about Chris. Here he is confronted by the fact that he contradicts the prevailing thought concerning structural engineers world-wide, and even though we know he has been presented in the course of this debate with a detailed list of them, he tries to counter with "the majority of engineers? Well name them" every time it is brought up.

It's like a primer in conspiracy theory argument.

[CHF]

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

There's also the ASCE, which backs the NIST WTC tower report. 140,000 engineers are members. The same engineering minds are studying WTC7 and look to be reaching a conclusion far different from that of da twoofers.

So the match-up thus far is: ASCE & NIST vs. the 911 "scholars"

Not exactly UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson, is it Chris?

[Civilized Worm]

You've been quite confident of that for about a year now.

I've got $1,000 for the charity of your choice that says no evildoers are indicted or prosecuted for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, within the next two years. Since you're so sure, you'll have no problem putting up your own grand, right?

Wrong


So much for that "smoking gun" then!

[LashL]

So much for that "smoking gun" then!

Sadly, every "smoking gun" presented by troofers to date has been one of these:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_11103465795c885e01.jpg

[slingblade]

Lash, that's a soaking gun. Which proves the LC guys are...all wet!


Thank you, I'll be here all week.

[LashL]

Lash, that's a soaking gun. Which proves the LC guys are...all wet!


Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Boom, tish :)

[Corsair 115]

You live in NY, i don't.You have heard of such communication devices as the telephone, the written letter, and e-mail, have you not?

[Christopher7]

There's also the ASCE, which backs the NIST WTC tower report. 140,000 engineers are members. The same engineering minds are studying WTC7 and look to be reaching a conclusion far different from that of da twoofers.

So the match-up thus far is: ASCE & NIST vs. the 911 "scholars"

Not exactly UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson, is it Chris?
ASCE may represent 140,000 engineers but they did not ask all those people what they thought.

The ASCE went on record supporting the official story on 9-13-01, just two days after the collapse of the Trade Towers.

They could not possibly analyze anything and write a credible report in that time.


The DD/F explanation is still an unproven hypothesis.

At this point in time, no one can justifiably say

"Debris damage and fire caused the collapse of WTC 7."

[CHF]

ASCE may represent 140,000 engineers but they did not ask all those people what they thought.

So when do you plan on contacting engineers, Chris? When are you gonna show them your amazing proof and bring a few of them over to your side?

Here's a link with tons of US engineering firms; contact info and all.

(http://forums.randi.org/www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html) www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html (http://forums.randi.org/www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html)

Now get to work and stop waiting for experts to come to you. What kind of Mickey Mouse truthseeker are you?

[Christopher7]

You must think that was a very clever retort. You're the only one here who's claiming certainty in these matters.

In fact, you've admitted yourself that the chain of events: debris -> fires -> collapse, was possible.
A partial collapse due to office fires is possible but the implosion of WTC 7 could not be the result of office fires. IMO

The more certain, the less credible.IYO

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. You "knew" in advance what you wanted to find.Actually, i had no idea what i would find.

And did you bother to think that, maybe, the hole wasn't in the lobby ?Yes, so i went thru the report and found on pg 8 & 9 that the lobby was on the south side and extended from the ground to floor 5.

And what about the huge hole we can see in the pictures ?NIST has published pictures of every side of WTC 7 except the south east face where the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 was supposed to be.

And are you aware that other types of fires exist ?That is a stupid question, given that i have talked about office fires.

Which you, yourself, agreed is irrelevant.No

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.Debris>fires>possible partial, local collapse.

I'd like to hear your alternate hypothesis; and yes, it has everything to do with this thread.
I think i have mentioned this before, but in case you missed it:

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7. It is not about CD.

Fascinating. I don't know how you can take the lack of a particular report on the part of one person, and ignoring all the rest, hand-wave the evidence that we have that it DID exist. Hey, look, what's this ?Your ability to ignore what you can't deal with is astounding.

There are 4 statements that refute the 10 story gouge statement.

Do you think that this is a picture of a gouge floor 10 to the ground?

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/664/upperfloorsdamageuj4.jpg

[Christopher7]

So when do you plan on contacting engineers, Chris? When are you gonna show them your amazing proof and bring a few of them over to your side?

Here's a link with tons of US engineering firms; contact info and all.

(http://forums.randi.org/www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html) www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html (http://forums.randi.org/www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html)

Now get to work and stop waiting for experts to come to you.

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

[Christopher7]

the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?


Of course I do.

Then where is it?

[Dog Town]

Then where is it?

You're gonna regret that one, you really should keep up!

[Christopher7]

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

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


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

"... the atrium glass was still intact"

FEMA Report pg 20

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."

NIST NCSTAR 1-8 pg 110 [264 on pg counter]

"The Chief officer [Fellini] was able to negotiate the debris field, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side."
[floor 5 above atrium]

From there he could see where the 10 story gouge would have been, had it existed.

NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

[Whiplash]

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

So what about the professionals in other countries? Surely you must realize there are many, MANY people worldwide who could reach the same conclusion, but would face no backlash. Are there no Russian or Chinese scientists (for example) who can see the "truth" for themselves? What would keep them from talking? Not to mention numerous other countries. The idea that the whole world is being silenced is utterly laughable.


I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

I acutally believe this. But the reason people would want to fire them is because no sane, rational and responsible person would would anything to do with this utter insanity. It shines badly onto THEM as well. They don't want that spotlight on them and they are right to want to avoid the problem. And maybe they actually think this whole thing is rather reprehensible. They certainly have every right to.

[CHF]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

Sure you have, Chris. I'm certain you know lots of engineers and demolition pros who would love to speak out but they can't for fear of losing their job or ending up dead.

I must say I find it a bit odd that so many twoofers claim to know experts who agree there were demolitions but, oh shucks, they can't speak up about it so I'll just have to take your word for it that these people actually exist.

Tell you what, Chris: how about you contact some engineers or demolition experts outside the USA. Ever think of that? Seems a pretty logical way of escaping the crushing reign of terror currently being directed at America's engineers.

Start with Venezuela or China. Or, better yet, Holland. It's obvious from Danny Jowenko that Bush's death squads aren't operating over there. In fact, Jowenko even still has his job! Imagine that! So now you know where to look.

So Chris.....will you contact non-US engineers? Or are you, like the rest of your movement, too lazy to get off your ass and save the world?

[Gravy]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.Of course not. Why interfere with your bizarre fantasy?

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.Please demonstrate that you're not lying.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.I've had people tell me that I was responsible for the Holocaust.

You live in NY, i don't.STOP THE PRESSES! LITERALLY!
Journalism Proved Impossible! "Technology" Revealed to be Chimera!


I recently found out that Chief Fellini made his way thru the debris to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, which means he could see the area where the 10 story gouge would have been if it had existed.
False. He said he was on the side of the building. The WTC 7 logo was on all four sides of the building. You could ask him, but you won't, because you've proved that communications beyond the range of the human voice are impossible.

That's a bit vague. Please provide proof.Sorry, I won't be listening to Dylan Avery's 2006 radio interviews again. Why don't you ask him?


A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?



Here's one list. These people were involved in the investigation. Let's see your list.


Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian McElhatten, S.E.
Charles J. Carter, S.E., AISC
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Hoy, S.E.
David Leach, USACE
David M. Parks, P.E.
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.
Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Edward Depaola, S.E.
Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D
Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.)
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John W. Fisher, P.E.
Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Tamaro, P.E
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.k
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E..
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tony Beale, P.E.
Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William McGuire, P.E.
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

[twinstead]

Thanks for the list, Gravy.

Now, Chris, these are real people. What you are implying is that the collapse was SO obviously CD that every single expert on that list is either stupid, afraid to come forward, or paid off.

This is your movement in a nutshell.

[Belz...]

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO

Your opinion is irrelevant. What do the people with RELEVANT expertise say ?

Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.

True

Circular, my foot.

Really ? This is what you said:

As for the "no trace of explosives", most of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

In essence, you are saying that there was evidence of explosive; but that it was removed. You are now using the fact that it was removed to prove some nefarious intent. In other words you are using your conclusion of a controlled demolition as the very basis of your argument. How is that NOT circular ?

If core/perimeter frame buildings are subject to global collapse, it is essential to know where the problems are.

Wait for the final report, then.

This is now impossible.
Destruction of vital evidence, whatever the cause of the collapse, was irresponsible.

If and only if you assume that something was wrong with it. More circular reasoning.

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"

There is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629725#post2629725

So the evidence WASN'T destroyed ? Make up your mind.

Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis.
You live in NY, i don't.

You said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I live in Canada and I could talk to them if I wanted to. What's your excuse ?

Do any of them say there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18?

You're conveniently ignoring this:


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

[Belz...]

A partial collapse due to office fires is possible but the implosion of WTC 7 could not be the result of office fires. IMO

Again, your opinion is irrelevant. How many 47-floor buildings have YOU seen collapse from a fire ? Admittedly zero.

IYO

No. The more certain one is one oneself, the more chances are that he's arguing from his own ignorance.

Actually, i had no idea what i would find.

You mean you didn't have an idea that the evil US government blew up 7 WTC ?

Yes, so i went thru the report and found on pg 8 & 9 that the lobby was on the south side and extended from the ground to floor 5.

The entire width of the building ?

NIST has published pictures of every side of WTC 7 except the south east face where the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 was supposed to be.

Yes, you see there was a whole lot of debris and smoke in that area. For your information a 110-storey skyscraper fell there. You might have missed it.

Of course, this ignores the fact that we have, in fact, several pictures of that area.

That is a stupid question, given that i have talked about office fires.

Excellent; then please stop using your silly "diesel fuel fire" strawman.

No

Thanks for contradicting yourself.

Debris>fires>possible partial, local collapse.

AH! So now it's not the fires->collapse part that annoys you but the fact that it was a complete collapse ? I'm starting to think that you're changing your opinion on the subject to keep from admitting the fact that you're utterly, completely wrong.

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7. It is not about CD.

And you contend that a huge hole in the south side of the building wouldn't have impaired the demolition efforts ? How is that not related ?

Your ability to ignore what you can't deal with is astounding.

Likewise.

Do you think that this is a picture of a gouge floor 10 to the ground?

Yes, I do. In fact I think it extends a whole lot higher than floor 10.

[Belz...]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

Of course not. They might tell you you're wrong.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

Speculation.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

If you knew this, would YOU come forward ? I would. I'm sure Gravy would, or Mack, or everyone here. Why are your hypothetical truther engineers so unscrupulous ?

[Christopher7]

So what about the professionals in other countries? Surely you must realize there are many, MANY people worldwide who could reach the same conclusion, but would face no backlash.
"In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by a controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH. And also Jorg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indicates "WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives."

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

[Gravy]

"In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by a controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH. And also Jorg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indicates "WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives."

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html
Quite a thorough study they performed, isn't it?

[twinstead]

It appears that members of the YouTube generation only respect the opinion of those who have formulated their opinions solely from watching YouTube videos.

I suspect, but cannot verify, that educationally the youth of the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

[Christopher7]

Please demonstrate that you're not lying.
I can speak from personal experience of people i have talked to and the fact that Stephen Jones and Kevin Ryan lost their jobs.

Also;

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
(Able Danger, Pentagon whistle blowers)

Col. Steve Butler (man who trained two of the hijackers in US spy training in 1997)

Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright (FBI agents)

Indira Singh

Major Mike McCormack, one of the most decorated and celebrated heroes of 9/11 in NY.

These people were threatened, fired, their pensions taken away, legally gagged, or attacked by a SWAT team (in the case of McCormack)


False. He said he was on the side of the building. The WTC 7 logo was on all four sides of the building. There is a Logo on the east side and there probably was another on the west side.
I stand corrected.

Sorry, I won't be listening to Dylan Avery's 2006 radio interviews again. Why don't you ask him?
That's a cheap dodge.
Please demonstrate that you are not lying.

Here's one list. These people were involved in the investigation. Let's see your list.So what?

How many of these people have gone on record saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?



C7 "Do you have statements or other evidence to the contrary"
Gravy "Of course I do"

Please demonstrate that you are not lying.

[Kent1]

Aside from the other problems with your post Able Danger has nothing to do with the goofy CT theories. You can e-mail Mark Waid, Schaffer's lawyer. He certainly doesn't believe or find any evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP theories.

[twinstead]

So what?

How many of these people have gone on record saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?



For Christ's sake they were part of the report that is the essence of the 'official story'. How much more on record can one be? Do you want a written affidavit from each of them?

[Unfit4Command]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this picture here, but here's another photo where you can see some of the gash in WTC 7's facade.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC7/Gash.jpg

It's also visible in this video for a short time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

[chipmunk stew]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.
Stundied.

[Christopher7]

Aside from the other problems with your post Able Danger has nothing to do with the goofy CT theories. You can e-mail Mark Waid, Schaffer's lawyer. He certainly doesn't believe or find any evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP theories.
So what?

The point here is:

People who speak out against the government get fired and/or harassed.