10 story hole in WTC 7

[Gravy]

I can speak from personal experience of people i have talked to and the fact that Stephen Jones and Kevin Ryan lost their jobs.Right. You don't have a shred of evidence that sturctural engineers around the world 1) agree with you, or 2) would have any reason to be aware of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Sorry, given your history here, "people I have talked to" will not be taken seriously.

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)The only person among these who claimed that 9/11 was an inside job is Steve Butler, who was properly disciplined for claiming that the president knew about 9/11 and allowed to happen – although he presented zero evidence to back his claim.

“Of course President Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn’t elected by the American people, but placed in the Oval Office by a conservative supreme court. The economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency.... This guy is a joke. What is sleazy and contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain.”His punishment could have been much more severe: he could have been court-martialed. Trained hijackers in 1997? When you produce that evidence it will be big news. What are you waiting for?

Mike McCormack? He was investigated because neighbors smelled an odor of chemicals coming from his house. He was arrested for having a gun that he had illegally taken across state lines. Your claim that he was attacked by a SWAT team is a lie.

Likewise, only one of these people said anything about the collapse of any WTC building: Indira Singh. She was an EMT who was not near the building, who believed WTC 7 was going to come down or going to be brought down. And she has been stifled how?

So those are the people you name as backing your story? You lose.

As for your other demands, I suggest that you read my paper on WTC 7, and I suggest that you contact Dylan Avery. If you won't do that, I can't help you.

[Dog Town]

So what?

The point here is:

People who speak out against the government get fired and/or harassed.

Nope, you lost again!

[Kent1]

So what?

The point here is:

People who speak out against the government get fired and/or harassed.

That doesn't seem to be much of a problem with most Democrats or many members of the media.

[Christopher7]

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?
A personal public statement will do.

You forget that the 'official story' is a hypothesis.

That means that all those engineers don't believe WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

They believe it "appears possible".


Approach Summary 12-6-06

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."

[Christopher7]

That doesn't seem to be much of a problem with most Democrats or many members of the media.
Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC but he was canceled.

Dennis Kucinich is made fun of or ignored by MSM.

Jones, Ryan and the other people i mentioned lost their jobs for challenging the 'official story'.

Many people, including some here, have such contempt for the first amendment that they think it's alright to fire people for saying 9/11 was an inside job.


This is a grass roots movement that is growing.

There's no organization, it's just a lot of people from different walks of life who feel compelled to get the truth [as we see it] out.

You think we're nuts and we think you are idiots for believing your government wouldn't do such a thing.


The essence of democracy is:

Everyone is allowed to think what they want and say what they think.

The problem with democracy is:

Everybody does.

[Gravy]

A personal public statement will do.

You forget that the 'official story' is a hypothesis.

That means that all those engineers don't believe WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

They believe it "appears possible".


Approach Summary 12-6-06

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation."If only some qualified investigative body would study this hypothesis!

Why won't they, Chris?

[Gravy]

Jones, Ryan and the other people i mentioned lost their jobs for challenging the 'official story'.Jones and Ryan lost their jobs because they lied and misrepresented in order to make a political claim. They are frauds. Why do you support them?

[LashL]

<snip>we think you are idiots for believing your government wouldn't do such a thing.>

First, who is this "we" of which you speak?

Second, who is this "you" of which you speak?

Third, who are these "idiots" that you claim believe "[their] government wouldn't do such a thing"?

Bonus question: How many errors and logical fallacies can you identify in your post #2505?

[Slayhamlet]

The question isn't whether the government would do such a thing, but whether the government could do such a thing.

[Kent1]

"Phil Donahue had the highest rated show on MSNBC but he was canceled."

NO he didn't, unless you mean just toward the end.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/25/donahue.ap/index.html
Phil Donahue on Tuesday, abruptly ending the veteran talk show host's return to television after six months of poor ratings.
It was only toward the end when his ratings got better. But he compaired poorly to others.
During this month, a "sweeps" month in which ratings are watched closely to set advertising rates, "Donahue" averaged 446,000 viewers. O'Reilly drew 2.7 million viewers, up 28 percent from February 2002, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Connie Chung's CNN show that debuted shortly before "Donahue" averaged 985,000 viewers this month, Nielsen said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/25/entertainment/main542005.shtml
It was too little too late.

Maybe you should see what Olbermann is doing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann
His own show, Countdown, debuted shortly thereafter on March 31, 2003, in the 8 p.m. ET time slot previously held by programs hosted by Phil Donahue and, briefly, Lester Holt.

I hear he's doing terrible and loves Bush....LOL!
http://www.thedarkstuff.com/2006/10/keith-olbermanns-ratings-up-69.html




"Dennis Kucinich is made fun of or ignored by MSM."

Beacuse he's a crackpot with no chance and he does silly things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGmYhTYLbno
But if it helps....here's MSM.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16925593/
Can Dennis Kucinich capitalize? The pride of Cleveland on how his anti-war politics went mainstream, what he's got on Obama and Hillary, and what makes him run. FULL STORY

"Jones, Ryan and the other people i mentioned lost their jobs for challenging the 'official story'."

Because they lied and or misrepresented information. But in the end Jones quit.

"Many people, including some here, have such contempt for the first amendment that they think it's alright to fire people for saying 9/11 was an inside job."

Im sure some do.


"This is a grass roots movement that is growing."

I haven't seen it growing much since the 5th anniversary.

BTW I hear speaking out is a real problem for Charlie Sheen.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Charlie-Sheen-Becomes-Highest-Paid-Comic-Actor-On-TV-1155.html

Sources said Sheen will earn about $350,000 per episode this season from producer of the CBS powerhouse, Warner Bros. Television. This represents a hefty increase from his previous payday in the low six figures.

[Christopher7]

Right. You don't have a shred of evidence that sturctural engineers around the world 1) agree with you,
Wrong

I quoted two structural engineers from Europe who say WTC 7 was a CD.

You even acknowledged my post.

or 2) would have any reason to be aware of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan.?

The only person among these who claimed that 9/11 was an inside job is Steve Butler, who was properly disciplined for claiming that the president knew about 9/11 and allowed to happen – although he presented zero evidence to back his claim.
His punishment could have been much more severe: he could have been court-martialed. Trained hijackers in 1997?Different people were fired for saying different things.
The point is:
They were fired for going against the official story.
Of course, it never occurred to you that Butler was telling the truth.
He had no reason to make up a story that would get him fired.
He is a brave person who told the truth and paid the price, just like Jones and Ryan.
You may not like it but they have a right to say what they think without fear of reprisal.

Mike McCormack? He was investigated because neighbors smelled an odor of chemicals coming from his house. He was arrested for having a gun that he had illegally taken across state lines. Your claim that he was attacked by a SWAT team is a lie.You're right, he was not attacked, he just had a SWAT team point their guns at his head and had his house ransacked.

Mike McCormic is a 9/11 hero, who is speaking out against Bush and Cristie Todd Whitman for hiding the dangers of the toxic dust at ground zero.

For this, he paid a price.

Because a neighbor smelled the odor of chemicals, they sent 6 detectives and a 15 member SWAT team.

He had allowed detectives to enter his house to search it, without a search warrant.

The SWAT team was not necessary.

Please read his story an see his video.

http://www.netscape.com/tag/mike+mccormack

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5960554325625810328

Likewise, only one of these people said anything about the collapse of any WTC building: Indira Singh. She was an EMT who was not near the building, who believed WTC 7 was going to come down or going to be brought down. And she has been stifled how?Here's her story. Read the section "Sent to the principal's office"

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050301231231793


As for your other demands, I suggest that you read my paper on WTC 7, and I suggest that you contact Dylan Avery. If you won't do that, I can't help you.You said you had evidence to the contrary.

Please demonstrate that you are not lying.

Post your evidence.

Don't tell me to go look for it.

I don't think you have any.


You stated the $13,700 price for the 9/11 pics and vids as a fact in post #446

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2281333#post2281333

You did not say you heard it from Dylan. [you don't believe a word he says]

Now that it turns out to be false, you say Dylan said it in a radio interview but you don't have a source.

Please demonstrate that you are not lying again.

Provide a source or retract the statement.

[Christopher7]

If only some qualified investigative body would study this hypothesis!

Why won't they, Chris?
If only people would stop saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire until some qualified body finishes their investigation and confirms this hypothesis.

Why don't you Gravy?

[Christopher7]

Jones and Ryan lost their jobs because they lied and misrepresented in order to make a political claim. They are frauds.
IYO

Why do you support them?Because they had the guts to tell the truth and take the heat.

[Gravy]

Wrong
I quoted two structural engineers from Europe who say WTC 7 was a CD.

You even acknowledged my post.Two from the same firm who did nothing but watch a few videos equals "Structural engineers from around the world?" Out of hundreds of thousands? I gave you a list of 145 structural and fire protection engineers who actually worked on the 9/11 investigation, and who disagree with you. You lose.

Different people were fired for saying different things.
The point is:
They were fired for going against the official story.I asked you for your list of experts who back your story, and this is what you come up with?

Let's try this again. Here's your list. Point out the people who were fired for going against the official story of 9/11.

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
Col. Steve Butler
Sibel Edmonds
Robert Wright
Indira Singh
Major Mike McCormack

Of course, it never occurred to you that Butler was telling the truth.
He had no reason to make up a story that would get him fired.
He is a brave person who told the truth and paid the price, just like Jones and Ryan.Since there isn't a shred of evidence to back his opinion, it was correct to reprimand him.

You may not like it but they have a right to say what they think without fear of reprisal.Not in the military, chief. Not in private enterprise, chief.

You're right, he was not attacked, he just had a SWAT team point their guns at his head and had his house ransacked.Your evidence that any guns were pointed at his head and that his house was ransacked?

Mike McCormic is a 9/11 hero, who is speaking out against Bush and Cristie Todd Whitman for hiding the dangers of the toxic dust at ground zero.

For this, he paid a price.

Because a neighbor smelled the odor of chemicals, they sent 6 detectives and a 15 member SWAT team.Ever hear of terrorism? Ever hear of meth labs?

The SWAT team was not necessary.How the hell did they know that?


Please read his story an see his video.

http://www.netscape.com/tag/mike+mccormack

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5960554325625810328
From the video:

"70 to 80 percent of all the (U.S. intelligence) agencies involved are Manchurian Candidates."

"The only thing that Homeland Security does is decimate the United States Constitution."

"Alex Jones here, he's filmed many (Homeland Security) drills in his area, where he lives. This is done constantly. But this is done to suppress the American public. This is not done to help them. I have a close friend that lives next door. He builds the secret jails. And I've seen one myself in Brooklyn. This is to decimate the Constitution, take away your right to bear arms, suppress the media, and not allow anything to come out that shows any negativity on the government."Man, are they doing a TERRIBLE job of keeping the negativity out of the press! Heads at NWO HQ oughta roll for this!

What was Bush's approval rating last week, 28%? And how about those secret prisons? Not so secret if they're in Brooklyn and can be visited by Mike McCormack.

McCormack's got some good points about air quality at Ground Zero. Those are not secrets. Otherwise he's a kook, speaking at an event hosted by Les Jamieson and attended by other kooks. "Manchurian Candidates?" Dude, get a grip.

Here's her story. Read the section "Sent to the principal's office"
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050301231231793
Oh, so the EMT who said she thought WTC 7 was going to come down or be brought down, was also a risk management IT specialist who claims that there's a "CIA within the CIA," and that Ptech was a CIA front company. Er, too bad she has no evidence of that. The article says she was threatened "in no uncertain terms." Well, that's a criminal offense. So what did she do about it? Her story leaves out the fact that Ptech was investigated by the FBI. No one from that company was charged with any crime because no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

You said you had evidence to the contrary.
Please demonstrate that you are not lying.
Post your evidence.I did. But haven't you noticed my constant admonishments that these issues are being investigated by NIST, that they haven't released their final report yet, and that you're basing your claims on preliminary information? Why are you keeping up this straw man act?

You stated the $13,700 price for the 9/11 pics and vids as a fact in post #446

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2281333#post2281333

You did not say you heard it from Dylan. [you don't believe a word he says]

Now that it turns out to be false, you say Dylan said it in a radio interview but you don't have a source.

Please demonstrate that you are not lying again.

Provide a source or retract the statement.I GAVE you the source, ye of short-term memory. His name is Dylan Avery, and you can contact him. And he's not the only one:


Indybayradio San Francisco 9/2/06 interview with Jason Bermas:

34:32 "We were really trying to get the NIST footage, which was on sale for about $14,000, but they also
put a stipulation on it that you can't use this in any other venue but your home use."

[Christopher7]

Two from the same firm who did nothing but watch a few videos equals "Structural engineers from around the world?"
The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.
They are qualified to make the call, you are not.

Out of hundreds of thousands? I gave you a list of 145 structural and fire protection engineers who actually worked on the 9/11 investigation, and who disagree with you. My statement that started this particular debate was:

"Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did."

Did all 145 structural engineers on that list say that fires could cause a high rise building to collapse the way WTC 7 did?

Let's try this again. Here's your list. Point out the people who were fired for going against the official story.For an English major, your reading comprehension really sucks.

"These people were threatened, fired, their pensions taken away, legally gagged or terrorized by a SWAT team.

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
Col. Steve Butler
Sibel Edmonds
Robert Wright
Indira Singh
Major Mike McCormack

Since there isn't a shred of evidence to back his opinion, it was correct to reprimand him.The evidence went the way of Bush's National Guard records and Cheney's emails.

Not in the military, chief. Not in private enterprise, chief. Every soldier takes an oath to protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Each is honor bound to blow the whistle when a crime has been committed.
Those in private enterprise have the right to free speech.
Some employers don't believe in the first amendment, they are not good or patriotic citizens.

Your evidence that any guns were pointed at his head and that his house was ransacked?
His word. SWAT teams do that sort of thing.
Ever hear of terrorism? Ever hear of meth labs?

How the hell did they know that?
He let the 6 detectives search his house without a search warrant.
He was cooperating.
He was not a threat.
He was outnumbered six to one.
There was no need to call in the SWAT team.

Man, are they doing a TERRIBLE job of keeping the negativity out of the press! Heads at NWO HQ oughta roll for this! It ain't in the press, it's on google video. MSM doesn't cover people like Mike McCormack


McCormack's got some good points about air quality at Ground Zero. Those are not secrets.That's an understatement.

Otherwise he's a kook, speaking at an event hosted by Les Jamieson and attended by other kooks.You have such great respect for the heroes of 9/11 until they say something you don't want to hear, then they're 'kooks'.

Can you spell 'hypocrite' ?

Mike is a 9/11 hero who is fighting for the first responders who are dying because Bush told Whitman to lie about the dangers at ground zero.
The government is not helping them.
This is a national disgrace.

Oh, so the EMT who said she thought WTC 7 was going to come down or be brought down, was also a risk management IT specialist who claims that there's a "CIA within the CIA," and that Ptech was a CIA front company. Er, too bad she has no evidence of that.She has money trails and a web people connections.

The article says she was threatened "in no uncertain terms." Well, that's a criminal offense. So what did she do about it? What could she do, it's a he said she said.

Her story leaves out the fact that Ptech was investigated by the FBI. No one from that company was charged with any crime because no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Read the whole article, there's some intrigue in the FBI's handling of the whole thing.

I did.No

The statements 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 statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do.

You have NOT said what those statements are or what that evidence is.

But haven't you noticed my constant admonishments that these issues are being investigated by NIST, that they haven't released their final report yet, and that you're basing your claims on preliminary information?You haven't noticed my constant reminders that "There is no evidence" is in the present tense. [i.e. the real world] and there's no reason to believe that there will be evidence to prove the fighters who said "no heavy debris in the lobby areas" were mistaken or that a 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide and 30 to 40 feet deep, escaped Chief Fellini's notice, or that this gouge somehow left the atrium glass intact.
These things are not going to change in the final report.

You have not provided evidence to the contrary and you cannot deny you stated the $13,700 pic & vid special as a fact.

ETA: you didn't mention the 'only for home use" part.

[Belz...]

I'm sure you can come up to answers to my posts, Chris.

Let me make it easy for you:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2634600&postcount=2489
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2634600&postcount=2490
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2634600&postcount=2491

[Belz...]

The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.

Is it ? This statement is fascinating. I thought you were the one saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence made it impossible to tell if it was a CD or not. I think you've just tipped your hand: evidence has nothing to do with your belief.

[twinstead]

I think you've just tipped your hand: evidence has nothing to do with your belief.

Dude. Where have you been? That's been the case from day one ;)

[Gravy]

The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.

Sigh. Your delusional, petulant behavior is simply sad. I can only conclude that you are incapable of thinking as an adult. Well, I'll just add this post to your greatest hits, and hope that some day something will happen that puts you on a rational path. My arguments certainly haven't helped. Goodbye.

We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!

Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person.

This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)

That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people.

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

You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes.

At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11.

It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open. I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning.

This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread.

We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do.

Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

On David RAy Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report Omissions..."
It's a lot to read folks, but read it as if your freedom depended on it becaues it DOES!

Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise.

The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE.

Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!


The evidence that the Pentagon was hit by someting other than a 757 is right in front of you but you just can't deal with it.

At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs.

The coroner found NO body parts, NO blood

It all comes down to what you are willing to believe.

The Sandia video has a F4 hitting a 10' thick reinforced concrete wall head on
In Shanksville a 575 hit filldirt at a 40 degree angle
A better comparison would be a tennis ball hitting an egg after bouncing off a brick wall

Gumboot: explosions don't = explosives but it's certally a strong possibility, especially since there were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT.

What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?

Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns.

The whole kerosene = explosion in the lobby is f*in rediculous

im just a commoner using common sense

It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer.

There simply is no other explanation.

Not by NIST, all they got was a walk through. Who inspected the steel and what if anything did they say about the precisely cut ends?

WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed

Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?
So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause.

The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber.

My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense

Chris: You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise.
gumboot: CD is distinct compared to what?
Chris: another CD
gumboot: ???

What experts? The firemen, the the people from Controlled Demolition Inc.?

Obtuse? On the contrary sir, i was very direct. I did read the quotes and stated that the firemen and the CD experts saying "the building is comming down" and then it comes down, doesn't explain a GLOBAL collapse but rather a collapse that looks like the Ok. City bldg.

There were only a few scattered fires on the west, north and ease sides of wtc7.


Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

[Christopher7]

Sigh. I'll just add this post to your greatest hits, and hope that some day something will happen that puts you on a rational path. My arguments certainly haven't helped. Goodbye.
Danny Jerwenko knew immediately that WTC 7 was a CD, he is an expert.
He later reconfirmed his assessment in this phone call.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

He also agrees with me [and many others] that CD experts and structural engineers in this country who say WTC 7 was a CD, will loose their jobs.

The Swiss structural engineers determined WTC 7 was a CD by studying the videos.

William Rice, P. E., is a retired civil engineer and professor at Vermont Technical College.
He says that the Trade Towers and WTC 7 were CD's.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

You asked for experts, you got experts, yet you still can't except the truth.


Before you say goodbye, would you state what your evidence is that there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, or were you lying about that ?

[beachnut]

Danny Jerwenko knew immediately that WTC 7 was a CD, he is an expert.
He later reconfirmed his assessment in this phone call.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

He also agrees with me [and many others] that CD experts and structural engineers in this country who say WTC 7 was a CD, will loose their jobs.

The Swiss structural engineers determined WTC 7 was a CD by studying the videos.

William Rice, P. E., is a retired civil engineer and professor at Vermont Technical College.
He says that the Trade Towers and WTC 7 were CD's.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

You asked for experts, you got experts, yet you still can't except the truth.


Before you say goodbye, would you state what your evidence is that there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, or were you lying about that ?At least you are not alone being wrong.

If we were to vote with all engineers on CD, it would be you with .0067 percent of all engineers.

You have lost by vote. You have to get millions of engineers to get even. Seems there are only a few nut cases and you have found them. How do you do that?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15842465996b473b27.jpg
Should have used wood. Fire destroys the strength of steel, learn to live with the truth and ask the truth movement to stop telling lies.

If only you could find some real "experts", the ones in the 9/11 "liars" movement are not very good. So very disrespectful to make up lies about 9/11. Your continued support is sad.

[chipmunk stew]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15842465996b473b27.jpg

[CHF]

The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.
They are qualified to make the call, you are not.

In other words, qualifications are not needed and yet they are.

Are you gonna contact engineers in Holland, Chris? I didn't catch your answer.

[Christopher7]

Your opinion is irrelevant. What do the people with RELEVANT expertise say ?
Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.
Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.


As for "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 ?
Wrong, I am saying that it cannot be determined weather or not explosives were used on the evidence that no longer exists.
I am also saying that the removal and destruction of most of the evidence was nefarious.
The few surviving pieces need to be analyzed by an independent lab, preferably by a European firm.

If and only if you assume that something was wrong with it. More circular reasoning.No.

The physical evidence is essential to accurately determine what caused the building to collapse in order to make proper code changes.
[if the cause was fires]

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"No, people here are saying that.

So the evidence WASN'T destroyed ? Make up your mind.What part of 'most' don't you understand?

You said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I live in Canada and I could talk to them if I wanted to. What's your excuse ?You are the one advocating that we all call the firefighters and ask them to clarify their statements.
Why don't you call them?

I think it would be an invasion of their right to privacy.


You're conveniently ignoring this:I have already responded to that.

For the second time:

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]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15842465996b473b27.jpg
Cool find.
Steel is not always better than wood against fires.
I stand corrected.

[Architect]

Cool find.
Steel is not always better than wood against fires.
I stand corrected.


Chris,

Frankly, I'm puzzled and concerned about this response.

Firstly, the matter was raised - and explained to you - something like a week ago, during which time you have been posting frequently. I am therefore worried that you're not really taking in the points put to you at the time.

Secondly, this is a fairly well know fact within the entire construction industry, and you purport to be a chippie. Now unless by "carpenter" you actually mean a cabinet maker, I just don't see how such a basic point has escaped you.

Thirdly, in this thread you are purporting to address issues about the damage to the building and, inter alia, the performance of building facbric during a fire. How can you adopt an informed position if, as this post suggests, you're unclear about the technical issues involved?

Finally, let me skip back a post or two.

You have challenged us to find you experts on imploding buildings, or demonstrated examples of steel buildings which have imploded.

I'm sure that even you can see the logical problems with such an argument.

911 was an extraordinary event. Never before had two buildings such as WTC1 and 2 been hit by high speed airliners and suffered such catastrophic damage. Never before had another tall building been struck by such substantial falling debris as WTC1 and 2. Given what we know of the convoluted structure of WTC7, there is every reason to believe that it has a unique structural design. And so on.

Now we may not be able to get an "expert" in all these things, because no such person exists. But we can get experts in structural engineering, fire performance, architecture, and so on. These people can analyse a structural model (something you've been unable to do), understand the performance of buildings in a fire (ditto), and come to a decision based on the evidence before them rather than wild speculation (ditto, again).

So tell me why I should prefer your unsubstantiated opinion to their own?

[Belz...]

Danny Jerwenko knew immediately that WTC 7 was a CD, he is an expert.

From watching a video.

[Belz...]

Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Oh, no. Please, by all means, answer my question.

Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

Irrelevant. Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.

Wrong, I am saying that it cannot be determined weather or not explosives were used on the evidence that no longer exists.

You're also saying that videos are all you need to know it was a CD. So which is it ?

I am also saying that the removal and destruction of most of the evidence was nefarious.

Speculation.

The few surviving pieces need to be analyzed by an independent lab, preferably by a European firm.

And if they determine that explosives were NOT used, will you claim they are also in on the plot ?

No.

The physical evidence is essential to accurately determine what caused the building to collapse in order to make proper code changes.
[if the cause was fires]

Chris, what you are saying is that the physical evidence could prove if it was a CD, but ALSO that the removal of the evidence proves your point. How do you call that form of reasoning ?

No, people here are saying that.

Ah! So, are you saying there ARE traces of explosives ?

What part of 'most' don't you understand?

If it's only "most" then you should be able to get it analysed. So what are you complaining about ?

You are the one advocating that we all call the firefighters and ask them to clarify their statements.

Nope. I never did that.

Why don't you call them?

Because I don't question their statements and expertise.

I think it would be an invasion of their right to privacy.

Calling them AT WORK would be an invasion of privacy while trying to uncover the real "truth" to the death of 3000 people ?

Do you think that this is a picture of a gouge, floor 10 to the ground?

Yep. It ALSO extends to the 47th floor, as you can see.

Is there anything else ?

[CHF]

Chris, why don't you contact experts in Holland?

We've already established that Bush's death squads can't reach them. So why would you not seek to add more names to your list of Dutch experts?

[Christopher7]

Chris,

So tell me why I should prefer your unsubstantiated opinion to their own?
I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.

I'm just asking you to look at the statements from the NIST and FEMA reports i have listed about the
'10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Do you still think there was a '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18 ?

If so, what evidence do you have to support that belief ?

[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, NY Times: 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 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.

[Christopher7]

From watching a video.
Yes

Then, after watching a another video [CBS] and seeing the a NIST graphic of where the perimeter and core columns were, it took him about 10 seconds to figure out how to do it.

The precise details are very complicated but the basic plan is dirt simple.

You blow all the core columns and the building implodes.

[Christopher7]

Oh, no. Please, by all means, answer my question.
The people with relevant expertise say

they don't know what caused the collapse.

[Christopher7]

Yep. It ALSO extends to the 47th floor, as you can see.

Is there anything else ?
You can't see the bottom 25 stories in that photograph.

How can you say there's a gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, by looking at that photograph?

[CHF]

Chris, this very second there are hundreds of Dutch engineers just waiting for you to show them your amazing WTC7 proof. Bush's secret Engineer-killing squads are nowhere to be found.

This is your chance to be a hero. You gonna let it pass?

[Christopher7]

In other words, qualifications are not needed and yet they are.
Qualification are not needed to see that it is a CD, but they are needed to confirm that it was a CD.

Are you gonna contact engineers in Holland, Chris? I didn't catch your answer.You guys are really big on telling me to call people.

If you think calling people is necessary, then call.

I'm going to find statements that have been made by relevant people by searching the web.

If this doesn't meet with you approval, no worries.


BTW Here's a Architect that designs steel frame buildings.
Listen to what he has to say.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

[slingblade]

Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

First, Chris, you're begging the question here. That expression means your conclusion is implicit in your premises. You can't use your conclusion to prove your conclusion. That's a fallacious way to present an argument.

You haven't yet proven that WTC 7 was wired for a controlled demolition which was then implemented. You are asserting that's what happened, yes. But you can't use your conclusion as one of your assertions. Argument doesn't work that way.

Which leads me to my second pont: your use of the word "implode" makes your assertion all but impossible to address. I'll tell you why:

Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

An explosion is just the opposite, and is also about pressure. You know, it doesn't take any explosives to make an explosion. All it takes is a sufficient change in the internal/external pressure ratio. When you fill a balloon too full of air, it explodes.

Only a sufficient change in pressure could make a building truly implode.

However, implosion's effects can be replicated by the judicious, skilled placement of explosives.

Controlled demolitions experts have only borrowed the term "implosion" for what they do. Their work mimics the effects of an actual implosion.


So. I absolutely agree that a fire in a non-pressurized structure can't make it implode. That's because nothing can make a non-pressurized structure implode. Your assertion can't be addressed, because it's obviously true, but it isn't what you mean to assert.

You need to rephrase your argument, so that each assertion provides support for your conclusion, without using your conclusion as an assertion.

[Rrramon]

Chris, this very second there are hundreds of Dutch engineers just waiting for you to show them your amazing WTC7 proof. Bush's secret Engineer-killing squads are nowhere to be found.

This is your chance to be a hero. You gonna let it pass?

This is one of my favorite things to say to the truthers who have infested various other forums I go to. If the flaw you've discovered is so simple and obvious, start emailing experts at random with your discovery and post their responses for the rest of us to read.

People like this subconsciously know they are full of s--- and are doing what they do solely out of a need for attention.

[Architect]

Chris, why don't you contact experts in Holland?

We've already established that Bush's death squads can't reach them. So why would you not seek to add more names to your list of Dutch experts?


Why restrict yourself to Holland? Is there a problem with the rest of the Netherlands? :confused:

[Belz...]

Then, after watching a another video [CBS] and seeing the a NIST graphic of where the perimeter and core columns were, it took him about 10 seconds to figure out how to do it.

To figure out ONE way to do it.

Of course, a controlled demolition wouldn't collapse the building in that way.

And of course, making up one's mind without studying the evidence in 10 seconds is an indication that Jowenko was either pressed for time or wasn't interested in studying the phenomenon.

The precise details are very complicated but the basic plan is dirt simple.

You blow all the core columns and the building implodes.

"God clapped his hands" explains the universe, too. But it doesn't mean it happened that way.

The people with relevant expertise say

they don't know what caused the collapse.

That should tell you something.

You can't see the bottom 25 stories in that photograph.

How can you say there's a gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, by looking at that photograph?

Because you've missed this one, too:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6006)

[Belz...]

Qualification are not needed to see that it is a CD, but they are needed to confirm that it was a CD.

How can you see it was a CD without confirming it ??

If you think calling people is necessary, then call.

I'm going to find statements that have been made by relevant people by searching the web.

No matter if they could be misleading ? Why would that be preferable to actually getting the information from the people who were there ?

If this doesn't meet with you approval, no worries.

Of course not. This personal reality of yours isn't subject to scrutiny.

[CHF]

You guys are really big on telling me to call people.

If you think calling people is necessary, then call.

I'm going to find statements that have been made by relevant people by searching the web.

If this doesn't meet with you approval, no worries.

In other words, you're a coward who has no confidence in his own claims.

I'm shocked - shocked I tell ya!

[Architect]

I still don't think he's a chippie, FWIT.

[slyjoe]

Being in the US, I wasn't sure what "chippie" was, so I looked it up.

1. Australian, n, carpenter.

Me an me mates are all chippies, we meet up the pub roun lunch time.

2. chippie - Cheap, common, sexually promiscuous girl, wearing way too much makeup and shiny cheap jewelry, usually underage or close to it.

Don't wear that outfit. That miniskirt with the hot-pink lipstick and inch of black eyeliner on your eyes makes you look like a chippie.


Which is better, 1 or 2?

[Architect]

Alternatively there is option 3 which is a common, sexually promiscuous carpenter. :)


The term "chippie" is used within the construction industry in the UK and Ireland to denote a joiner or a carpenter, usually the former.

[Dave Rogers]

Are we sure he doesn't just work in a shop that sells deep-fried fish?

Dave

[Rrramon]

Chris, you've got 634 posts in this thread, and the True Culprits™ of 9/11 are no closer to being prosecuted. How many trips to the gym, pages from a good book, or warm embraces of a woman do you think 634 posts equals?

[Slayhamlet]

How can you see it was a CD without confirming it ??

Probably the same way one might see a dog or horse in the outline of a cloud. It's entirely subjective.

[Christopher7]

First, Chris, you're begging the question here. That expression means your conclusion is implicit in your premises. You can't use your conclusion to prove your conclusion. That's a fallacious way to present an argument.
The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

You can't deny this so you doubletalk around it.

You are talking to yourself. You have concluded that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

The experts at NIST don't know what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

How can you be so sure?

You haven't yet proven that WTC 7 was wired for a controlled demolition which was then implemented. You are asserting that's what happened, yes. But you can't use your conclusion as one of your assertions. I'm not using CD as part of my 'conclusion' that there was no 10 story gouge as described on NIST Apx. L pg 18.

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7, not CD.


Which leads me to my second pont: your use of the word "implode" makes your assertion all but impossible to address.

Controlled demolitions experts have only borrowed the term "implosion" for what they do. Their work mimics the effects of an actual implosion.CDI. coined the term implosion to describe what they do to buildings.

The term implosion has become synonymous with controlled demolition when talking about buildings.

FEMA said WTC 7 imploded on pg 30.

[Christopher7]

To figure out ONE way to do it.

Of course, a controlled demolition wouldn't collapse the building in that way.
On the contrary, CD is the only thing that has ever made a building collapse that way.

An of course, making up one's mind without studying the evidence in 10 seconds is an indication that Jowenko was either pressed for time or wasn't interested in studying the phenomenon.
He was not pressed for time.
He viewed several videos and the column layout of WTC 7.
He was surprised that he had been lied to.
He had been told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

Watch the whole interview.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jowenko+WTC7+Demolition+inter views

He is an expert and he was absolute in his belief that WTC 7 was a CD.

Jowenko later confirmed his analysis and stated his reasoning in this phone call.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

"I looked at the drawings of the construction."

That should tell you something.Yes, it tells me that people who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and debris damage are expressing their opinion.

That opinion is NOT supported by the 144 experts at NIST that Gravy listed.

Because you've missed this one, too.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpgThat picture shows floors 10 and UP.

How can you say there's a gouge floor 10 to the ground by looking at that photograph?

[Rrramon]

Wait--Christopher, at which floor do you believe the damage started?

[slingblade]

The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

You can't deny this so you doubletalk around it.

Did you read my post?

I absolutely, 100% agree with you that fire alone has never caused a building to implode, because it's impossible for fire alone to cause a building to implode. I even showed you the basic science to support that.

[Belz...]

On the contrary, CD is the only thing that has ever made a building collapse that way.

Controlled demolitions don't knock out part of a building's support, resulting in said building to topple over partly and damage buildings across the street.

Would you mind explaining the difference ?

He viewed several videos and the column layout of WTC 7.
He was surprised that he had been lied to.

How was he being lied to ? He basically checked out Youtube and said "hey! CD!"

He is an expert and he was absolute in his belief that WTC 7 was a CD.

Even were I to believe that he arrived at this conclusion by analysing the whole set of evidence, which I don't, the fact that he's pretty much the only person in that field to claim this is not very convincing.

Yes, it tells me that people who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and debris damage are expressing their opinion.

It also means that you, continuously quoting them, are ALSO expressing your opinion. Now please tell me why I should favour yours over those of people who know this stuff.

That picture shows floors 10 and UP.

How can you say there's a gouge floor 10 to the ground by looking at that photograph?

Because unless you somehow claim that the hole ended right where the picture ends, the most likely scenario is that this is the same hole that was described, only that the whole thing wasn't visible from the ground.

[Christopher7]

Did you read my post?

I absolutely, 100% agree with you that fire alone has never caused a building to implode, because it's impossible for fire alone to cause a building to implode. I even showed you the basic science to support that.
Symantec doubletalk.
You refer to the original definition of implode [atmospheric pressure] and then say it doesn't apply to buildings.

When talking about buildings, 'implode' means a CD that causes a building to collapse in on itself.

The site you listed is about "How Building Implosions Work"

WTC 7 imploded. [in the CD definition of the word]

[twinstead]

Symantec doubletalk.
You refer to the original definition of implode [atmospheric pressure] and then say it doesn't apply to buildings.

When talking about buildings, 'implode' means a CD that causes a building to collapse in on itself.

The site you listed is about "How Building Implosions Work"

WTC 7 imploded. [in the CD definition of the word]

And, we disagree with you that only a CD can cause what WTC7 did.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept your word for it? Jowenko's word for it?

Or, should I accept the word of just about every other qualified expert world wide?

Decisions, decisions...

[Rrramon]

Christopher, at which floor did the damage start?

[Rrramon]

Symantec doubletalk.


Hey hey--espouse any conspiracy you want, but I won't have you besmirch the good name of that company!!

http://gfx.download-by.net/screen/14/14156-symantec-antivirus-for-handhelds-annual-service-ed.jpg

[realitybites]

The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

Dude. You saw a picture at the top of this page of what fire can do to steel, correct?

What part of your brain is causing you to believe that, left unchecked (which they were), the fires in WTC7 would not have the same effect?

[Christopher7]

Controlled demolitions don't knock out part of a building's support, resulting in said building to topple over partly and damage buildings across the street.

Would you mind explaining the difference ?
WTC 7 did not toppel over. Part of the north facade buckeled out and damaged the building across the street.

The north facade actually fell inward as can be seen in one of the videos.

WTC 7 was nearly 600 feet tall and 140 feet front to back.

There was too much of it to land entirely within it's own footprint.

There was damage to surrounding buildings, but the center of the debris pile was in the center of WTC 7.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/33/wtc7debris3bw2.jpg

How was he being lied to ? Jowenko:
"I rember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be."

Even were I to believe that he arrived at this conclusion by analysing the whole set of evidence, which I don't, the fact that he's pretty much the only person in that field to claim this is not very convincing.He looked at the column layout and figured out how it was done. [basically]

In the telephone call, weeks later, he said "I looked ay the drawings of the construction and it coulden't be done by fire."

It also means that you, continuously quoting them, are ALSO expressing your opinion. Now please tell me why I should favour yours over those of people who know this stuff.
Don't favor my opinion, favor Jowenko's opinion.

Or this Archetect

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

[Christopher7]

And, we disagree with you that only a CD can cause what WTC7 did.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept your word for it? Jowenko's word for it?

Or, should I accept the word of just about every other qualified expert world wide?

Would you please post the statements of the world wide experts who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

[Rrramon]

Christopher, at which floor did the damage start?

I wonder if there is some vBulletin mod that can just ask this question after every post Chris makes.

[Christopher7]

I wonder if there is some vBulletin mod that can just ask this question after every post Chris makes.
In this photo, it's impossible to tell.

In any case, the hole is centered on column 5 [Spak#] which is about 50 feet west of center.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

[Rrramon]

Well, here is a different one:

http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg

[Christopher7]

Well, here is a different one:

http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg
That is not a picture of

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

There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground' in the middle of WTC 7.

See post #2531 for the facts.

[slingblade]

This is as good a time as any to display my handiwork.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_56044663c92e6cf11.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6182)

[Belz...]

Symantec doubletalk.

That's NORTON doubletalk, mister.

There was too much of it to land entirely within it's own footprint.

Good. Then can I expect you will NEVER again claim it fell within its own footprint ?

I rember that they told they've imploded it

Hearsay.

He looked at the column layout and figured out how it was done. [basically]

Wow. This guy's really good. He looks at a building's layout and figures how it was demolished. Never mind studying the actual collapse evidence.

[Pardalis]

See post #2531 for the facts.


You do realize that it's been 2500+ posts and you are still arguing without any knowledge from the full NIST report about the WTC7 collapse.

:boggled:

[Belz...]

Pardalis: we all know that the facts will not change in the final report! :rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

Good. Then can I expect you will NEVER again claim it fell within its own footprint ?
NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

WTC 7 fell straight down, at near freefall, and landed in it's own footprint.

Most people understand and agree with this statement.

Nitpickers will insist on mostly straight down and mostly in it's own footprint.

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.
The north and west exterior walls, the screenwall and the west penthouse fell at near freefall.
The north and west exterior walls were attached to the east and south exterior walls respectively.
The building, other than the area under the east penthouse, fell at near freefall, just like a CD.


Hearsay.So what?

Wow. This guy's really good. He looks at a building's layout and figures how it was demolished. Never mind studying the actual collapse evidence.He looked at the same collapse evidence that NIST looked at, the videos.

[Christopher7]

Dude. You saw a picture at the top of this page of what fire can do to steel, correct?

What part of your brain is causing you to believe that, left unchecked (which they were), the fires in WTC7 would not have the same effect?
Are you seriously comparing a wood frame building to WTC 7?

Those steel 'beams' were about 2" by 6" [the nails sticking out of the wood beam were probably 16d, 3 1/2 " or 20d, 4"]

A better comparison would be the Meridian Plaza which burned out of control for more than 19 hours, and completely consumed 8 floors.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective, because of inadequate water pressure, and were abandoned after 11 hours.


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2800/meridian5lo2.png

[Christopher7]

You do realize that it's been 2500+ posts and you are still arguing without any knowledge from the full NIST report about the WTC7 collapse.

:boggled:
[bolding mine]
Wrong

I am quoting the basic data in the FEMA and NIST reports that will not change in the final report.

i.e.

The location and progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

No debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

No 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7.
[See post# 2531]

If there was significant damage to the south east facade of WTC 7, NIST would have put a photograph of that damage, [along with the photographs of every other part of WTC 7] in the progress report.

I applied to NIST FOIA for photographs of the south east side of WTC 7.
[after the collapse of WTC 1]
They told me that they have 25 photographs and 2 videos of that area.


Why don't you wait until the final report comes out before claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F ?

[Par]

Why don't you wait until the final report comes out before claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F ?


Incidentally, what was your more parsimonious explanation?

[Christopher7]

Incidentally, what was your more parsimonious explanation?
You did not answer the question.

You cannot dispute the facts so you ask that esoteric, bombastic question again.

I have answered all the challenges to the 'no 10 story gouge' statement.

Some here were honest enough to acknowledge that there was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg. 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

Some have acknowledged that there is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Some keep on avoiding the facts by changing the subject.

[Christopher7]

And, we disagree with you that only a CD can cause what WTC7 did.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept your word for it? Jowenko's word for it?

Or, should I accept the word of just about every other qualified expert world wide?
Who are you talking about?

The 145 experts, that Gravy listed, don't know what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

I have posted one demolitions expert
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jowenko+WTC7+Demolition+inter views

two Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2634672#post2634672

and an Architect
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

who say WTC 7 was a CD.

Here are 51 Architects and Engineers who are demanding an independent investigation into the collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php


Please post some of the world wide experts that say WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and/or fire.

[Christopher7]

The statements in the FEMA and NIST reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 storey gouge described on pg 10 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do.
Please demonstrate that you're not lying.

Post the evidence you say you have.

[MortFurd]

That's NORTON doubletalk, mister.

Computer geek jokes.


Made ME chuckle, anyway.

[Belz...]

"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

WTC 7 fell straight down, at near freefall, and landed in it's own footprint.

Most people understand and agree with this statement.

I don't know that anyone here does. You said that it fell within its own footprint, and now that I've cornered you you claim that it was always meant to say "mostly" in its footprint ?

That is a dishonest way of debating, but then that's exactly what I've come to expect from you. You keep contradicting yourself and dancing around to take our attention away from that fact.

Nitpickers will insist on mostly straight down and mostly in it's own footprint.

Which makes a world of difference, because otherwise it implies completely straight down and completely in its own footprint.

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.
The north and west exterior walls, the screenwall and the west penthouse fell at near freefall.

"Near" is not freefall. Again, you've lied to advance your cause. Pious fraud, anyone ?

The building, other than the area under the east penthouse, fell at near reefall, just like a CD.

Just like ANY form of collapse, you mean ? If a building does not fall at a rate close to free fall, then you'd expect it NOT to undergo a complete collapse, now would you ?

So what?

SO WHAT ???? I say that the quote is mere hearsay, unsupported by evidence and speculative and you say "so what" ? Is that what you call "research" ?

He looked at the same collapse evidence that NIST looked at, the videos.

Are you sure that was the whole evidence ? Really ? Videos of 7 WTC collapsing ?

[Belz...]

Are you seriously comparing a wood frame building to WTC 7?

Coming from a guy who thinks steel is always better than wood in a fire, I think you should've refrained from commenting.

I am quoting the basic data in the FEMA and NIST reports that will not change in the final report.

See, Pardalis ? What did I say he'd answer ?

[Christopher7]

I don't know that anyone here does. You said that it fell within its own footprint, and now that I've cornered you you claim that it was always meant to say "mostly" in its footprint ?
I've been quoting the NIST statement "mostly within the original footprint" for a long time.


Which makes a world of difference, because otherwise it implies completely straight down and completely in its own footprint.Most people don't care if it was completely straight down or completely in it's own footprint.
The point is, it imploded and turned into a pile of rubble, just like a CD.

"Near" is not freefall. Again, you've lied to advance your cause. Pious fraud, anyone ?
When did i say "freefall" ?

Just like ANY form of collapse, you mean ? If a building does not fall at a rate close to free fall, then you'd expect it NOT to undergo a complete collapse, now would you ?
Right

The only form of collapse that turns a high rise steel frame building into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds, is a very professional building implosion.

SO WHAT ???? I say that the quote is mere hearsay, unsupported by evidence and speculative and you say "so what" ? Is that what you call "research" ?Bottom line:
Someone told Jowenko that WTC 7 collapsed several days later.
He was shocked to find out it collapsed on 9/11.

Are you sure that was the whole evidence ? Really ? Videos of 7 WTC collapsing ?He also looked at the drawings of the construction of WTC 7 and stated that it could not be brought down by fire.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

[Par]

You did not answer the question.

You cannot dispute the facts so you ask that esoteric, bombastic question again.

I have answered all the challenges to the 'no 10 story gouge' statement.

Some here were honest enough to acknowledge that there was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg. 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

Some have acknowledged that there is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Some keep on avoiding the facts by changing the subject.



I see. But what was your more parsimonious explanation?

[Christopher7]

I see. But what was your more parsimonious explanation?
:D :D

[Belz...]

I've been quoting the NIST statement "mostly within the original footprint" for a long time.

Good. Then stop saying it was within the footprint.

Most people don't care if it was completely straight down or completely in it's own footprint.

Argument from popularity. I don't give a rat's right eye what most people care. There is a world of difference between completely and mostly.

The point is, it imploded and turned into a pile of rubble, just like a CD.

And just like ANY collapse.

When did i say "freefall" ?

Right here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2661496&postcount=2569).

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.

Implying that you do believe it was in freefall.

The only form of collapse that turns a high rise steel frame building into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds, is a very professional building implosion.

That is ridiculous. Read the following very slowly:

The only way that the collapse could take significantly less time is if there was significantly more resistant from the "intact" floors below. Now, if this happened, the thing wouldn't collapse completely, would it ? So if it DOES collapse completely, it pretty much HAS to do it very quickly.

Someone told Jowenko that WTC 7 collapsed several days later.
He was shocked to find out it collapsed on 9/11.

That's because he wasn't keeping up. I learned about it a few minutes after it happened.

He also looked at the drawings of the construction of WTC 7 and stated that it could not be brought down by fire.

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?

[twinstead]

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?

And not just NIST and you, but just about every OTHER demolition expert and structural engineer on Earth.

I think it is a dangerous thing to hang so much on to one expert's opinion when it flies in the face of the consensus of his peers without some serious explanation by that expert.

Chris, the fact that you take Jowenko's word as gospel without even hearing any detailed explanation from him concerning WHY he parts ways with his colleagues on the issue is poor investigation and very telling indeed--and just about par for the CT course.

IMO it's simply because you agree with him.

[aggle-rithm]

Are you seriously comparing a wood frame building to WTC 7?

Those steel 'beams' were about 2" by 6" [the nails sticking out of the wood beam were probably 16d, 3 1/2 " or 20d, 4"]

A better comparison would be the Meridian Plaza which burned out of control for more than 19 hours, and completely consumed 8 floors.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective, because of inadequate water pressure, and were abandoned after 11 hours.


http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2800/meridian5lo2.png

How many floors were above the one shown?

[slyjoe]

...

A better comparison would be the Meridian Plaza which burned out of control for more than 19 hours, and completely consumed 8 floors.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective, because of inadequate water pressure, and were abandoned after 11 hours.


Did you read what the structural engineer on the scene had to say about the damage this fire caused? Since you don't seem to want to do any research, here's the quote (bolding mine):

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

[Par]

:D :D



Two smilies? Your attempts at distraction appear to be growing more despondent by the day. You must be utterly desperate to avoid answering an extremely succinct and straightforward question. Again, I simply cannot imagine why that might be.

To summarise our interlocution so far:



You claimed that the idea that World Trade Center 7 collapsed as a result of fire, debris damage or a combination of those factors isn’t supported by any evidence.
I stated that – even if you were right – fire and/or debris damage is still the most parsimonious explanation for the collapse; I then (repeatedly) asked you if you agreed.
After numerous and blatant attempts to avoid the question through distraction, you eventually answered by saying that, no, you didn’t think that fire and/or debris damage was the most parsimonious explanation.
I then (repeatedly) asked you for a more parsimonious explanation.
So far, you have made numerous and blatant attempts to avoid the question.


So, Christopher7, the question still stands: What is a more parsimonious explanation?

[Christopher7]

Good. Then stop saying it was within the footprint.
OK

Argument from popularity. I don't give a rat's right eye what most people care. There is a world of difference between completely and mostly.
Argument from nitpickery.

And just like ANY collapse.
Your answer indicates that there has been a total collapse of a high rise building other than a CD.
Such is not the case.

Right here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2661496&postcount=2569).Ya got me.
I was making a point about nitpickery.
I will hereinafter say that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint.

Implying that you do believe it was in freefall.Near freefall, just like a CD.

That is ridiculous.Wrong
That's a fact!

Read the following very slowly:

The only way that the collapse could take significantly less time is if there was significantly more resistant from the "intact" floors below. Now, if this happened, the thing wouldn't collapse completely, would it ? So if it DOES collapse completely, it pretty much HAS to do it very quickly.Right
There was virtually no resistance from the floors below because all the core columns failed.
The only thing that has ever caused this to happen is a CD.

Therefore a real investigation would consider this possibility.

The executive decision not to consider this possibility is clear evidence of interference by 'higher ups'.

Perhaps you naively think that the Bush administration doesn't interfere with scientific reports.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has testified in congressional hearings that the Bush administration has repeatedly altered scientific reports to fit their political agenda.

That's because he wasn't keeping up. I learned about it a few minutes after it happened.So what?
The fact is, he was told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

Perhaps you believe that the weight of falling debris on to the floors below could pull the other 21 core columns sideways.
That's bloody ridiculous.

[chipmunk stew]

Argument from nitpickery.
:D I like that. Mind if I borrow it on occasion?

[twinstead]

OK

A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

Perhaps you believe that the weight of falling debris on to the floors below could pull the other 21 core columns sideways.
That's bloody ridiculous.

What is your opinion as to why so many people, and so many experts, disagree with you about this?

[Belz...]

Argument from nitpickery.

That doesn't even exist.

Your answer indicates that there has been a total collapse of a high rise building other than a CD.

That's because you're reading wrong and adding words to my sentence. Don't do that.

What I'm saying, is that ALL global collapses implode buildings into piles of rubble. So saying that it imploded into a pile of rubble doesn't say anything about CD.

Near freefall, just like a CD.

Again, that's completely ludicrous. You're completely ignoring the fact that many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect, just because it so happens that a controlled demolition is part of this group.

Wrong
That's a fact!

Is it, now ? So you're saying that NOTHING short of a controlled demolition can possibly demolish a building in this way ? Really ?

There was virtually no resistance from the floors below because all the core columns failed.

That's a given. If it hadn't, there wouldn't be a global collapse, which was my whole point.

Therefore a real investigation would consider this possibility.

You see, if I were the one making this point, this last sentence would lead me to think the following:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, they ruled it out."

But, no. You think this:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, the investigation was a sham."

Basically, you're arguing from your own subjective point of view. Your argument has this form:

_I_ Think this, therefore anybody who disagrees is wrong.

Perhaps you naively think that the Bush administration doesn't interfere with scientific reports.

Perhaps I naively think that you should provide evidence that they did before jumping to that conclusion.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has testified in congressional hearings that the Bush administration has repeatedly altered scientific reports to fit their political agenda.

That is very true. But the fact that someone's a thief doesn't mean he stole my pen just because it's missing.

So what?
The fact is, he was told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

Your point being ?

A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

The fire didn't cause all the support columns to fail at the same time. That's why the collapse began at a specific point of the building's inner structure and pulled the rest along. Weren't you watching when the thing fell ?

[Christopher7]

And not just NIST and you, but just about every OTHER demolition expert and structural engineer on Earth.
Overstate much?

Please post the statements of these experts who say that WTC 7 was defiantly not a CD.

The 145 experts that contributed to the NIST report may or may not rule out CD as a possible cause.
So don't assume you know what they believe.

I think it is a dangerous thing to hang so much on to one expert's opinion when it flies in the face of the consensus of his peers without some serious explanation by that expert.I addition to this CD expert, i have posted two structural analysis experts and an architect who say WTC 7 was a CD.

I also posted a list of 51 experts who are demanding an independent investigation because they don't believe WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

You have not posted any statements by experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

Chris, the fact that you take Jowenko's word as gospel without even hearing any detailed explanation from him concerning WHY he parts ways with his colleagues on the issue is poor investigation and very telling indeed--and just about par for the CT course.

IMO it's simply because you agree with him.In the video and the phone call he states why he is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD. He also says, and i agree with him, that any CD expert in this country who goes against the official story will probably loose their job.

[Christopher7]

:D I like that. Mind if I borrow it on occasion?
Go for it. :cool:

[Christopher7]

Two smilies? Your attempts at distraction appear to be growing more despondent by the day.
Look who's talking.


You must be utterly desperate to avoid answering an extremely succinct and straightforward question. Again, I simply cannot imagine why that might be.Please

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

Weather or not this is parsimonious is of no consequence and your repeated asking is just bombastic obfuscation.

So, Christopher7, the question still stands: What is a more parsimonious explanation?I offer none because i think this is a silly diversion.

You don't believe a freakin word i say so why are you asking me for my opinion?
to avoid the point perhaps?

[revised version]

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Did you read what the structural engineer on the scene had to say about the damage this fire caused? Since you don't seem to want to do any research, here's the quote (bolding mine):
They thought the building might collapse.

They did the prudent thing and got their people out of there.

The building did not collapse.


The Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
There is no mention in any of the Chiefs statements that they consulted a structural engineer. [to my knowledge]



http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on the pg counter]

"After the fire there was significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures and fishers developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

[Belz...]

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse

There is no evidence that gravity contributed to the collapse, either, by your method.


Come on, Chris, I'm sure you can answer my other points.

[Par]

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.



OK, Chritsopher7, perhaps we really have simply been misunderstanding each other all this time. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence”. I’d hoped I’d been clear on this, but your claim is not something I am disputing.

Here is my revised question:

Even if it is true that there is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (which, remember, is not something I am disputing), can you offer an explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 that introduces fewer assumptions and postulates fewer hypothetical entities (in other words, an explanation that is more parsimonious) than explaining it in terms of fire and/or debris damage?

Now, unless you can offer such an explanation, (which would seem to be impossible given that the number of assumptions made and the number of hypothetical entities postulated within the fire/debris explanation is ZERO (or perhaps ONE very strictly speaking) and that this number would be drastically higher for every other explanation) your point won’t have any significant affect on a rational person’s broader conclusions about 9/11. It may well serve as an interesting fact about how NIST, in at least one instance, have relied on an assumption or an inference to the best explanation rather than any direct physical evidence, but nothing more. Even without any such evidence, the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire/debris is still by far and away the most parsimonious and, as a result, the most rational.

I hope I have managed to make myself a little clearer.

[Christopher7]

That's because you're reading wrong and adding words to my sentence. Don't do that.

What I'm saying, is that ALL global collapses implode buildings into piles of rubble. So saying that it imploded into a pile of rubble doesn't say anything about CD.
On the contrary, all buildings that have imploded were CD's.
Therefore, CD should be considered as a possibility.
NIST says they awarded a contract for blast scenarios so they are finally considering it.
They also say that there is no evidence of CD in spite of the fact that WTC 7 imploded and has all the characteristics of a CD.

1) The center falls first, pulling the outer walls inward
2) Collapse at near freefall
[screenwall, east penthouse, north and west walls]
3) Virtually straight down collapse
[center of debris pile in center of building]
4) dust cloud of pulverized concrete and other materials.


Again, that's completely ludicrous. You're completely ignoring the fact that many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect, just because it so happens that a controlled demolition is part of this group.
Not so.
The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.
A building implosion is a very specialized CD that only a few demolition companies can do.

Building implosions are easy to recognize because of their unique nature.

Perhaps you could tell us what some of the many other causes of implosion are and how would work.


Is it, now ? So you're saying that NOTHING short of a controlled demolition can possibly demolish a building in this way ? Really ?Absolutely.

Can you site another cause?

Remember, fire and progressive collapse is just a hypothetical.

That's a given. If it hadn't, there wouldn't be a global collapse, which was my whole point.

You see, if I were the one making this point, this last sentence would lead me to think the following:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, they ruled it out."

But, no. You think this:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, the investigation was a sham."
The decision not to consider CD was made by management before the investigation began. There is no mention of CD in the preliminary report. It was not considered.

NIST Final 4-5-05
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition.

That statement is blatantly false.

WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a CD.


Basically, you're arguing from your own subjective point of view. Your argument has this form:

_I_ Think this, therefore anybody who disagrees is wrong.
You are doing the same.
When you stop and think about it, that is always the case when someone believes something.
That's a rather silly, non statement.

Perhaps I naively think that you should provide evidence that they did before jumping to that conclusion."Scientists say administration distorts facts

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific facts in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biochemical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

The Bush administration has editorial control of all scientific publications.
They systematically distort scientific facts.

No evidence of CD is a distortion of the facts.


The fire didn't cause all the support columns to fail at the same time. That's why the collapse began at a specific point of the building's inner structure and pulled the rest along. Weren't you watching when the thing fell ?Same time was an oversimplification.
As can be seen in the CBS video, columns 79, 80 and 81 collapsed simultaneously, or very near simultaneously.
The other 21 core columns failed near simultaneously about 6 seconds later.

The falling debris hitting floors 5 thru 7 supposedly pulled 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

According to this scientific formula, that is not possible.

21>3

[Newtons Bit]

Par, I've actually posted structural models showing how column damage can affect a large area. He discounts these as not relevant because he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of engineering. He's never going to change his mind. He believes there had to be CD because he believes there was no damage. CD is his life. He's not going to change because of pesky facts.

[Christopher7]

Par, I've actually posted structural models showing how column damage can affect a large area. He discounts these as not relevant because he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of engineering. He's never going to change his mind. He believes there had to be CD because he believes there was no damage. CD is his life. He's not going to change because of pesky facts.
What facts?
Your model only showed the principle of how weight could be transferred thru a perimeter moment frame.

By your own admission, it's not evidence of what happened in WTC 7.

Further, it does not apply to the transfer of loads to the core columns, or how any load could be transferred to the far end of the core framing.

NB post #2103
"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage."

Hogwash

Your model shows that load decreasing dramatically only a couple columns away.

Of course, you can make the columns weaker and the moment frames stronger until you get the results you want, but it will not be anything like the actual conditions, which you admit you don't know.

It's just sophistry.

You did not demonstrate how debris damage to the south west perimeter frame could effect, mush less weaken, the columns in the area of the initiating event.

You are long on arrogance and insults, short on evidence to refute this statement:

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7

[Newtons Bit]

NB post #2103
"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage."

Hogwash

Your model shows that load decreasing dramatically only a couple columns away.

Of course, you can make the columns weaker and the moment frames stronger until you get the results you want, but it will not be anything like the actual conditions, which you admit you don't know.


This is the part that is fun. I provided two models, one which showed the force transfering to the other side of the building and one that didn't (based upon beam and column stiffness). He automatically assumes the one that didn't transfer forces is right and the one that did was manipulation. This is what you face in dealing with Christopher7. Semantics, quote mining and selective interpratation.

[Christopher7]

OK, Chritsopher7, perhaps we really have simply been misunderstanding each other all this time. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence”. I’d hoped I’d been clear on this, but your claim is not something I am disputing.

Here is my revised question:

Even if it is true that there is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (which, remember, is not something I am disputing),

subject change:

can you offer an explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 that introduces fewer assumptions and postulates fewer hypothetical entities (in other words, an explanation that is more parsimonious) than explaining it in terms of fire and/or debris damage?

Suffice it to say that you still believe there is more evidence for DD/F than CD, in your ever so round about way.

Now, unless you can offer such an explanation, (which would seem to be impossible given that the number of assumptions made and the number of hypothetical entities postulated within the fire/debris explanation is ZERO (or perhaps ONE very strictly speaking) and that this number would be drastically higher for every other explanation) your point won’t have any significant affect on a rational person’s broader conclusions about 9/11. It may well serve as an interesting fact about how NIST, in at least one instance, have relied on an assumption or an inference to the best explanation rather than any direct physical evidence, but nothing more. Even without any such evidence, the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire/debris is still by far and away the most parsimonious and, as a result, the most rational.In your opinion.

I hope I have managed to make myself a little clearer.Quite

This thread is about the evidence of debris damage and fire in WTC 7, not CD's. [we did get a bit off topic]
There is a thread where we can debate evidence for CD's
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

You say are not disputing that there is no evidence of debris damage having a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.
That is inconsistent with "Even if it is true that there is no evidence.....


FEMA and NIST had two years [+ or -] to gather the basic data for the investigation.

It is doubtful that they missed something major like debris damage to the area of the initiating event.


There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

That is the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

This is the part that is fun. I provided two models, one which showed the force transfering to the other side of the building and one that didn't (based upon beam and column stiffness). He automatically assumes the one that didn't transfer forces is right and the one that did was manipulation. This is what you face in dealing with Christopher7. Semantics, quote mining and selective interpratation.
Your model had 5 columns. WTC 7 had 14 on the south wall.

It did not show the effect to the end of the south side, much less the other side of the building.

Remember, there were no moment frames from beam to girder, or girder to column in the core framework so you cantilever effect does not apply there.

[Belz...]

On the contrary, all buildings that have imploded were CD's.

Then let's have your definition of "implode"; because buildings generally don't explode, either.

Therefore, CD should be considered as a possibility.

We have considered it. And it's been rejected.

NIST says they awarded a contract for blast scenarios so they are finally considering it.

Which doesn't mean you're right, because you don't know their conclusion, yet.

They also say that there is no evidence of CD in spite of the fact that WTC 7 imploded and has all the characteristics of a CD.

1) The center falls first, pulling the outer walls inward
2) Collapse at near freefall
[screenwall, east penthouse, north and west walls]
3) Virtually straight down collapse
[center of debris pile in center of building]
4) dust cloud of pulverized concrete and other materials.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.

1) The center doesn't fall first. You of all people should know this.
2) I told you that this was nonsense, already.
3) Again, seeing as how the collapse initiated, how else would it fall ?
4) You don't expect this from other collapses ??

Not so.
The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

Irrelevant.

Before the first jet engine, the only thing that hat been used to power a plane was a propellor. Does that mean that jet engines are impossible ?

Perhaps you could tell us what some of the many other causes of implosion are and how would work.

Well, the first that comes to mind is implosion caused by the inward pulling of columns due to one of them being damaged by fire...

Absolutely.

Can you site another cause?

Remember, fire and progressive collapse is just a hypothetical.

You say this as though CD wasn't hypothetical.

The decision not to consider CD was made by management before the investigation began. There is no mention of CD in the preliminary report. It was not considered.

And real investigators and experts can tell you why: it's nonsense.

NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition.

That statement is blatantly false.

WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a CD.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.

You are doing the same.

A tu quoque. How cute.

When you stop and think about it, that is always the case when someone believes something.
That's a rather silly, non statement.

Absolutely not. Many things disagree with me and turn out to be correct. But considering the "evidence" that truthers present for a controlled demolition didn't change my mind because your evidence is not convincing. In fact, all it shows is your ignorance of these matters; and even someone similarily ignorant, like me, can apparently learn how you guys are wrong in just a few days.

"Scientists say administration distorts facts

I didn't ask you to show that the Bush administration had distorted scientific facts. I told you I agreed with that assesment. What I'm saying is that this is no proof that they ARE distorting facts about 9/11's events, no more than a thief is guilty of all larcenies.

No evidence of CD is a distortion of the facts.

Right, sure.

Same time was an oversimplification.

If you're trying to make a point I suggest being correct instead of concise.

The falling debris hitting floors 5 thru 7 supposedly pulled 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

According to this scientific formula, that is not possible.

21>3

:jaw-dropp

Let me get this straight. According to you, it is impossible for a lesser number of columns to pull a greater amount of columns out of alignment ?

[Par]

subject change


It can hardly be considered a subject change if it renders your entire argument academic.

I see now that you’re saying that if there is no evidence for X, then necessarily ¬X. That’s the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Saying “even if Y is true…” does not amount to disputing Y. It merely remains neutral to its truth or falsity.



There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

That is the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.


And how many assumptions does that make and how many hypothetical entities does it postulate? How about a controlled demolition?

Anyway, you seem to be of the opinion that the most parsimonious explanation being considered the most rational is merely a matter of opinion. So, we’re unlikely to get anywhere.

[Par]

Par... he's never going to change his mind. He believes there had to be CD because he believes there was no damage. CD is his life. He's not going to change because of pesky facts.


You know, I’m starting to think you’re right.

[Christopher7]

Then let's have your definition of "implode"; because buildings generally don't explode, either.
Grandma Loizeaux was the first to use the term 'implode' to describe what CDI does to buildings. It has become synonymous with CD's that cause a building to collapse in on itself.
NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 was an implosion.

We have considered it. And it's been rejected.
I have listed 55 experts who say otherwise.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

Which doesn't mean you're right, because you don't know their conclusion, yet. I read somewhere that the analysis is limited to the 8th thru the 46th floors. I'll try to find the article and post it.

1) The center doesn't fall first. You of all people should know this.
2) I told you that this was nonsense, already.
3) Again, seeing as how the collapse initiated, how else would it fall ?
4) You don't expect this from other collapses ??1) The center does fall first.
The east penthouse, then the screenwall and west penthouse, then the exterior walls.

2) The screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell in about 7 seconds.

3) The failure of one column would not cause a global collapse. IMO
NIST has suggested this as a possibility but they could only say that it "appears possible".

4) No.
Do you know of a collapse with a dust cloud like the one WTC 7 created that wasn't a CD?

Irrelevant.We disagree

Before the first jet engine, the only thing that hat been used to power a plane was a propellor. Does that mean that jet engines are impossible ?
Ah yes, another silly simile.

Well, the first that comes to mind is implosion caused by the inward pulling of columns due to one of them being damaged by fire...
That is a hypothesis, not a fact. Implosion by CD is a fact.

You said "many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"

Can you site one or two that have actually been documented or were you making a statement that you can't back up?

You say this as though CD wasn't hypothetical.
Both theories are hypothetical.

And real investigators and experts can tell you why: it's nonsense.The experts at NIST were not given the option of considering CD.
That task has been contracted out.
There are real experts who say it was a CD.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.There were explosions.
I have debated that point on this thread.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

Absolutely not. Many things disagree with me and turn out to be correct. But considering the "evidence" that truthers present for a controlled demolition didn't change my mind because your evidence is not convincing.I respect your right to your opinion.

In fact, all it shows is your ignorance of these matters; and even someone similarily ignorant, like me, can apparently learn how you guys are wrong in just a few days.
If you can convince yourself that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall and the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds, then you will remain ignorant.

I didn't ask you to show that the Bush administration had distorted scientific facts. I told you I agreed with that assesment. What I'm saying is that this is no proof that they ARE distorting facts about 9/11's events, no more than a thief is guilty of all larcenies.
What part of 'systematic' don't you understand?
There is reason to believe the reports are a "half baked farce" as Fire Engineering Magazine described the FEMA report.

Insisting that there is no evidence of CD [even though WTC 7 imploded], showing every part of WTC 7 except the south east side, [they have 25 photographs of that area]
and taking nearly six years to complete the report is evidence that the administration is doing what it does with other scientific reports.

The administration has a record of systematically distorting scientific reports to fit their political agenda yet you believe that they did not distort this one.

Let me get this straight. According to you, it is impossible for a lesser number of columns to pull a greater amount of columns out of alignment ?The weight of the falling debris would cause the floor beams to break away before pulling 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

[Christopher7]

It can hardly be considered a subject change if it renders your entire argument academic.
IYO

I see now that you’re saying that if there is no evidence for X, then necessarily ¬X. That’s the argument from ignorance fallacy.
Actually, you are the one saying that about CD.

I said that office fires are the evidence for DD/F.

Where did you get no evidence?
Is English your first language?

Saying “even if Y is true…” does not amount to disputing Y. It merely remains neutral to its truth or falsity.
You do like to be vague.
You refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
Saying you don't believe something or you are 'neutral', is effectively disputing it.

And how many assumptions does that make and how many hypothetical entities does it postulate?None

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

This is a statement of fact.
If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.


Anyway, you seem to be of the opinion that the most parsimonious explanation being considered the most rational is merely a matter of opinion. So, we’re unlikely to get anywhere.You got that part right.

[tsig]

IYO

Actually, you are the one saying that about CD.

I said that office fires are the evidence for DD/F.

Where did you get no evidence?
Is English your first language?

You do like to be vague.
You refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
Saying you don't believe something or you are 'neutral', is effectively disputing it.

None

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

This is a statement of fact.
If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.


You got that part right.

Oh the "initiating event"

Much like when your parents begot you.

[Christopher7]

Oh the "initiating event"

Much like when your parents begot you.
Welcome to facts and sarcasm, nice entrance.

It's just like when my parents begot me only entirely different.

The term initiating event is from the NUST report Apx. L, page 30 - 34 [34 - 38 on pg counter]

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

If you have dial up, it takes about 15 - 20 min. to download.
This is a must read if you want to know the facts and/or debate WTC 7.
The final report will be released around the 12th of never.


http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1337/areaofinitiatingeventli5.png

[Par]

Christopher7:

I see you’ve taken to describing matters of logical and mathematical necessity and of straightforward relevance as merely those of “my opinion”. It’s as if we’re playing a game of soccer and you just won’t stop picking the ball up and running with it; the rules are only “my opinion,” after all. I would suggest, however, that your theory not sitting comfortably with certain well-established epistemological principles, says rather more about the validity of your theory than it does about the supposed disposability of those principles themselves.

Further, as if these principles weren’t grave enough casualties of your argument, it seems that commonly-understood semantics have perished somewhere along the line as well. One can no longer suppose to remain neutral to the truth of a proposition without necessarily asserting its falsity. A synthetic dichotomy that until now (coincidentally, I’m sure) has been exploited in repeated attempts to draw attention away from the fact that the non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious.

It’s something of a relief, nonetheless, to see you finally acknowledge as much, but that relief is rendered decidedly bittersweet by the fact that as you so swaggeringly admit, you’re more than happy to, apparently without so much as a second thought, simply jettison the principle of parsimony completely.

So, unless you’re prepared to make a concerted effort to heave yourself from the murky swamp of quasi-relativism, you continue to render yourself practically immune to pedagogy. But then again, I suppose that was half the point of you having waded in there in the first place.


“My car can fly.”
---“No it cannot.”
“Yes it can, it’s got wings.”
---“Even if it does have wings, it still couldn’t fly.”
“It has got wings!”
---“Well, even if it has, it still couldn’t fly.”
“Stop changing the subject! It has got wings! It has got wings!”


PS:

Two further, miscellaneous points:

Perhaps you should study your own post to determine where I got the term “no evidence” from. It’s in there twice – in large, bold lettering. (And you ask me whether English is my first language. Indeed.)

I haven’t said anything about the evidence (or lack thereof) of a controlled demolition.

[DGM]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Danny Jowenko is a contributor to "Implosion World" and has never refuted their findings. Any comments?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I see you’ve taken to describing matters of logical and mathematical necessity and of straightforward relevance as merely those of “my opinion”. It’s as if we’re playing a game of soccer and you just won’t stop picking the ball up and running with it; the rules are only “my opinion,” after all. I would suggest, however, that your theory not sitting comfortably with certain well-established epistemological principles, says rather more about the validity of your theory than it does about the supposed disposability of those principles themselves.

Further, as if these principles weren’t grave enough casualties of your argument, it seems that commonly-understood semantics have perished somewhere along the line as well. One can no longer suppose to remain neutral to the truth of a proposition without necessarily asserting its falsity. A synthetic dichotomy that until now (coincidentally, I’m sure) has been exploited in repeated attempts to draw attention away from the fact that the non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious. As compared to CD.

I haven’t said anything about the evidence (or lack thereof) of a controlled demolition.Not directly, but saying that CD is a less parsimonious explanation you are effectively saying that there is less evidence for CD.


This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7.

You have avoided the fact that

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

by shifting the debate to "My dog is more parsimonious than your dog."

Par:
"Can you offer an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that introduces fewer assumptions.........."

All your doubletalk does not change the fact that the above statement is true.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, post it.


I misinterpreted your x and y statement.
My bad
My apologies

You were using the 'Rumsfield defense'

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

There is no reason to believe that debris damage to the south west facade weakened or put significant stress on columns 79, 80 and 81 [initiating event - first columns to fail]

NB's cantilever effect does not apply to the core framework because there were no moment frames in the core framework.

[Christopher7]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Danny Jowenko is a contributor to "Implosion World" and has never refuted their findings. Any comments?
His statement refutes their opinion.

He is an expert, they are not.

It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.

Have they refuted his statement?

[Belz...]

Grandma Loizeaux was the first to use the term 'implode' to describe what CDI does to buildings. It has become synonymous with CD's that cause a building to collapse in on itself.
NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 was an implosion.

Well, I guess that means that if my mother thinks that larceny isn't a crime, if YOUR mother steals something she's scot-free.

You're just playing semantics. "Implosion" means it fell into itself, as opposed to an explosion. If NIST thinks it was an implosion and you think that definitely means CD, why haven't THEY considered it ? You're just contradicting yourself, only keeping the conclusions you like.

I have listed 55 experts who say otherwise.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

Of course. Because the interim report is not final, you can say that to your heart's content. The fact of the matter is, your theory has no grounds.

1) The center does fall first.
The east penthouse, then the screenwall and west penthouse, then the exterior walls.

Since when is the east penthouse in the center ?

2) The screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell in about 7 seconds.

Irrelevant. Haven't you been reading what I've said ?

3) The failure of one column would not cause a global collapse. IMO

Exactly, it's an opinion and you keep stating it as a fact.

NIST has suggested this as a possibility but they could only say that it "appears possible".

What's the difference ? They haven't even finished their analysis, yet. But you'd like to think that you know more than all of them.

Do you know of a collapse with a dust cloud like the one WTC 7 created that wasn't a CD?

Well, aside the fact that it's a weirdly-worded question, why would you expect a collapsing building NOT to release a cloud of dust ?

Ah yes, another silly simile.

Why not ? You seem incapable of understanding it when I state it plainly: The fact that something hasn't happened before does not mean it is impossible. If you could show that it is not physically possible, then sure. So far you're just prefering one hypothesis to another, for no reason other than your personal incredulity.

That is a hypothesis, not a fact. Implosion by CD is a fact.

Then I submit that, aside from controlled demolitions, you have never seen a building collapse before 9/11.

Your problem is that you are using the absence of the event pre-9/11 as some sort of proof that it can't happen.

You said "many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"

Can you site one or two that have actually been documented or were you making a statement that you can't back up?

How about earthquakes and meteors ? There. Gosh.

Both theories are hypothetical.

Impossible. You're mixing terms, here.

The experts at NIST were not given the option of considering CD.

Speculation. You have NO IDEA what options they were given.

There are real experts who say it was a CD.

One, actually.

There were explosions.

There was ONE sound that could be interpreted as an explosion. ONE explosive is insufficient to cause the damage you've described.

Of course, then it would beg the question of why someone would decide to send people in a flaming building in order to demolish it.

I respect your right to your opinion.

Nice dodge. I was countering your earlier point about our respective opinions.

If you can convince yourself that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall and the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds, then you will remain ignorant.

That's an appeal, not an argument.

What part of 'systematic' don't you understand?

That is no proof that they altered the facts of the collapses. Again, you're trying to fool me with flawed logic. Good luck.

There is reason to believe the reports are a "half baked farce" as Fire Engineering Magazine described the FEMA report.

Good, good. Do you care to show me those reasons ?

Insisting that there is no evidence of CD [even though WTC 7 imploded], showing every part of WTC 7 except the south east side, [they have 25 photographs of that area]
and taking nearly six years to complete the report is evidence that the administration is doing what it does with other scientific reports.

It is evidence that the report is taking longer than expected, and your reason for that is mere speculation. It could simply be that their budget was reduced because 7 WTC is less important to the issue than 1 and 2 WTC were.

The administration has a record of systematically distorting scientific reports to fit their political agenda yet you believe that they did not distort this one.

In the absence of evidence, I cannot hold that they did. You are arguing from ignorance.

The weight of the falling debris would cause the floor beams to break away before pulling 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

I'm sorry, I thought that there was "no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event."

Are you retracting that statement ?

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice that you’ve attempted to downplay your logical fallacy by associating my highlighting of it with a sleazy politician and his attempt at weaselling out of his responsibilities. Perhaps if you’re ever to claim that Berlin is in Germany, that smoking is bad for you or that Friedrich Nietzsche was an important philosopher, I can return the favour by pejoratively characterising your statements as “Hitler beliefs”. Put a little more succinctly, you’re employing the guilt by association fallacy.

Regarding evidence, given the sheer quantity and nature of the assumptions made and hypothetical entities postulated by a controlled demolition theory, it carries an inherent burden of extreme improbability. You appear to be labouring under the misconception that controlled demolition theories and their non-conspiratorial counterparts are competing on an even evidential playing field. This is not the case. Even without any direct evidence for any theory at all, as we have seen, a non-conspiratorial explanation is by orders of magnitude more rational.

Due to its burden of extreme improbability, a controlled demolition theory has a tremendous probability deficit that it would need to compensate for before it can even be considered a theory worthy of serious evaluation. This compensation would have to take the form of direct evidence of such compelling quantity and/or quality that the probability of it all being illusory is markedly lower than probability borne by the theory itself.

As I have said, I don’t endeavour to “avoid” your central claim. At this stage I don’t acknowledge it, but I don’t dispute it either. My neutrality to its truth or falsity is multi-causal, but here are the two principal reasons:


Firstly, given my relative unfamiliarity with the specifics of the subject matter and also my lack of structural engineering expertise, supposing to directly acknowledge or dispute the claim would be rather intellectually inappropriate.
Secondly, and most importantly, given that its truth value has no bearing on the overarching conclusion concerning the collapse (in other words, given that the question of which explanation is the most rational doesn’t hinge on your claim), a commitment to its truth or falsity is simply unnecessary. Similarly, referring to the analogy in my previous post, a thorough investigation into the wingedness or lack thereof of your car is simply unnecessary in determining whether or not it can fly.

It’s reassuring to see you again acknowledge that non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious. I would add though, that this is the case not merely when they’re compared to controlled demolition theories, but also when they’re compared to all other explanations.

[Christopher7]

Well, I guess that means that if my mother thinks that larceny isn't a crime, if YOUR mother steals something she's scot-free.

You're just playing semantics. "Implosion" means it fell into itself, as opposed to an explosion. If NIST thinks it was an implosion and you think that definitely means CD, why haven't THEY considered it ? You're just contradicting yourself, only keeping the conclusions you like.
NIST knows that WTC 7 imploded, exhibiting all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD.
Weather or not they thought this was 'evidence', it should be considered as a possibility.
There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7,
yet they considered that.

Of course. Because the interim report is not final, you can say that to your heart's content. The fact of the matter is, your theory has no grounds.
It's not my theory.
100 experts have gone on record calling for a new investigation because they don't believe the 'official' explanation.
http://www.ae911truth.org

Since when is the east penthouse in the center ?How did i know you would say that?
Another argument from nitpickery.
OK
The interior fell first, drawing the exterior walls inward, just like a professional building implosion.

Irrelevant. Haven't you been reading what I've said ?You say the entire collapse sequence took about 13 seconds, therefore not near freefall.
This is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.
You cannot deny that the screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

Exactly, it's an opinion and you keep stating it as a fact.
What part of 'IMO' don't you understand?

What's the difference ? They haven't even finished their analysis, yet. But you'd like to think that you know more than all of them.
No

Well, aside the fact that it's a weirdly-worded question, why would you expect a collapsing building NOT to release a cloud of dust ?
Buildings that collapse due to fire don't create a huge cloud of dust that spreads out for blocks.
The closest example i know of is the Windsor building.
There was a partial collapse that occurred over a period of an hour, and created no dust cloud.
The dust cloud in a CD is caused by explosions pulverizing concrete and other materials.
A collapse without explosives would not create anywhere near as much dust.

Why not ? You seem incapable of understanding it when I state it plainly: The fact that something hasn't happened before does not mean it is impossible. If you could show that it is not physically possible, then sure.It is physically impossible for a building, collapsing due to structural failure, to create as much dust as a building that has been destroyed with explosives.

So far you're just prefering one hypothesis to another, for no reason other than your personal incredulity.
incredulity: disbelief
You are doing the same.

Then I submit that, aside from controlled demolitions, you have never seen a building collapse before 9/11.I've seen burning buildings collapse. No dust cloud.

Your problem is that you are using the absence of the event pre-9/11 as some sort of proof that it can't happen.
The odds that a fire induced collapse could cause a building to implode just like a CD are rather remote.

How about earthquakes and meteors ? There. Gosh.You said "Many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"
Earthquakes result in a very different effect.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3192/taiwansixslc1.jpg

Meteors?
Gosh, why didn't i think of that?

Speculation. You have NO IDEA what options they were given.
Speculation based on the Bush administration 'systematically' distorting scientific documents and the fact that CD in not mentioned in the report.
If the engineers had been allowed to consider CD, they would have stated their reasons for rejecting it.


One, actuallyActually,

Danny Jowenko - controlled demolitions expert
Von Daniele Ganser and Jorg Schneider - Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction
Richard Gaga - architect
William Rice P.E. - civil engineer

So far, 100 experts have stated publicly that they don't believe the 'official' story and are demanding a new investigation.

There was ONE sound that could be interpreted as an explosion. ONE explosive is insufficient to cause the damage you've described.
IYO
Blowing 21 core columns at the same time would produce a sound like clap of thunder.
Craig heard explosions as the building was falling.

Of course, then it would beg the question of why someone would decide to send people in a flaming building in order to demolish it.
There was not enough time to rig for demolition WTC 7 on 911
It was rigged before 911. IMO

That is no proof that they altered the facts of the collapses. Again, you're trying to fool me with flawed logic. Good luck.The administration systematically distorting scientific documents is clear evidence that any government scientific publication is unreliable.


Good, good. Do you care to show me those reasons ?
I already have.

It is evidence that the report is taking longer than expected, and your reason for that is mere speculation. It could simply be that their budget was reduced because 7 WTC is less important to the issue than 1 and 2 WTC were.
Right $30,000,000 to investigate a blow job and $600,000 to investigate The collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7. [initially]
The implications that this core - perimeter frame design can lead to global collapse in 15 seconds due to the loss of one column is an urgent matter of public safety.
A timely, complete analysis was essential.
It has been nearly six years.
Spring is about to turn to summer and no release date has been announced.

In the absence of evidence, I cannot hold that they did.The fact that they systematically distort scientific reports, is evidence.

I'm sorry, I thought that there was "no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event."

Are you retracting that statement ?No.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I notice that you’ve attempted to downplay your logical fallacy by associating my highlighting of it with a sleazy politician and his attempt at weaselling out of his responsibilities. Perhaps if you’re ever to claim that Berlin is in Germany, that smoking is bad for you or that Friedrich Nietzsche was an important philosopher, I can return the favour by pejoratively characterising your statements as “Hitler beliefs”. Put a little more succinctly, you’re employing the guilt by association fallacy.

Regarding evidence, given the sheer quantity and nature of the assumptions made and hypothetical entities postulated by a controlled demolition theory, it carries an inherent burden of extreme improbability. You appear to be labouring under the misconception that controlled demolition theories and their non-conspiratorial counterparts are competing on an even evidential playing field. This is not the case. Even without any direct evidence for any theory at all, as we have seen, a non-conspiratorial explanation is by orders of magnitude more rational.

Due to its burden of extreme improbability, a controlled demolition theory has a tremendous probability deficit that it would need to compensate for before it can even be considered a theory worthy of serious evaluation. This compensation would have to take the form of direct evidence of such compelling quantity and/or quality that the probability of it all being illusory is markedly lower than probability borne by the theory itself.

As I have said, I don’t endeavour to “avoid” your central claim. At this stage I don’t acknowledge it, but I don’t dispute it either. My neutrality to its truth or falsity is multi-causal, but here are the two principal reasons:
Firstly, given my relative unfamiliarity with the specifics of the subject matter and also my lack of structural engineering expertise, supposing to directly acknowledge or dispute the claim would be rather intellectually inappropriate.
Secondly, and most importantly, given that its truth value has no bearing on the overarching conclusion concerning the collapse (in other words, given that the question of which explanation is the most rational doesn’t hinge on your claim), a commitment to its truth or falsity is simply unnecessary. Similarly, referring to the analogy in my previous post, a thorough investigation into the wingedness or lack thereof of your car is simply unnecessary in determining whether or not it can fly.It’s reassuring to see you again acknowledge that non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious. I would add though, that this is the case not merely when they’re compared to controlled demolition theories, but also when they’re compared to all other explanations.
You are still double talking, at length, comparing the two theories.

You cannot dispute nor can you admit that

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area for the initiating event.

[Quad4_72]

You are still double talking, at length, comparing the two theories.

You cannot dispute nor can you admit that

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area for the initiating event.

Does the massive hole in the side and raging fires that produced billowing smoke clouds count? What kind of evidence exactly would satisfy you?

[DGM]

His statement refutes their opinion.

He is an expert, they are not.

It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.

Have they refuted his statement?
Implosion world is the experts.This is a very specialized trade. The paper itself refutes his findings. Did you bother to read it? No.Read the credits

[respublicus]

Are you still wrangling about this?

It's so simple.

THE ONLY WAY THE TOP OF THE BUILDING COULD REACH THE GROUND AT FREE FALL SPEED IS:
IF THE LOWER FLOORS WERE BLASTED OUT OF THE WAY.

That's the whole story, mates.

Takes less than 6 seconds to say and even less than that to understand.

WTC 7 came down in 6 or 7 seconds, the time for a free fall through air.
With nothing standing in the way.
Just like a controlled demolition.
Nothing else could work.

[LashL]

Are you still wrangling about this?

It's so simple.

THE ONLY WAY THE TOP OF THE BUILDING COULD REACH THE GROUND AT FREE FALL SPEED IS:
IF THE LOWER FLOORS WERE BLASTED OUT OF THE WAY.

That's the whole story, mates.

Takes less than 6 seconds to say and even less than that to understand.

WTC 7 came down in 6 or 7 seconds, the time for a free fall through air.
With nothing standing in the way.
Just like a controlled demolition.
Nothing else could work.

Damn, too bad that it took more than twice as long as that, then.


Gotta hate when that happens.

[Dave Rogers]

Richard Gaga - architect


I know it's bad form to nitpick typos, but this one was just too apt.

Dave

[Belz...]

NIST knows that WTC 7 imploded, exhibiting all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD.

Yeah, when you fall down stairs, you exhibit all the easily recognizable characteristics of a beating.

Weather or not they thought this was 'evidence', it should be considered as a possibility.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you assume that your impressions are correct. Perhaps, to real experts in this field, 7 WTC does NOT exhibit all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD. Did you ever think of that ? Or are you so enamoured by your own theory as to be unable to doubt yourself ?

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7,
yet they considered that.

Because there were huge amounts of diesel in the building. 7 WTC was not know to have explosives in it.

It's not my theory.
100 experts have gone on record calling for a new investigation because they don't believe the 'official' explanation.
http://www.ae911truth.org

Yeah. They're asking congress for an independent investigation. Not the smartest of people.

How did i know you would say that?

Probably because you knew you were wrong by saying it in the first place.

Another argument from nitpickery.

Well, I'm sorry if being precise isn't important to you.

The interior fell first, drawing the exterior walls inward, just like a professional building implosion.

Which is utter nonsense. The building fell all over the street and to the other side, damaging nearby buildings severely. That is NOT one of the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD. In fact, if you were one of the badguys and made a building fall, wouldn't you try to NOT make it look like a CD ?

You say the entire collapse sequence took about 13 seconds, therefore not near freefall.

A flat-out lie. I never said anything about 13 seconds. You just made that up.

This is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

On your part, yes.

The fact is that a good portion of the building fell BEFORE the whole thing comes down. This ALSO is part of the collapse yet twoofers usually leave that part out. How is that NOT obfuscating the facts ??

What part of 'IMO' don't you understand?

That's what I said. It's good that you decided to say "IMO" that time, but before that you were asserting it as a fact.

No

Good. Then let them do their job and wait for the final report before making up your mind.

Buildings that collapse due to fire don't create a huge cloud of dust that spreads out for blocks.

Buildings that collapse due to fire aren't usually 47 storey high.

The closest example i know of is the Windsor building.
There was a partial collapse that occurred over a period of an hour, and created no dust cloud.

:rolleyes: Yeah.

The dust cloud in a CD is caused by explosions pulverizing concrete and other materials.

Then it's amazing the dust cloud isn't visible before and during the building's collapse, isn't it ?

A collapse without explosives would not create anywhere near as much dust.

You've never seen such a tall building collapse; and all major demolitions empty a building before setting off the charges. So wouldn't you expect more dust from a full office building ?

It is physically impossible for a building, collapsing due to structural failure, to create as much dust as a building that has been destroyed with explosives.

Show your math and expertise or otherwise support this assertion.

incredulity: disbelief
You are doing the same.

Nope. Experience tells us it would take months to rig 7 WTC for demolition if they could do it in the open and without interruption. This would not be possible in a staffed building. They couldn't possibly do it in a few hours.

You said "Many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"
Earthquakes result in a very different effect.

You're not following this. You asked for a source of collapse that could cause this exact same effect. Not a source of collapse that HAS caused this effect. When's the last time a building collapsed completely because of an earthquake. It's forseeable, however.

Meteors?
Gosh, why didn't i think of that?

You don't think a small meteor could demolish a building ?

Speculation based on the Bush administration 'systematically' distorting scientific documents and the fact that CD in not mentioned in the report.

"Systematically" doesn't mean "always", Chris. You're not using evidence in this case to determine if they've distorted this one. You're only using past behaviour and presumption.

If the engineers had been allowed to consider CD, they would have stated their reasons for rejecting it.

You're saying they would have rejected it ?

Blowing 21 core columns at the same time would produce a sound like clap of thunder.

Assuming you want to blow them all simultaneously. Of course, if you did, 7 WTC would not have collapsed the way it did.

Craig heard explosions as the building was falling.

That's just dandy, because they don't blow up buildings as they are falling.

There was not enough time to rig for demolition WTC 7 on 911
It was rigged before 911. IMO

That's already more believable, but how did they manage to do this without anyone noticing the steel drilling sounds ?

The administration systematically distorting scientific documents is clear evidence that any government scientific publication is unreliable.

Even were that true, it doesn't mean that any government scientific publication is false.

I already have.

I'm sure you can reiterate them.

Right $30,000,000 to investigate a blow job and $600,000 to investigate The collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7. [initially]

Nice recovery with the "[initially]".

Why don't you give us the full amounts for both, instead ?

The implications that this core - perimeter frame design can lead to global collapse in 15 seconds due to the loss of one column is an urgent matter of public safety.

Sure. A 110-storey building fell on it. That's not about to happen anytime soon.

The fact that they systematically distort scientific reports, is evidence.

Interesting.

[Belz...]

Are you still wrangling about this?

It's so simple.

THE ONLY WAY THE TOP OF THE BUILDING COULD REACH THE GROUND AT FREE FALL SPEED IS:
IF THE LOWER FLOORS WERE BLASTED OUT OF THE WAY.

That's the whole story, mates.

No, it's not, because it's false.

[Belz...]

The weight of the falling debris would cause the floor beams to break away before pulling 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

I'm sorry, I thought that there was "no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event."

Are you retracting that statement ?

No.

You've just said that debris would prevent the sideways forces from being a factor. If there were no debris in the area of the initiating event, how is this possible ?

[Par]

Christopher7:

In your previous post, you made inaccurate claims concerning my position on evidence, controlled demolition theory and their respective relationships with the principle of parsimony. So, it seems decidedly unreasonable of you to have criticised me for having taken some time to explain those relationships.

Further to that, you’ve repeatedly accused me of making use of doublespeak. Given how painfully precise I’ve been about everything from my arguments to my reasons for my neutrality to your central claim, my initial reaction was to wonder just what your definition of the term might be.

You cannot dispute nor can you admit that: There is NO evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area for the initiating event.


You’re quite right. I cannot. Nor, due to reasons given in my previous post, would it be appropriate for me to do so. Thankfully though, also due to reasons given in my previous posts, there is simply no need for me (or anyone else, for that matter) to do so in order to legitimately conclude that non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse are still by far and away the most rational.

[Christopher7]

Does the massive hole in the side and raging fires that produced billowing smoke clouds count? What kind of evidence exactly would satisfy you?
There was NO 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.
[see following post]

The large hole around the 14th floor and the billowing smoke screen were no where near the area of the initiating event that started the collapse of WTC 7.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

There were only office fires on several floors.

[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 [ground to floor 5] 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 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.

[Christopher7]

I know it's bad form to nitpick typos, but this one was just too apt.

Dave
Oops :blush:

[Christopher7]

Implosion world is the experts.This is a very specialized trade. The paper itself refutes his findings. Did you bother to read it? No.Read the credits
Protec does structural inspections, vibration prediction and monitoring, and video documentation.

They don't plan or carry out controlled demolitions.
They are very knowledgeable but they are not demolitions experts.

Danny Jerwenko owns a demolition company.
He is an expert.

[Christopher7]

The fact is that a good portion of the building fell BEFORE the whole thing comes down. This ALSO is part of the collapse yet twoofers usually leave that part out. How is that NOT obfuscating the facts ??
Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is 6 seconds.

[Belz...]

There was NO 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

No, you're right. There was NO exactly 10-storey gouge exactly in the MIDDLE of 7 WTC.

Was that the entire point of your thread ? Then you should've made your initial claim accordingly. Obviously, any such statement would be true, because you can always claim it was 1 inch smaller than 10 stories, or 1 foot to the east of the center of 7 WTC. Any discussion of such a statement would therefore be fruitless.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

I see you're retreating on all fronts. You're changing all of your claims in order to accomodate the schooling you've received here. Now it's MOST of 7 WTC. If we could show that that wasn't true, you'd probably switch to "some of 7 WTC", and then "a tiny fraction of 7 WTC". Why don't you instead admit that this free fall canard is just that ?

[Christopher7]

No, you're right. There was NO exactly 10-storey gouge exactly in the MIDDLE of 7 WTC.

Was that the entire point of your thread ? Then you should've made your initial claim accordingly. Obviously, any such statement would be true, because you can always claim it was 1 inch smaller than 10 stories, or 1 foot to the east of the center of 7 WTC. Any discussion of such a statement would therefore be fruitless.
The 10 story gouge, as described on page 18, DID NOT EXIST!

It's not a mater of inches or feet.

There was no heavy debris in the lobby.

Therefore, there was no gouge, 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor whatever to the ground, anywhere.


I see you're retreating on all fronts. You're changing all of your claims in order to accomodate the schooling you've received here. Now it's MOST of 7 WTC. If we could show that that wasn't true, you'd probably switch to "some of 7 WTC", and then "a tiny fraction of 7 WTC". Why don't you instead admit that this free fall canard is just that ?
I have indeed been 'schooled' in the fine art of sophistry.

You're claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie.

We cannot see how fast the area under the penthouse falls but the videos clearly show most of WTC 7 falling at near freefall.

To satisfy sophistic nitpickers i will add the words 'most' and 'mostly' to this statement of fact:

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

[cloudshipsrule]

I have indeed been 'schooled' in the fine art of sophistry

soph·ist·ry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Agreed.:)

[cloudshipsrule]

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.


So you're saying that after extensive fire and what ever debris damage occured the building collapsed pretty fast after collapse initiated, and that the building fell where it should have and not blocks away?

I Agree. You are right about this one. :)

[Pardalis]

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.


I see that Chris hasn't moved one iota since January. I'll check back in september. ;)

[Christopher7]

So you're saying that after extensive fire and what ever debris damage occured the building collapsed pretty fast after collapse initiated, and that the building fell where it should have and not blocks away?

I Agree. You are right about this one. :)
Thank you.

You are one of the few people here who is honest enough to acknowledge that WTC 7 fell at near freefall.

[Christopher7]

I see that Chris hasn't moved one iota since January. I'll check back in september. ;)
I have changed two iotas.

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

This was to stop some people from using sophistry to claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall or land in it's own footprint.

[slingblade]

That's great. So you've given up on CD, and now agree that structural damage and fire caused the catastrophic failure and collapse of that building?

[cloudshipsrule]

You are one of the few people here who is honest enough to acknowledge that WTC 7 fell at near freefall.


'Pretty fast' does not equal 'near freefall'?

[Christopher7]

That's great. So you've given up on CD, and now agree that structural damage and fire caused the catastrophic failure and collapse of that building?
No

[slingblade]

Sigh. Okay.

[Christopher7]

'Pretty fast' does not equal 'near freefall'?
In this case, it does.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is about 6 seconds.

[Par]

Christopher7:

Originally, you made claims about the World Trade Center 7 debris field, its spatial relationship with the buildings footprint and, also, about the speed of the collapse itself. Others on this thread then corrected you – showing those claims to be simply and demonstrably erroneous. So, it’s slightly disappointing (if, by now, not entirely surprising) to see you attempting to colour those acts of correction as ones of mere sophistry.

To distinguish between the concepts of “mostly” and “entirely” is hardly pedantry. To manufacture, for example, a mechanical device that is mostly efficient would be a fairly unexceptional feat. To manufacture one that is entirely efficient, on the other hand, would necessitate the reconsideration of the laws of thermodynamics. While not quite to the same degree, this distinction is also significantly important in the cases of the area of the debris field and of the speed of the collapse.

The ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint.” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” To attempt to portray distinguishing between the two as nothing more than sophistry is, for one thing, simply wrong and, for another, decidedly intellectually dishonest.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

Originally, you made claims about the World Trade Center 7 debris field, its spatial relationship with the buildings footprint and, also, about the speed of the collapse itself. Others on this thread then corrected you – showing those claims to be simply and demonstrably erroneous. So, it’s slightly disappointing (if, by now, not entirely surprising) to see you attempting to colour those acts of correction as ones of mere sophistry.
NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

The center of the debris pile is roughly in the center of the building.

WTC 7 was nearly 600 feet high and 140 feet from front to back.

It was physically impossible to get all of it to remain within it's original footprint.

Furthermore, as someone mentioned, they didn't want it to look too good.

Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9131/copyof4ai9.jpg


To distinguish between the concepts of “mostly” and “entirely” is hardly pedantry. To manufacture, for example, a mechanical device that is mostly efficient would be a fairly unexceptional feat. To manufacture one that is entirely efficient, on the other hand, would necessitate the reconsideration of the laws of thermodynamics. While not quite to the same degree, this distinction is also significantly important in the cases of the area of the debris field and of the speed of the collapse.

The ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint.” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” To attempt to portray distinguishing between the two as nothing more than sophistry is, for one thing, simply wrong and, for another, decidedly intellectually dishonest.Talk to yourself much?

Only a devout sophist would make a big deal out of mostly.

The fact is, WTC 7 did the same thing that professional building implosions do.

Where no two professional implosions are exactly alike, large buildings often collapse progressively with each part falling at near freefall, just like WTC 7.

Attempts to say that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall are sophistry.
[deceitful nitpicking]

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice you’ve reasserted and provided evidence to support the claim that “The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.” I’m not all that sure what’s prompted you to do this. It’s a claim that was simply never in dispute.

After this, your reply diverges somewhat from the point. It’s worth highlighting, however, that in stating that “They didn’t want it to look too good” and that “Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern,” you’re attempting to explain away the counterevidence in terms of the truth of the theory itself. This commits the begging the question fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) by presupposing the existence of a “they”; the existence of a “they” is precisely the question at issue.

The second part of your post merely indulges itself in a bout of gainsaying.

[T]hey didn't want [the collapse] to look too good.

The fact is, WTC 7 did the same thing that professional building implosions do.


Further, it’s difficult to see how these two statements are not in direct contradiction.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I notice you’ve reasserted and provided evidence to support the claim that “The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.” I’m not all that sure what’s prompted you to do this. It’s a claim that was simply never in dispute.

After this, your reply diverges somewhat from the point. It’s worth highlighting, however, that in stating that “They didn’t want it to look too good” and that “Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern,” you’re attempting to explain away the counterevidence in terms of the truth of the theory itself. This commits the begging the question fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) by presupposing the existence of a “they”; the existence of a “they” is precisely the question at issue.

The second part of your post merely indulges itself in a bout of gainsaying.

Further, it’s difficult to see how these two statements are not in direct contradiction.
I did stray from the point, which is:

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

[Par]

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute. Further, I notice you didn’t feel the need to address or acknowledge your logical fallacies. Oh well; never mind.

[Belz...]

The 10 story gouge, as described on page 18, DID NOT EXIST!

It's not a mater of inches or feet.

There was no heavy debris in the lobby.

Who cares ? The hole doesn't seem at the center of the building from the pictures we've seen. Yes, your mythological gouge doesn't exist. Another, much larger one, does, and this one is probably the one the firefighters saw, because there wasn't anything more obvious in the area. So what ?

I have indeed been 'schooled' in the fine art of sophistry.

I don't think you need classes.

You're claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie.

I don't care what you call it. It didn't fall at "free fall", and even if it did it wouldn't help your case, because there is no way a building like that will support its full weight once it starts coming down.

We cannot see how fast the area under the penthouse falls but the videos clearly show most of WTC 7 falling at near freefall.

What you are saying is that you have no idea, but prefer a particular scenario. I surmise this is simply circular reasoning.

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

Yeah, kinda like water is only somehow dry and only very faintly red. We can play these word games all day, Chris. The fact of the matter remains that all you have is speculation, bias and circular reasoning. Sophistry, indeed.

[Belz...]

In this case, it does.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is about 6 seconds.

How far would not be near freefall ?

10 seconds ? 8 seconds ? 7.2 seconds ?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute. Further, I notice you didn’t feel the need to address or acknowledge your logical fallacies. Oh well; never mind.
Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

You and i agree that it did.

I'm just clearing up a misconception that many people have come to believe.

[Par]

Christopher7:

Well, I certainly didn’t agree to that. One of those qualifiers seems to have gone astray again.

[Christopher7]

Who cares ? The hole doesn't seem at the center of the building from the pictures we've seen. Yes, your mythological gouge doesn't exist. Another, much larger one, does, and this one is probably the one the firefighters saw, because there wasn't anything more obvious in the area. So what ?
Thank you for acknowledging that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist.

However, it's not my mythological gouge!

It is an incorrect account of the actual damage that NIST subsequently depicted in the graphic on page 23 as "Possible region of impact damage by WTC1 debris" and then as "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC1 debris" on pages 31 and 32.


I don't care what you call it. It didn't fall at "free fall"You left out 'near' free fall.
That's sophistry.

[Christopher7]

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute.

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

You and i agree that it did.

Well, I certainly didn't agree to that.
Then what was "never in dispute" ?

[Par]

Christopher7:

The idea that most of World Trade Center 7 fell at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute. The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

The idea that most of World Trade Center 7 fell at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute. The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.
The fact [not a claim] that WTC 7 fell at near free fall has been denied here many times.

Only by adding 'most of' could this sophistry be brought to an end.


Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

C7: "You and i agree that it did."

Par:" I certainly didn't agree to that.

Now you pretend you were referring to a statement two posts back.

Do you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall or not?

i.e. This is not an idea or a claim, it is a fact.

[PhantomWolf]

Do you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall or not?

Not. The Northern and Western Facades fell at near freefall speed, the rest of the building had already collapsed or was in the process of collapsing prior to them starting to collapse, which is why if you look in the photo you just posted you can see them sitting on top of the pile. Something that would be impossible unless the southern and eastern parts of the build has collapsed first and the north and west parts come down on top of them.

[Christopher7]

Not. The Northern and Western Facades fell at near freefall speed, the rest of the building had already collapsed or was in the process of collapsing prior to them starting to collapse, which is why if you look in the photo you just posted you can see them sitting on top of the pile. Something that would be impossible unless the southern and eastern parts of the build has collapsed first and the north and west parts come down on top of them.
OK, you agree that the north and west facades fell at near freefall.
[about 6 1/2 seconds]
The screenwall and the west penthouse begin falling about 1/2 second before the north and west facades.
They also fell at near freefall. [about 6 1/2 to 7 seconds]

Pause this video at 24 - 25 seconds. You can see that the east facade, which is attached to the north facade, has not begun to fall.
It falls at the same time as the north facade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNK-cWt7DY

The east and west facades are attached to the south facade.
Therefore, the two ends of the south facade collapsed at the same time as the east, north and west facades.

That constitutes most of the building falling at near free fall.

[Par]

Now you pretend you were referring to a statement two posts back.


I’m afraid you’re wrong; you have yourself hopelessly muddled. The claim I said I didn’t dispute is this one:

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall [speed].


The one I said I certainly didn’t agree to, on the other hand, is this one:

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall. You and i agree that it did.


The above, at the time, was not “two posts back.” It was in the post immediately preceding my reply. The reason I said I certainly didn’t agree to it, is that it lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning from that of the formulation in the second quotation. (The second quotation in this post.)

Incidentally, the concepts of “facts” and “claims” are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Par]

Christopher7:

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

[Belz...]

Thank you for acknowledging that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist.

You're welcome. It was much larger than that.

However, it's not my mythological gouge!

Oh, yes it is. We've all seen the hole in the pictures. Yours just doesn't seem to exist. Though of course there could be other holes, lower still, that we can't see.

You left out 'near' free fall.
That's sophistry.[/QUOTE]

Telling the truth is sophistry ??? I said it didn't fall at free fall. That's true. I asked how far would not be near freefall, and you didn't answer.

The fact [not a claim] that WTC 7 fell at near free fall has been denied here many times.

You are a liar, sir. You modified your claim about the rate of collapse only recently. I want to know how far from free fall would no longer be "near" free fall.

Only by adding 'most of' could this sophistry be brought to an end.

Did you just discover that word ?

[Belz...]

So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

It's just a convenient way for Chris to obsfuscate the fact that he's been completely wrong all along. He's changing the definitions along the way so it doesn't seem so bad. He's trying to vindicate himself by making his claim so vague that it couldn't possibly be wrong.

[Christopher7]

I’m afraid you’re wrong; you have yourself hopelessly muddled. The claim I said I didn’t dispute is this one:

C7: Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall.

By being vague and using the word 'that', and 'the one in your third quote' instead of being specific, you thought you could give yourself plausible deniability should i call you on it.
Such is not the case.

The one I said I certainly didn’t agree to, on the other hand, is this one:C7: "Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at freefall."

"You and i agree that it did."

That was two quotes, not one.
The third quote was:

C7: "I'm just clearing up a misconception that many people have come to believe.

Par: "The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks the qualifier ("most") and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning."

The above, at the time, was not “two posts back.” It was in the post immediately preceding my reply. The reason I said I certainly didn’t agree to it, is that it lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning from that of the formulation in the second quotation. (The second quotation in this post.)
Perhaps you are the one who is hopelessly muddled.


So you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall but you don't believe that WTC 7 fell at near free fall.


Incidentally, the concepts of “facts” and “claims” are hardly mutually exclusive.Fact: something known to be true

Claim: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true

These words have significantly different meanings.

Using the word 'claim' is saying "there is no proof or evidence".

There is proof that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall.

You agree with that statement.

Saying they are 'hardly mutually exclusive' is sophistry.

[Christopher7]

You're welcome. It was much larger than that.
It did not exist but it was much larger than 100 feet high and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Right

Oh, yes it is. We've all seen the hole in the pictures. Yours just doesn't seem to exist. Though of course there could be other holes, lower still, that we can't see.By 'yours' do you mean the one described on pg 18?

By 'the hole' do you mean the holes centered on column 5 [Spak#] that we see in the video and the Spak photo?

The only damage to the south facade on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

Telling the truth is sophistry ??? I said it didn't fall at free fall. That's true. I asked how far would not be near freefall, and you didn't answer.You were responding to my statement "Your claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie."
You left out the word 'near'.

You are a liar, sir. You modified your claim about the rate of collapse only recently. I want to know how far from free fall would no longer be "near" free fall.Originally i thought it was 6 seconds. Then i learned that it was 6.6 seconds. I am now saying "about 7 seconds".
The point has always been
[Most of] WTC 7 fell at near free fall.

How far from free fall is not 'near' free fall, is subjective and endlessly arguable.
The point is, WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

Did you just discover that word ?I discovered it was necessary to add 'most of' to stop the sophistry about WTC 7 not falling at near free fall.

Only a devout sophist would say WTC 7 did not fall at free fall by adding the time it took the east penthouse to fall to the time it took the rest of the building to fall.

[Par]

Christopher7:

You’ve now tangled yourself even further. Here is your post (#2654):

http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/4106/capturegp8.jpg

Clearly and straightforwardly, it contains four quotations and the third such quotation is:

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall. You and i agree that it did.


As I have said a number of times now, that is the formulation that lacked a qualifier; that is the formulation I said I certainly didn’t agree to.

Perhaps some of the reason for your seemingly perpetual confusion is your apparent ignorance to the meanings of extremely fundamental words. Your definition of “claim,” for instance, is quite incorrect. I suggest you consult a dictionary. Further, you seem to have taken to referring to absolutely any correction or distinction you’re held to as “sophistry.”

Finally, and on that note, might you now address my original point?

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.
You put up a straw man and knock it down, then claim sophistry.
You're a real corker.

I have never said "All" of WTC 7 collapsed at "exactly" free fall and landed "entirely" in it's own footprint, and you know it.

Most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall and landed mostly in its own footprint is a statement of fact.
It is not a claim, as you characterize it.

Most people understand the statement

"WTC 7 fell at near free fall and landed in its own footprint"

without the qualifiers required by sophistic nitpickers.

[Belz...]

It did not exist but it was much larger than 100 feet high and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Right

Don't scoff. That's what YOU'RE saying. You say that the gouge didn't exist because the one we've been showing you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

... is a whole lot bigger. Sure, fine. The 10-storey one looks as though it didn't exist. The 47-storey one did.

By 'the hole' do you mean the holes centered on column 5 [Spak#] that we see in the video and the Spak photo?

Yep.

The only damage to the south facade on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

What ? How about this :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6006)

??

You were responding to my statement "Your claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie."
You left out the word 'near'.

No, I didn't, because it wasn't part of your statement before.

Originally i thought it was 6 seconds. Then i learned that it was 6.6 seconds. I am now saying "about 7 seconds".

"About", giving you enough wiggle room to expand to 8, 9 or even 12 should the need arise.

How far from free fall is not 'near' free fall, is subjective and endlessly arguable.

Yes, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

The point is, WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

No, it didn't. That's been debunked ages ago. The only thing it has that looks like a CD is that it fell down. You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS Of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges. Yeah. Very consistent.

Only a devout sophist would say WTC 7 did not fall at free fall by adding the time it took the east penthouse to fall to the time it took the rest of the building to fall.

Why ? Does your definition of "7 WTC" now exclude the penthouse ?

[Belz...]

without the qualifiers required by sophistic nitpickers.

This post was brought to you by the word "sophistry", and by the number 8.

[HyJinX]

eight....eight Sophists

AH AH AHHHHHHHH!

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice you haven’t addressed your previous confusion over the quotations which led you to falsely accuse me of deceitfulness and dishonesty. Nor, perhaps more importantly, have you addressed those accusations themselves.

Secondly, I’m frankly staggered that I should need to point this out to you, but it’s you and not I who has been making the allegations of sophistry. I, in fact, have been claiming that acknowlegeing the requisite qualification is anything but.

Thirdly, and somewhat ironically, I’ve never claimed that you did make that specific composite formulation of the claim. The amended version contains three different qualifying terms. The omission of any one of those terms results in significant differences in overall meaning. You seem to have omitted each one at least once at some point during the course of this thread. You’ve then accused anyone who highlights these omissions of being a “sophist.”

Fourthly, even if you did have good reason to consider such qualification to be nothing more than pedantry (which clearly you do not), what legitimate purpose could you have to so vehemently oppose strict accuracy?

Lastly, it seems you’re still labouring under your ignorance of the meaning of the word “claim.” Again, I advise you to consult a dictionary.


Look at that automobile.
----It’s a Ford, actually. Stop calling it an automobile!
But “automobile” and “Ford” are not mutually exclusive.
----Shut up, you sophist!

[Jonnyclueless]

In this thread i am pointing out that some of
Before you ask again, This thread is about the '10 story gouge', NOT CD.

The thread is too large for me to see if you have addressed this, so if you don't mind:

Do you think it's impossible for there to have been a 10 story gouge?

[Christopher7]

Don't scoff.
What, me scoff?

That's what YOU'RE saying.No

You say that the gouge didn't exist because the one we've been showing you:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg

... is a whole lot bigger.No, i say that because it's true.

Sure, fine. The 10-storey one looks as though it didn't exist.
Thank you very much.



The 47-storey one did.Well now, hold on there pilgrim.

you can't see floors 1 - 9 or 15 - 25 [or 26]

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3983/copyofsfacegraphic3qs7.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6950/copyofupperfloorsdamageww3.jpg

FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at south west corner."


What ? How about this :
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg
??That does not show floors 1 - 9.

"About", giving you enough wiggle room to expand to 8, 9 or even 12 should the need arise.
The need shall not arise because the collapse time has been accurately calculated to within a couple tenths of a second.


No, it didn't. That's been debunked ages ago.Horsefeathers!

The only thing it has that looks like a CD is that it fell down.Please

You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS Of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges. Yeah. Very consistent.Your reasoning sucks. [IMHO]

Why ? Does your definition of "7 WTC" now exclude the penthouse ?I exclude it from the 'near free fall' of the rest of WTC 7 because the time it took the rest of WTC 7 to fall, about 7 seconds, begins when the rest of WTC 7 begins falling, not when the penthouse begins to fall.

BTW: Free fall is about 6 seconds.

Professional building implosions make buildings fall at near free fall.

They blow the interior columns first to make the building collapse in on itself.

It is customary to minimize damage to surrounding buildings but when you're doing it without permits...................WTF.

[Christopher7]

eight....eight Sophists

AH AH AHHHHHHHH!

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7812/sesamestreetcountdraculfp2.jpg

:D :) :D

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:
Lastly, it seems you’re still labouring under your ignorance of the meaning of the word “claim.” Again, I advise you to consult a dictionary.
I did, in post #2663.

Fact: something known to be true

Claim: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true.


Re: your post #2665

C7 #2654
1) Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.
2) This is the second time..............
3) Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

Par #2655
The idea that most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute.

[OK, we agree on something]

The other formulation (the one in the third quotation) lacks a qualifier ("most") and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.

It lacks the qualifier 'most' because people here don't use the qualifier 'most'.

It carries a very different meaning, an incorrect one.
To say that WTC 7 did not collapse at near free fall is distorting the facts.

[Belz...]

No, i say that because it's true.

So you deny that the 10-storey hole could very well be, in reality, the large one we see in the pictures ? Why ? Because it isn't exactly the same size as the one initially posited ?

Thank you very much.

Note the "seems" in my sentence.

you can't see floors 1 - 9 or 15 - 25 [or 26]

So what ? The hole starts from the top and the one in the lower picture is neatly aligned with it. We can safely conclude that it's the same hole, and assuming that it stops where the picture stops, it's still a 38-floor hole. But since the firefighters reported a hole that reached the ground, isn't it simpler to also assume that it DOES reach the ground and that the smoke obscured the upper floors from the firefighters' view ?

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at south west corner."

Well, that's just great. His account contradicts another account. I don't know about you, but I can't tell who's right from their mere testimonies.

The need shall not arise because the collapse time has been accurately calculated to within a couple tenths of a second.

Ridiculous. You can't see the inner collapse. The whole thing took more than 7 seconds. If the supporting structure fails, how much time do you think it'll take for the outer wall collapse ?

Horsefeathers!

Yeah, those are rarer than gold!

Please

No, really. What ELSE makes it look like a CD ? You admitted it didn't fall within its own footprint and didn't collapse at free fall. You can't produce more than one "clap of thunder", and there were no visible explosions. What OTHER characteristic of CDs does it exhibit, aside form falling down ??

Your reasoning sucks. [IMHO]

Where do you see a reasoning, there ? Those are FACTS. You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges.

I exclude it from the 'near free fall' of the rest of WTC 7 because the time it took the rest of WTC 7 to fall, about 7 seconds, begins when the rest of WTC 7 begins falling, not when the penthouse begins to fall.

Well, that makes your definition useless, because "7 WTC" can mean any part of the building you wish. In this case, "Most of 7 WTC" means "the part that fell at the speed I'm arguing it fell at".

Professional building implosions make buildings fall at near free fall.

Actually, the whole point of implosions is to collapse the building in a way that doesn't damage nearby structures. The speed of the collapse is irrelevant, in my opinion.

They blow the interior columns first to make the building collapse in on itself.

It is customary to minimize damage to surrounding buildings but when you're doing it without permits...................WTF.

You're assuming your conclusion, here.

Yes, building demolitions make the building fall fast. Yes, 7 WTC fell fast. But then, all this is irrelevant to CDs. Your argument is this:

A -> B
B
Therefore A.

But it's wrong. It's the same as saying this:

Dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
Therefore my cat is a dog.

Tell me, Chris. Assuming the building did collapse on itself naturally, without explosives, how much time would you expect "most of it" to take to reach the ground ?

[Par]

Christopher7:

If you really have consulted a dictionary as to the meaning of the word “claim,” then either you must have simply ignored the definitions it stated or one might have to seriously wonder just what kind of dictionary it was. Here’s the definition from Reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim). I hope you find it enlightening. In any event, given that the finer points of the meanings of qualified versus unqualified formulations are still in contention, for the meantime at least, refraining from describing them as “facts” would hardly seem inappropriate.

Also, some people here claim that all manner of weird and wonderful space lasers actually exist. Others commit glaring logical fallacies in nearly every post. Others still make death threats. Whether or not people here do something has no bearing on whether it’s legitimate practise. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Further, you now seem to be saying that as I’m asserting that the statement “World Trade Center 7 collapsed at near freefall speed” is inaccurate and misleading, I must, as a result, be claiming that the statement “World Trade Center 7 did not collapse at near freefall speed” is both accurate and unambiguous. Firstly, this is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). Opposing one formulation of the claim doesn’t necessitate explicitly championing its precise negation. Disputing the claim that “Swans are white,” for instance, hardly commits one to the idea that “Swans are not white.” Secondly, you’re already very well aware of the fact that I have no intention of asserting the above negation. My claim, once again, is simply that the observation of the requisite qualification is essential to accurate meaning.

With that in mind, I notice you say that the formulation of your claim in your third quotation (of post #2564) carries “a different meaning, an incorrect one.” Well, indeed. That’s precisely my point; that’s why it should include a qualifier.

[Jonnyclueless]

The game here is to keep attention off the faults of the other theories so we can concentrate on the unknowns of this one. And if we can dance around the unknowns of this one and spin it to seem unlikely, we can then avoid how more unlikely all other theories are. Hence the avoidance and continual reminders that this is not about the other theories. Why would on want to open themselves to their own demise?

It's quite amusing.

[Christopher7]

So you deny that the 10-storey hole could very well be, in reality, the large one we see in the pictures ? Why ? Because it isn't exactly the same size as the one initially posited ?
Exactly?

It isn't "from floor 10 to the ground"

It's in the wrong place.

So what ? The hole starts from the top and the one in the lower picture is neatly aligned with it. We can safely conclude that it's the same hole,Wrong

and assuming that it stops where the picture stops, it's still a 38-floor hole. But since the firefighters reported a hole that reached the ground, isn't it simpler to also assume that it DOES reach the ground and that the smoke obscured the upper floors from the firefighters' view ?NIST doesn't say who made the report of the gouge, floor 10 to the ground.
On graphic on page 23, 31 and 32 shows the gouge as being between [Spak] column 5 or 6 and 9 or 10.
Your hole is centered on column 5.

Well, that's just great. His account contradicts another account. I don't know about you, but I can't tell who's right from their mere testimonies.You would rather assume the hole continued to the ground and ignore a very specific account of a firefighter.

Ridiculous. You can't see the inner collapse. The whole thing took more than 7 seconds. If the supporting structure fails, how much time do you think it'll take for the outer wall collapse ?
Yes, the 'whole thing' took more than 7 seconds. So what?
Everything that can be seen collapses at near free fall.

No, really. What ELSE makes it look like a CD ? You admitted it didn't fall within its own footprint and didn't collapse at free fall. You can't produce more than one "clap of thunder", and there were no visible explosions. What OTHER characteristic of CDs does it exhibit, aside form falling down ??It imploded.

It collapsed at near free fall.

The center of the debris pile is roughly in the center of the building which means it fell, roughly, straight down.
[There was too much material to be contained entirely within the original footprint]

The dust cloud is consistent with a CD.

The government collected, and is withholding form the public, over 6,000
video clips making independent analysis of the audio evidence impossible.
We are left to trust an administration that systematically distorts scientific reports.

Well, that makes your definition useless, because "7 WTC" can mean any part of the building you wish. In this case, "Most of 7 WTC" means "the part that fell at the speed I'm arguing it fell at".
Double talk
Most of WTC fell at near free fall [about 7 seconds].
You can't deny that so you talk around it.

Actually, the whole point of implosions is to collapse the building in a way that doesn't damage nearby structures. The speed of the collapse is irrelevant, in my opinion.Get serious, damage to surrounding buildings would not be a consideration in a clandestine CD.
You can't deny that the collapse speed is consistent with a CD so you consider it irrelevant.

Tell me, Chris. Assuming the building did collapse on itself naturally, without explosives, how much time would you expect "most of it" to take to reach the ground ?By using the word 'naturally', you are assuming [the unproven hypothesis] that the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds.

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.

[Par]

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.


I’m glad to see you say that. The platonic question it raises, of course, is: In that case, what reason do we have to think that the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse is in any way inconsistent with a non-conspiratorial sequence of events?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

If you really have consulted a dictionary as to the meaning of the word “claim,” then either you must have simply ignored the definitions it stated or one might have to seriously wonder just what kind of dictionary it was.
Microsoft word.
I quoted it verbatim.

.... for the meantime at least, refraining from describing them as “facts” would hardly seem inappropriate.
Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall.
That is a video verifiable FACT.

[maccy]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

I haven't looked back over it but I have some questions for Christopher7:

Chris, are you planning to do anything with your perceptions of WTC7 beyond arguing the toss in this thread? I don't see how stubbornly continuing to post here is going to change the world. If it's so obvious, surely there's some reasonably reputable and influential publication or media outlet somewhere in the world who will publicise what you have to say. Or maybe an academic somewhere in the world who'll write it up into an article and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

Or are you just happy to live in a world where you, presonally, are not convinced by NIST's and FEMA's accounts so far and where repeatedly telling us this counts as some kind of victory?

[Christopher7]

The game here is to keep attention off the faults of the other theories so we can concentrate on the unknowns of this one. And if we can dance around the unknowns of this one and spin it to seem unlikely, we can then avoid how more unlikely all other theories are. Hence the avoidance and continual reminders that this is not about the other theories. Why would on want to open themselves to their own demise?

I would make the same argument in reverse.

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.
There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

"Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as 3 feet -- under severe fire exposures. ..... Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

The core columns in WTC 7 were proportionately larger to handle greater beam spans and a taller building.
The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

Columns are vertical and will absorb far less heat than horizontal framework.
It is much hotter over a campfire than it is next to one.

[Christopher7]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

I haven't looked back over it but I have some questions for Christopher7:

Chris, are you planning to do anything with your perceptions of WTC7 beyond arguing the toss in this thread?
By debating here i can refine my debating points and eliminate those that don't hold up.
For instance, the squibs don't look right, no trailing smoke.

If there is the slightest flaw in the wording of any statement i make, Belz will be all over it.
He often makes good points and I have modified statements accordingly.

All anyone in the truth movement can do at this point is spread the truth about 911 to as many people as possible.

Some who view this thread are capable critical thinking and can accept the facts i have presented as facts, others, not so much.

There are huge holes in the official story that people can easily see if the evidence is presented in straightforward and well worded manner.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would make the same argument in reverse.

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.
There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

"Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as 3 feet -- under severe fire exposures. ..... Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

The core columns in WTC 7 were proportionately larger to handle greater beam spans and a taller building.
The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

Columns are vertical and will absorb far less heat than horizontal framework.
It is much hotter over a campfire than it is next to one.



No it's not the opposite. because you are trying to lead the questioning down a specific path that allows you to dictate and control it without room for discussing the whole issue. You know very well that your suggestions are far worse than anything else so you depend on leaving them out of the conversation.

Now you even claim there is NO evidence fires lead to the collapse. Well, not much contesting that that statement is completely untrue. Only speculation? Well aside from recreating the actual event, isn't everything speculation? Is the theory of evolution not speculation? What is it that you can't sum up to speculation if you eliminate enough points of discussion?

The Meridian was also concrete was it not? And if anything it shows that Steel can collapse in fire. The steel supporting floors 21 and above COLLAPSED.

And are you saying that it would be impossible for there to be a gouge from floors 10 down?

[Christopher7]

No it's not the opposite. because you are trying to lead the questioning down a specific path that allows you to dictate and control it without room for discussing the whole issue. You know very well that your suggestions are far worse than anything else so you depend on leaving them out of the conversation.
Debating the relative merits of to two theories is subjective and a waste of time.
OTers simply deny or dismiss any evidence of CD.


Last September i noticed a conundrum on pg 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

That led me to look closer at all the claims that OTers make about the evidence of debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

I started this thread to debate the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

These are summaries of statements in the government reports.

post 1883 pg 48
There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7' as described on pg 18 of the NIST report.

post 1884 pg 48
There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

post 2349 pg 59
The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

Now you even claim there is NO evidence fires lead to the collapse. Well, not much contesting that that statement is completely untrue. Only speculation? Well aside from recreating the actual event, isn't everything speculation? Is the theory of evolution not speculation?There is indisputable geological, fossil and DNA evidence that evolution is true.
There is no evidence that DD/F brought down WTC 7.
There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event, that's it.

What is it that you can't sum up to speculation if you eliminate enough points of discussion?
The lack of evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

The Meridian was also concrete was it not? And if anything it shows that Steel can collapse in fire. The steel supporting floors 21 and above COLLAPSED. That was the Windsor in Madrid, not the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia.
The light weight perimeter box beams of the upper 10 floors of the Windsor cannot be compared to the massive columns holding up a 47 story building.

And are you saying that it would be impossible for there to be a gouge from floors 10 down?No, i'm saying the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist. [see post 1883]

[Jonnyclueless]

SO you basically cherry picked the details that help your case while dismissing all the ones that don't. I thin that pretty much clears everything up. And the irony being the part where you claim you don't want to discuss CD because everyone just dismisses your evidence.

As opposed to taking all the parts from the report that make fire and damage seem less likely and dismissing all the parts that contribute to it.

Like using one unrelated building that didn't collapse as proof it couldn't have been fire, while simultaneously dismissing another building that DID collapse from fire.

By using a part of the report as evidence that the gouge is not possible, but then dismissing another part that says it is possible.

And then the flat out denial part of simply saying things don't exist or that there is no evidence (while also saying it's lacking, thus contradicting yourself) while there clearly is overwhelming evidence.

Look, I am not smart in the engineering and science departments like the rest of the people here, but I do know a con job when I see one (a figure of speech). You can try to twist wording and jump from one pad to another and do a little song and dance to trick people, but it's not being honest. And while we all agree on Evolution, one could easily play the same game you're playing here with it too.

And THAT's why you want to avoid the subject of CD, and THAT's why you carefully worded and created the thread in such a way to protect yourself from that, not much unlike a magician will make sure people can only see his tricks from a certain angle, etc.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and the I forgot to mention the most important thing and why the goal of the thread is so important. The results are not in as to the exact cause of the collapse of WTC 7. So it's not so much an issue of being sure it was fire and damage that brought the building down so much as it is being certain it wasn't a controlled demolition.

[Par]

Christopher7:

With regards definition: Very well. Again, however, I refer you to the Reference.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim) for an elucidation of the way in which I’ve been using the term.

Further, the idea that “Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall speed” was never in dispute. Quite plainly, it was the unqualified formulations of this statement that I claimed it wouldn’t be inappropriate to refrain from describing as “facts.”

However, I’m glad to see that we seem to have basically resolved our disputes concerning this issue. So, onto the next:

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.


In that case, what reason do we have to think that the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse is in any way inconsistent with a non-conspiratorial sequence of events?

[Belz...]

It isn't "from floor 10 to the ground"

How do you know this ? You admitted yourself that you can't see the bottom 9 floors. How can you claim certainty if you don't know ?

Wrong

What do you mean "wrong" ?

You don't think that this hole:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6006)

...which aligns nicely with this one:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

...could be the same hole ?

NIST doesn't say who made the report of the gouge, floor 10 to the ground.
On graphic on page 23, 31 and 32 shows the gouge as being between [Spak] column 5 or 6 and 9 or 10.
Your hole is centered on column 5.

That's what I meant when I said "exactly". The person reporting the 10-floor hole may have been wrong about its placement. You know, running around debris, fire and smoke may affect your perceptions.

You would rather assume the hole continued to the ground and ignore a very specific account of a firefighter.

The specific account of a firefighter STATES that the hole reached the ground. The fact that his hole might be a few columns westward completely eludes you, as does the possibility that smoke may have obscured the upper floors from his point of view.

Yes, the 'whole thing' took more than 7 seconds. So what?
Everything that can be seen collapses at near free fall.

Good, good. I'll leave you with your own definition of "collapse".

It imploded.

It collapsed at near free fall.

The center of the debris pile is roughly in the center of the building which means it fell, roughly, straight down.
[There was too much material to be contained entirely within the original footprint]

The dust cloud is consistent with a CD.

All these are consistent with a CD. They are ALSO consistent with non-CD collapses. You'd always expect a dust cloud. You'd always expect a roughly straight-down, free fall collapse under those circumstances. So far, no good.

The government collected, and is withholding form the public, over 6,000
video clips making independent analysis of the audio evidence impossible.

Annoying, but not proof of anything.

We are left to trust an administration that systematically distorts scientific reports.

Here's that word again. "This man is a thief. He systematically steals stuff. My house was broken into and my jewelry stolen. Ergo, this man stole them." That's the gist of your argument, and it is a fallacy.

Double talk

Where ?

Most of WTC fell at near free fall [about 7 seconds].
You can't deny that so you talk around it.

I don't talk "around" it. I'm saying that you CHANGED your claim but are trying to hide that fact. I'm also saying that this NEW claim of yours means nothing because it is so vague that it could be construed to mean anything.

Get serious, damage to surrounding buildings would not be a consideration in a clandestine CD.

Precisely, which is why such a demolition would NOT exchibit "all" of the characteristics of a CD. This pretty much shows that your contention that 7 WTC's collapse does is false. Thanks for admitting that.

You can't deny that the collapse speed is consistent with a CD so you consider it irrelevant.

Of course it's consistent. I did admit it. I also admitted that, since we know the structure FAILED, we couldn't expect it to collapse much slower.

Tell me: how long SHOULD it have taken ? If it takes too long, then it'll most likely not collapse completely, will it ? If that's correct, then a global collapse pretty much HAS to come and go in a short amount of time, doesn't it ?

By using the word 'naturally', you are assuming [the unproven hypothesis] that the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds.

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.

So what you are saying is that you have no basis for comparison and can't tell if those "characteristics" are unique to CDs or not. Another admission. Good.

[Belz...]

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.

Even were that true, that would be precisely why we would be looking for the most parsimonious explanation.

If there is the slightest flaw in the wording of any statement i make, Belz will be all over it.

:D

[Christopher7]

SO you basically cherry picked the details that help your case while dismissing all the ones that don't. I thin that pretty much clears everything up. And the irony being the part where you claim you don't want to discuss CD because everyone just dismisses your evidence.
You can call it cherry picking or quote mining if you like.

I listed facts and statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that prove:

There was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that debris damage had any significant structural effect to the area of the initiating event.

Before accusing me of dismissing evidence to the contrary, please post any statements or facts from government reports that refute the summaries i have made.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

With regards definition: Very well. Again, however, I refer you to the Reference.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/claim) for an elucidation of the way in which I’ve been using the term.
I checked my Webster's Dictionary as well and your use of the word 'claim' was appropriate using those definitions.
Claim: to hold to be true against implied denial or doubt

Further, the idea that “Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall speed” was never in dispute.Thank you

Quite plainly, it was the unqualified formulations of this statement that I claimed it wouldn’t be inappropriate to refrain from describing as “facts.”
I would say that it is a fact, not an idea.

However, I’m glad to see that we seem to have basically resolved our disputes concerning this issue. So, onto the next:Right


In that case, what reason do we have to think that the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse is in any way inconsistent with a non-conspiratorial sequence of events?It is consistant with the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions].

[Christopher7]

How do you know this ? You admitted yourself that you can't see the bottom 9 floors. How can you claim certainty if you don't know ?
Because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

What do you mean "wrong" ?It is wrong to assume that the two holes are one without any evidence.

You don't think that this hole:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg

...which aligns nicely with this one:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg

...could be the same hole ?
It is possible but it should not be stated as a fact without evidence.

That's what I meant when I said "exactly". The person reporting the 10-floor hole may have been wrong about its placement. You know, running around debris, fire and smoke may affect your perceptions.
Agreed
I believe that the 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7, is a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

The specific account of a firefighter STATES that the hole reached the ground.Please post this quote.

All these are consistent with a CD. They are ALSO consistent with non-CD collapses. You'd always expect a dust cloud. You'd always expect a roughly straight-down, free fall collapse under those circumstances. So far, no good.
There has never been a non CD implosion of a high rise building!


Here's that word again. "This man is a thief. He systematically steals stuff. My house was broken into and my jewelry stolen. Ergo, this man stole them." That's the gist of your argument, and it is a fallacy.If it is well known that someone systematically writes bad checks, would you accept check from that person?

I don't talk "around" it. I'm saying that you CHANGED your claim but are trying to hide that fact.Evidently you did not read post 2664

I'm also saying that this NEW claim of yours means nothing because it is so vague that it could be construed to mean anything.There is nothing vague about

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Actual time for the exterior walls was less than 7 seconds.

I added 1/2 second to include the screenwall and west penthouse.

[Par]

Christopher7:

I see. So, since it’s consistent with both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse, can we agree that the issue of the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse isn’t going to be helpful in determining which explanation is actually correct? (In other words: The collapse time doesn’t prove anything either way.)

[Jonnyclueless]

You can call it cherry picking or quote mining if you like.

I listed facts and statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that prove:

There was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that debris damage had any significant structural effect to the area of the initiating event.

Before accusing me of dismissing evidence to the contrary, please post any statements or facts from government reports that refute the summaries i have made.

Those are the only two terms that really fit.

No, NIST reported various evidence that could work towards a gouge and towards no gouge. You chose ONLY the testimony that points to no gouge. By choosing testimony as proof of no gouge but not using the other testimony as proof that there was a gouge. This is conflicting scientific method.

You use the report to say there was no gouge when the same report says there was. Again, CHERRY PICKING.

Posting info from that report how about?

The NIST preliminary report you are saying says there were no fires or damage say there was. It's all there once you stop dismissing what you don't want to hear. There's going to be conflicting information in every investigation adn there is especially going to be conflicting eyewitness testimony in every incident. You are preying on this common occurrence. This is why it is crucial that you create a thread that avoids your own theories which have far more conflicts and contradictions.

[Jonnyclueless]

There has never been a non CD implosion of a high rise building!


So basically if something has never happened before it cannot happen in the future. Do you not see the paradox here? No building can possibly burn because at some point no building had ever burned before. Planes cannot fly because at some point a plane had never flown before.

How many highrise buildings were hit by planes or debris in the same manner and the same design and remained standing? I don't think that haas ever happened before either.

No highrise has ever been secretly CDed in front of millions of people as a plot by the government to take over the world

I guess it works both ways eh?

[Christopher7]

Those are the only two terms that really fit.

No, NIST reported various evidence that could work towards a gouge and towards no gouge. You chose ONLY the testimony that points to no gouge. By choosing testimony as proof of no gouge but not using the other testimony as proof that there was a gouge. This is conflicting scientific method.
Please post the evidence or testimony that you believe proves the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18 existed.

Gravy said he had such evidence but when i asked him to produce it, he went away.

The NIST preliminary report you are saying says there were no fires or damage say there was.You must have taken Gravy's reading comprehension class.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

It's all there once you stop dismissing what you don't want to hear.Talk to yourself much?

There's going to be conflicting information in every investigation adn there is especially going to be conflicting eyewitness testimony in every incident.There are conflicting statements about the 10 story gouge.

There is the one statement about a gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7

There are four statements that conflict with that statement.


The choice is simple,
either you believe that the firefighters who said there was no heavy debris in the lobby area are lying

and whoever reported that the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was intact was lying

and the firefighter who said the only damage to the 9th floor facade is lying

and the Chief in charge of operations didn't notice a 100' by 60' to 80' gouge

or

The '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of other damage further to the west.

[Jonnyclueless]

OK there. Clearly you're really smart and I am not. So I will try my best.

testimony that implies gash in building:

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you
looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it
was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. - Boyle

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."– Capt. Chris Boyle

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain
Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part
of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda

There's plenty more of those, but that should be enough.

No evidence of diesel fuel fires? The very report you use to say there isn't any says that the tanks were cracked, empty, and that there was fuel soaked into the ground. THAT is evidence.

Yes there ARE conflicting statements. As there always are. And unlike a PFT report, NIST includes ALL of it, not just the reports that support what they want, but the reports that contradict it as well. And what you are doing is trying to look at one single point at a time because you know individual points can be easily questionable. But the outcome is determined not by individual points, but by all of the evidence evaluated as a whole. I know you think you are being clever by selectively creating such a topic to allow you a divide and conquer technique, but it is not honest of you.

You have conflicting reports, but instead of you agreeing that it could go either way, you simply take the reports that support what you want (CD) and use that to say that the rest is wrong. That's called dismissing evidence. That's called cherry picking.

No one is lying, there are different people with different vantage points and different memories. Eyewitness testimony is not very accurate. That's why it has to be used as a part of the whole picture only. And you also have to factor in that the damage may not always be the same at the same time, just as the fire is not always going to be the same from beginning to end. The later in the day, the more damage and the more fire. So there are 100s of variables that will affect people's testimonies. It doesn't mean any of them are lying.

And you even claimed there was no evidence that fire could have contributed to the collapse. I think there are over 250 reports of fires from just the eyewitness testimony. That alone does not prove it was the cause of the collapse, but to say there is no evidence? THAT is dismissal.


But hey, you're the smart one here, not me...

[Christopher7]

OK there. Clearly you're really smart and I am not. So I will try my best.

testimony that implies gash in building:

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you
looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it
was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. - Boyle

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."– Capt. Chris Boyle
Capt. Boyle's description does not match the damage described on pg 18.

He said it was 20 stories tall.

There is no hole in the center of WTC 7 above floor 10

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3983/copyofsfacegraphic3qs7.jpg

There is a lot of damage west of center

He also said about a third of it, right in the middle of it. Perhaps he meant vertically. That would be the case if we are to take Capt. Boyle and the other firefighters at their word.

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, you are approaching this as if you can only use one peice of evidence. Pick the one you want and hope it's right and then use it to dismiss everything else. You could just as easily use Boyles account (some of his vary themselves) and say that everything else is wrong according to that.

The idea is that you take ALL the evidence and try to figure out what happened, understanding that no individual testimony is going to be accurate. I my self have been in some traumatic events that to this day my memory of the event does not match up to what actually happened. My placement of things still is not correct according to the reports. It's very very common.

And once again, time is going to play a factor as well. Different people and different pictures taken at different times as the fires and damage change throughout the day.

And this is why it's just a preliminary report, they don't want to make such assumptions. But if there is one thing it does not do, it's rule out fire and damage as the cause. Maybe in the final they will, who knows. I don't want to assume either. but one thing they were pretty clear about is they could find no evidence of any controlled demolition. And the reason that is so important is that you are using this source as verification that fire and damage could not possibly have caused the collapse, but ignoring the same source claiming there is no evidence of any controlled demolition.

You have simply made an assumption as to what is correct and what isn't. That's something one can't do when doing honest research.

[Christopher7]

No evidence of diesel fuel fires? The very report you use to say there isn't any says that the tanks were cracked, empty, and that there was fuel soaked into the ground. THAT is evidence.
You did not read post 1884 on pg 48

FEMA Ch 5 pg 28

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

"The following is, therefore, a hypothesis is based on potential rather than demonstrated fact"

Please read the whole post

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course it's a hypothesis. One of many that need to be considered. There are a lot of things that are going to have to be determined without any physical evidence because of the nature of the beach.

And you can continue to poke at individual points still. Just like you use it as a pasis to say there is no evidence of the fuel contributing, while ignoring it also saying there is no evidence o a CD.

I'm not really arguing either way, simply pointing out the fault in the whole argument. I need not reply anymore as that point has well been made. Now it's simply an issue of opinion.

[Christopher7]

Once again, you are approaching this as if you can only use one peice of evidence. Pick the one you want and hope it's right and then use it to dismiss everything else.
Wrong

You did not read post 2697 or 1883

There is 1 statement describing a '10 story gouge' in the middle of WTC 7

There are 4 statements in direct conflict with that statement



This post was brought to you by the numbers 1 and 4, and the word *********.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/7812/sesamestreetcountdraculfp2.jpg


Editing word spelled to bypass censor

[Jonnyclueless]

And thank you for proving you didn't read my posts which addressed that quite clearly. Post #somethingorother

But I do get a sense of awe at your ability to quote post numbers. Bone chilling...

[Belz...]

Because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

How do you know since you can't see the whole thing ?

It is possible but it should not be stated as a fact without evidence.

I did not state it as fact. I said it was quite possible. In the absence of contrary evidence it is a reasonable assumption.

Agreed
I believe that the 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7, is a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

Then the hole DID exist, albeit further west, right ?

Please post this quote.

Weren't YOU the one who quoted that in the early going of the thread ?

There is the one statement about a gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7

See ? I told you.

There has never been a non CD implosion of a high rise building!

Of course not, since no high-rise building has ever collapsed EXCEPT due to CD before.

If it is well known that someone systematically writes bad checks, would you accept check from that person?

No, but I wouldn't assume that EVERY check is a fake. Of course, 9/11 wasn't about global warming...

There is nothing vague about

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

:jaw-dropp

This post was brought to you by the numbers 1 and 4, and the word ********.

Hey, that's my joke.

[Par]

Christopher7:

So, since it’s consistent with both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse, can we agree that the issue of the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse isn’t going to be helpful in determining which explanation is actually correct? (In other words: The collapse time doesn’t prove anything either way.)

[BeAChooser]

Capt. Boyle's description does not match the damage described on pg 18.

He said it was 20 stories tall.

There is no hole in the center of WTC 7 above floor 10

... photo snipped ...

There is a lot of damage west of center

He also said about a third of it, right in the middle of it. Perhaps he meant vertically. That would be the case if we are to take Capt. Boyle and the other firefighters at their word.


You need a better photo and a better analysis. Because you are wrong. There is a hole (and there is no other word for it) that is at least 3 to 4 columns spacings wide in WTC 7 directly above the left corner of the structure in the foreground. There is also obvious damage to WTC 7 above the right side of the railing that is on top the left corner of the foreground structure. That damage also extends a considerable distance up WTC 7 beyond the 12th floor. And the two zones of damage would appear to be connected. Sorry ... but that image is essentially consistent with Capt Boyle's description.

Now if you go check out Spak's photo with numbered columns at debunking911.com and compare that with the drawing by NIST locating the damage in the south face, you will find the two are consistent. In fact, the drawing indicates that the left side of the upper hole should be about 6 columns to the left of the right corner of the south face. The photo by Spak showing the columns indicates the number of column spacings between the right edge of the hole I've noted above and the right corner of the building is around six.

So you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is a very large hole in the south face, pretty much where NIST said there was a hole ... pretty much where the statements of firemen indicated there was a large hole.

Why is it that 911 *truthers* won't trust their eyes?

[BeAChooser]

So, since it’s consistent with both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse, can we agree that the issue of the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse isn’t going to be helpful in determining which explanation is actually correct? (In other words: The collapse time doesn’t prove anything either way.)

But the fact that the east penthouse mechanical room was seen sinking into the building some 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the structure came down might prove something. But I doubt Christopher7 wants to go there. ;)

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I see. So, since it’s consistent with both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse, can we agree that the issue of the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse isn’t going to be helpful in determining which explanation is actually correct? (In other words: The collapse time doesn’t prove anything either way.)
Collapse at near free fall is one of the unique characteristics of a CD.

The NIST hypothesis is based on fire causing the failure of one column which led to the implosion of WTC 7, mimicking a CD.

It would be more accurate to say that the NIST hypothesis assumes that faulty design caused the sudden implosion of WTC 7.

[Belz...]

Collapse at near free fall is one of the unique characteristics of a CD.

You are WRONG, Chris. Give it up. Many things fall at free fall without the help of explosives.

[Christopher7]

You need a better photo and a better analysis. Because you are wrong. There is a hole (and there is no other word for it) that is at least 3 to 4 columns spacings wide in WTC 7 directly above the left corner of the structure in the foreground. There is also obvious damage to WTC 7 above the right side of the railing that is on top the left corner of the foreground structure. That damage also extends a considerable distance up WTC 7 beyond the 12th floor. And the two zones of damage would appear to be connected. Sorry ... but that image is essentially consistent with Capt Boyle's description.

Now if you go check out Spak's photo with numbered columns at debunking911.com and compare that with the drawing by NIST locating the damage in the south face, you will find the two are consistent. In fact, the drawing indicates that the left side of the upper hole should be about 6 columns to the left of the right corner of the south face. The photo by Spak showing the columns indicates the number of column spacings between the right edge of the hole I've noted above and the right corner of the building is around six.
I noticed the poor wording but too late to correct it.

The large hole, centered on column 7 is the "large debris hole near the center of the south face around floor 14" [pg 18]

The perspective in this photograph makes it difficult to tell if that hole is connected to the vertical hole between columns 5 and 6.

The hole between columns 5 and 6 is consistent with Capt. Boyle's statement if it continues up 20 stories.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

It is in line with the "Roof and upper level debris damage".

However, if that hole continued downward, the firefighter walked who walked the 9th floor along the south side, would not have been able to do so.

None of the damage it the photograph supports the massive gouge depicted in the NIST graphic as the "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".

[Christopher7]

You are WRONG, Chris. Give it up. Many things fall at free fall without the help of explosives.
Give it up Belz

Skydivers and apples fall at freefall.

Buildings do not fall at near free fall without explosives.

[Jonnyclueless]

Apparently they do.

What is the exact freefall speed for a building BTW?

[BeAChooser]

The perspective in this photograph makes it difficult to tell if that hole is connected to the vertical hole between columns 5 and 6.

Not all that difficult, if you look at the clearer photo by Spak that is found at debunking911.com. It shows what looks like damage connecting the two holes. Since I can't yet post images, why don't you post images wtc7holeanalyis_crop.jpg and wtc7.jpg found at debunking911.com. Then even your claim that the hole is between columns 5 and 6 will be seen to be false. It is much larger than that. In fact, the hole appears to cover about a third of the face ... just like the fireman WHO WAS THERE said.

By the way ... do you have an explanation for the east penthouse mechanical room disappearing into the structure about 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed? Do you have an explanation for the statements by eyewitnesses that they put a transit on the building and found it leaning well before the collapse? Do you have a explanation for the bulge that was observed between floors 10 and 13 well before the collapse? Do you have a explanation for the smoke that obscured the entire south side of the building during most of the event? Do you have an explanation why not one demolition expert (other than Jowenko) says it was a CD? Are ANY of these facts consistent with your CD theory? Just curious ...

[Christopher7]

Not all that difficult, if you look at the clearer photo by Spak that is found at debunking911.com. It shows what looks like damage connecting the two holes. Since I can't yet post images, why don't you post images wtc7holeanalyis_crop.jpg and wtc7.jpg found at debunking911.com. Then even your claim that the hole is between columns 5 and 6 will be seen to be false. It is much larger than that. In fact, the hole appears to cover about a third of the face ... just like the fireman WHO WAS THERE said.
You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

By the way ... do you have an explanation for the east penthouse mechanical room disappearing into the structure about 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed?In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

Do you have an explanation for the statements by eyewitnesses that they put a transit on the building and found it leaning well before the collapse?Chief Hayden said there was a bulge.
He had to put a transit on it to be sure.
He DID NOT say the building was leaning.

None of the firefighters at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

Do you have a explanation for the bulge that was observed between floors 10 and 13 well before the collapse?The SW corner column was severed.

Do you have a explanation for the smoke that obscured the entire
south side of the building during most of the event?Fire

Do you have an explanation why not one demolition expert (other than Jowenko) says it was a CD? Are ANY of these facts consistent with your CD theory? Just curious ...Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

There are over 100 engineers and architects who don't believe the 'official story' and are calling for an independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org

[BeAChooser]

You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

The truth is that we can only see Floor 8 and above in the image (and even Floor 8 is totally obscured by smoke towards the center of the face). There is clearly damage to the face of the building along column 7 even below Floor 10. The large vertical hole from which smoke is coming is clearly expanding into the line of column 6 by the time the hole gets down to Floor 8. So, again, you are wrong. The ONLY real FACT is that the image isn't clear enough to say conclusively there isn't a gouge in the building from floor 10 to the ground in the center, as you claimed. But there are certainly indications there is a hole in that region. Which is what the firemen said. But then you must think the firemen were liars.

In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

But if the interior has fallen first for whatever reason (and couldn't a failure due to fire be a reason?), then the fact that the rest of the building fell at free-fall velocity isn't remarkable ... since there would be nothing inside the structure to resist the descent. Right?

Images from the site (see photo wtc7pile.jpg from debunking911.com) clearly show that the north face of WTC 7 ended up ON TOP of the rubble pile, nearly intact. So the structure didn't collapse straight down as the CD crowd has been claiming for months. Instead it fell to the south. Infact, the south-east. Now a large hole in the south face of the building and a collapse of the interior starting with the east mechanical room on the penthouse would explain that. But a CD doesn't.

Chief Hayden said there was a bulge.
He had to put a transit on it to be sure.
He DID NOT say the building was leaning.

I didn't say that Hayden said it was leaning. But I perhaps misspoke in saying a transit showed it was leaning (as opposed to bulging). Still I'm curious ... why the bulge long before the collapse in a CD? Hmmmm?

None of the firefighters at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

Not true. Below is the URL (modified so I can post it during this probationary period) of a youtube video where you can hear a fireman named Miller saying "You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...":

xttp://xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA (change x to h at the beginning and xxx to www later on)

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

Isn't it odd how thousands and thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in fire, steel and concrete, experts in impact, experts in seismology and experts in macro-world physics uniformly let fear of losing their jobs get in the way of pointing out *the truth* in what 911*truthers* claim is mass murder by our own government? I guess those who go into those occupations have no conscience. Right? In fact, only the lawyers, economists, janitors, philosophers and sub-atomic particle physicists of the *truth* movement have the guts to put their jobs at risk to point out *the truth*. Right?

(sarcasm)


There are over 100 engineers and architects who don't believe the 'official story' and are calling for an independent investigation.


Actually, very few of those 100 actually have a civil or structural engineering background. And there are many questions about the qualifications of those few.

For example, the ae911truth site lists Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural)" as a member and one of those calling for an independent investigation. But Mr Pegelow has a BS in civil engineering, not structural engineering. And his is a civil engineering license, not a structural engineering license. Indeed, the ae911truth website is dishonest in implying that he has a structural license. Furthermore, it turns out that Pegelow has been working for about 30 years in the oil drilling industry. He spent almost his entire life working on oil drilling platforms. He's hardly an expert on buildings, much less skyscrapers.

"Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982" from Suttons Bay, Michigan is another of those listed by ae911truth. Unusual name. Could this be the same person? "Warren Raftshol, Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Grape grower, winery owner, libertarian since 1965." And elsewhere on the web he's described as follows "Raftshol, 51, has a scraggly beard and wears wide suspenders, denim shirts and jeans. He's a man with no pretenses. Though he has a master's degree in civil engineering from Northwestern University, he chose agriculture on the family homestead. "Back in the early '80s," he reminds you, "there were no jobs."" Again, that's hardly the description of someone I'd want building my skyscrapers.

Or how about "Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC"? He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C.. He's about as qualified as you when it comes to structures, impact, fire and collapse.

And then there is "Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA" who is described on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the patriotsquestion911 website he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not mention that if he is one? There is an interview with Ted Muga on the web where he says he retired as a naval aviator in 1985 and retired as a commercial pilot in 1991. Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. Why not? And a little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims ... that there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon and that "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." Both statements are absolutely false as photos that are readily available on the internet prove. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." But that is absolutely and demonstrably FALSE. So clearly Ted is either completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred but so biased as to regurgitate the lies of the interviewer or he is totally incompetent.

So what was that you were saying about the engineers at ae911truth, Christopher?

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.

(thanks Mark)

[twinstead]

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

This is the kind of stuff that sickens me, Chris, and will always condemn your 'theory' to the sewers. You are implying that NO ONE in any of those fields would risk their jobs and reputations in order to bring mass murderers to justice.

None of them has a conscience, according to you. All you have are 100 or so kooks of dubious expertise whom you throw in our faces like it's supposed to make it all better.

Sad

[Belz...]

Give it up Belz

Skydivers and apples fall at freefall.

Buildings do not fall at near free fall without explosives.

Don't they ? AGAIN, chris, HOW FAST would the building fall if its primary supports were destroyed by fire ? If the thing actually started to collapse from non-explosives, HOW FAST would it fall ? That's an important question, and if you can't answer it, you CAN'T CLAIM that it wouldn't fall at free fall, anyway.

You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

And you're ignoring the FACT that you can't see below that point in that picture.

In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

Yes, and this is exactly what happened.

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

Affirming the consequent.

[Christopher7]

There is clearly damage to the face of the building along column 7 even below Floor 10 But then you must think the firemen were liars.
No
I am quoting firefighters who said

"no heavy debris in lobby area"
and
"only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the SW corner."

Do you think they were lying?

But if the interior has fallen first for whatever reason (and couldn't a failure due to fire be a reason?)No, the NIST hypothesis says fire caused the failure of one column, the rest was due to poor design.

then the fact that the rest of the building fell at free-fall velocity isn't remarkable ... since there would be nothing inside the structure to resist the descent. Right? That is how professionals 'implode' buildings.

Instead it fell to the south.The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.
If anything, it is a little north of center.
There is rubble on Vesey and Barclay.

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/3830/copyof7aj5.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9131/copyof4ai9.jpg

I didn't say that Hayden said it was leaning. But I perhaps misspoke in saying a transit showed it was leaning A firefighter, two blocks away and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The three Fire Chief's who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

FEMA did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

NIST did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


Isn't it odd how thousands and thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, [etc.]
Most people have forgotten about WTC 7. As the videos are being shown to engineers and architects they are joining the truth movement.

OTers claim that anyone who questions the official story is a kook and tries to discredit them.

Do you think Danny Jowenko is a kook?

He agrees with me that any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

The experts that have joined Architects and Engineers are qualified to assess the nature of the WTC 7 collapse.

[Christopher7]

And you're ignoring the FACT that you can't see below that point in that picture.
On the contrary, i have noted that the picture does not show the area where the '10 story gouge', described on pg 18, was supposed to be.

[Belz...]

No, the NIST hypothesis says fire caused the failure of one column, the rest was due to poor design.

Poor design against crashing, flaming skyscrapers, anyway.

The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.

Roughly <giggle>.

On the contrary, i have noted that the picture does not show the area where the '10 story gouge', described on pg 18, was supposed to be.

And so you have no basis to state that that hole didn't exist as was reported, even if we DON'T assume that the 40-odd hole is the same one.

[BeAChooser]

No
I am quoting firefighters who said

"no heavy debris in lobby area"
and
"only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the SW corner."

Do you think they were lying?

Are you really quoting firefighters? It seems to me you are quoting a NIST document which states that there was "no heavy debris in lobby area." But it also states "Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade". (And there are multiple photos at debunking911.com showing there was heavy debris.) And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground", "large debris hole near center around 14th floor", and "8th/9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby." So now you don't believe your own source? (sarcasm)

If you want quotes from fire fighters, here are some ...

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ... snip ... There was 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. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Now do you believe the firefighters?

Oh and by the way, did you notice the words "Approximate", "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely" on the NIST graphic of damage? Those engineers were working from very limited hard data (i.e., photos or videos showing the south side damage). Given that, the best data may be the descriptions given by the firefighters who were on the scene. Who said there was a huge hole on the south side and raging fires. Don't you think?

the NIST hypothesis says fire caused the failure of one columns, the rest was due to poor design.

You mean those silly WTC 7 designers should have designed WTC 7 for the possibility of WTC 1 falling on it? Why don't you visit the "WTC7.htm" page at debunking911.com and tell me what you think about the images (from a video) showing what appears to be the end result of a pancake collapse between one or more columns on the south face of WTC7 (about a 1/4 of the way into the face)? It appears to extend over the entire height that was visible in the video. What about the author's contention that the pancaking of floors between the columns aligns with the location of fuel oil distribution components on the 1st, 7th, 8th and 9th floor? What would be the implication of that? Would that be poor design too, Christopher?

The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.

Visit the "pull.htm" page at debunking911.com. You'll see plenty of photographic evidence that WTC didn't collapse into it's own footprint as the CTers claim but instead toppled over to the south east ... in the direction that the huge hole in the structure was reported ... in the direction that collapse of the east mechanical room would suggest the building interior had failed due to fire. There are even images taken during the collapse that show the building clearly tilting to the south. How does a CD explain that?

No one at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

FEMA did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

NIST did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

WTC 7 was not [I]leaning.


Curious ... the 4/02 issue of FireHouse Magazine states "Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving." And I provided you with a video where a fireman says " You see this thing leaning like this?" Isn't it odd that when it did collapse, rather than falling straight down like the CT community has insisted controlled demolitions do, it toppled over to its side with the north face of the building ending up on top of the rubble pile? Check out the "pull.htm" page at debunking911.com and you'll see what I mean, Christopher.

As the videos are being shown to engineers and architects they are joining the truth movement.

Like the four I noted? ROTFLOL! As to the rest of the civil and structural engineers that have joined, it's odd that so little is known about them. In fact, in most cases, the CLAIM that they are civil or structural engineers at the ae911truth website is all we know about them. Why is that? They still worried about losing their jobs? As to the rest of the engineers ... well maybe they should stick to subject areas that they are actually qualified to understand. Certainly an electrical engineer knows about as much as a sub-atomic particle physicist when it comes to structures, demolition, fire, materials and macro-world physics. Wouldn't you agree?

OTers claim that anyone who questions the official story is a kook and tries to discredit them.

That's not true. There are plenty of good questions to ask about the events surrounding 9/11 and the actions of our government before and after. I certainly don't call someone a KOOK for asking them. In fact, on more than one occassion at other forums I've told people those are good questions.

The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist the hole in the outside of the Pentagon was under 20 feet in diameter even after being shown photos that prove that false. The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist the towers collapsed in 8 to 10 seconds even after being shown a video that proves that false.

The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist that all the real experts in topics relevant to structures, demolition, impact, fire, materials, seismology and macro-world physics around the world are incompetent, corrupt or cowards and that only their *truth* experts (the economists, philosophers, theologians, janitors, software developers, sub-atomic particle physicists, wine growers, and the like who have joined the *truth* movement) are to be trusted and believed.

What is sad is that the KOOKS are only making it more difficult to get the reasonable questions about 911 answered. They are the ones hindering the search for the truth by discrediting it. A great many of the leaders of the so-called "truth" movement fall into the category of KOOKS. Because they repeat nonsense that is demonstrably false or misleading. Griffin ... who the founder of ae911Truth said influenced him ... is a good example.

Do you think Danny Jowenko is a kook?

Well first, let's make sure that everyone understands that Jowenko claimed that the decision to demolish WTC 7 with explosives was only made AFTER the towers had fallen and only because WTC 7 was so significantly damaged that the owner thought it too costly to rebuild. He was not suggesting a pre-planned demolition as 99% of the CT community claims as fact. Second, Jowenko ruled out WTC 1 and WTC 2 as controlled demolitions. Funny how the CT community always fail to mention that when discussing Jowenko. Third, Jowenko made his claim about WTC 7 after being shown very limited material by a *truth* movement member during the interview. That *interviewer* failed to tell Jowenko that the east mechanical room had collapsed into the building more than 6 seconds before the start of the collapse video that he was shown. He failed to tell Jowenko that the structure had significant damage on the south side or that it had been on fire for hours and hours before the collapse. He failed to tell Jowenko that the building collapsed to the south with the north face ending up on top of the rubble, nearly intact. (The interviewer actually lied to him by telling him the building collapsed perfectly on its footprint and by telling him there was only minor damage to the building.) The interviewer failed to tell Jowenko that firemen and others had observed the building starting to fail hours before the collapse and were on record saying they thought the building would collapse.

Is Jowenko a KOOK? Yes, a little. Because he still insists his initial conclusion is right even after learning all the above extenuating facts. And because some of the other views he's expressed show he is wacky on a number of topics.

He agrees with me that any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

Why isn't he "gone"? ROTFLOL!

The experts that have joined Architects and Engineers are qualified to assess the nature of the WTC 7 collapse.

Really?

So you claim that Rob Tamaki, water and waste systems expert, is?

That Warren J Raftshol, wine grower and farmer, is?

That Charles N. Pegelow, oil platform expert, is?

That Ted Muga, naval aviator and commercial pilot, is?

Really?

ROTFLOL!

[twinstead]

The experts that have joined Architects and Engineers are qualified to assess the nature of the WTC 7 collapse.

Chris, this is total, utter BS, and you KNOW it

[Belz...]

The experts that have joined Architects and Engineers are qualified to assess the nature of the WTC 7 collapse.

I thought Chris was the expert, here.

[Christopher7]

Poor design against crashing, flaming skyscrapers, anyway.
There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

It was not!

The debris damage started the fires. That's all.

There is no evidence that the debris had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

NIST did not say or infer that it did.
They mentioned it in the Summary but they did not list it as one of the possible causes of the initiating event.

And so you have no basis to state that that hole didn't exist as was reported, even if we DON'T assume that the 40-odd hole is the same one.Belz, i have posted four statements from the FEMA and NIST reports and the Oral Histories published in the NY Times.
The completely refute the '10 story gouge' that was described on pg 18 of Apx. L

If you don't stop denying that they exist, i will have to post them again to refresh your memory.

[Christopher7]

Are you really quoting firefighters? It seems to me you are quoting a NIST document which states that there was "no heavy debris in lobby area."
NIST was quoting the firefighters

But it also states "Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade".(And there are multiple photos at debunking911.com showing there was heavy debris.)True

And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground" Yet the atrium glass, ground to floor 5, was still intact and there was no heavy debris in the lobby. Go figure.
Odd that the Chief in charge of operations at WTC 7 didn't notice that.
He said the damage was between the 3rd and 6th floors.

"large debris hole near center around 14th floor"Can be seen in the Spak photo

and "8th/9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby."Must have been the 8th floor because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

If you want quotes from fire fighters, here are some ...

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ... snip ... There was 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. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Now do you believe the firefighters?I believe the firefighters, do you?
Hayden and Norman were talking about the SW corner.
Visconti didn't say where on the south face.
Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

[Mr.Herbert]

There is no evidence that the debris had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

.

I LOVE when a twoofer uses the word "evidence." Chris, in all of your posts you have not offered ANY!!

[Christopher7]

I LOVE when a twoofer uses the word "evidence." Chris, in all of your posts you have not offered ANY!!
The term 'twoofer' is childish.

This is a serious subject, get serious.

I have offered evidence from the FEMA and NIST reports many times.

I have also posted photographic evidence.

What other evidence is there?

[Jonnyclueless]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.

[Christopher7]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.
Just because a document from an administration, that systematically distorts scientific documents, says there is no evidence of CD, does not mean there is none.

BTW: You would not accept a check from a person who systematically writes bad checks.

Why are you willing to accept as gospel, a report from an administration who systematically distorts scientific documents?

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground"

Yet the atrium glass, ground to floor 5, was still intact and there was no heavy debris in the lobby. Go figure.
Odd that the Chief in charge of operations at WTC 7 didn't notice that.
He said the damage was between the 3rd and 6th floors.


As you yourself said, "NIST was quoting the firefighters."


Must have been the 8th floor because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

That's not true at all. The SPAK photo you posted in #2715 clearly shows a gash in the building just to the left of the number 5 column at the 9th Floor level. It's even clearer in the image published at the debunking911 website. Smoke can be seen coming from that gash. And some say the floors are misnumbered in that image, raising the location of Floor 9 even higher. How can you claim the only damage to the facade at the 9th Floor is at the SW corner? Don't you believe your eyes?


Hayden and Norman were talking about the SW corner.

Well let's observe that Norman prefaced his comment as follows: "You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." So his statement is not indicative of no damage elsewhere on the south face.


Visconti didn't say where on the south face.

But he and Boyle were together when they were at WTC 7 so don't you think he'd correct Boyle's statement if it was in error? He hasn't and what he did say isn't at all inconsistent with Boyle's statement.


Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

What Boyle said doesn't necessarily require there was only a single hole or rule out damage below the 9th Floor. He said "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Come on Christopher ... admit that you have no evidence that there wasn't a large gouge towards the middle of the structure below the 9th floor. You can't see the area in any of the photos (yet the photos and videos we do have would certainly suggest there might be significant damage below what can be seen). You apparently can't give us the name of the firefighter who supposedly said there was "no heavy debris in lobby area". But we can give you the name of the ones who said there was a huge hole or a big chunk out of the lower floors. Plus, the building toppled towards the southeast for a reason. Couldn't damage to the structure be that reason? Least resistance and all that?

And since you like fire fighter quotes, here's a few more for you to address (or not):

According the the NYTimes, Battalion Chief Kemly said "Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse."

According to the NYTimes, Chief Frank Fellini said "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."

According to the NYTimes, Lieutenant William Melarango said "A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center.[/B]

According to the NYTimes, Chief Thomas McCarthy said "I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in.[/B]

According to the NYTimes, Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said "Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse."

And finally, here is an account you might find interesting: "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 [the collapse of the north tower]. 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,"

[Christopher7]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.
I just checked.

There is no mention of controlled demolition in the NIST Apx. L

They never considered it.

They listed the "Least likely locations of collapse initiation"
and the "Less likely locations of collapse initiation"

Had they considered CD, they would have said why they ruled it out.

The first mention of CD was in the Final report of 4-5-05.

Pg 6: "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition."

What a surprise. They found no evidence that would implicate the administration [that systematically distorts scientific documents] in mass murder and high treason.

[Christopher7]

That's not true at all. The SPAK photo you posted in #2715 clearly shows a gash in the building just to the left of the number 5 column at the 9th Floor level. It's even clearer in the image published at the debunking911 website. Smoke can be seen coming from that gash.
Are you calling the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side a liar? He was very specific about the damage.
Smoke is obscuring the 9th floor.

And some say the floors are misnumbered in that image, raising the location of Floor 9 even higher. How can you claim the only damage to the facade at the 9th Floor is at the SW corner? Don't you believe your eyes?Did it occur to you that your photo analysis is incorrect?
You will say anything, including calling any firefighter a liar, that says something that proves the 10 story gouge did not exist.

Well let's observe that Norman prefaced his comment as follows: "You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." So his statement is not indicative of no damage elsewhere on the south face.
So what?

But he and Boyle were together when they were at WTC 7 so don't you think he'd correct Boyle's statement if it was in error? He hasn't and what he did say isn't at all inconsistent with Boyle's statement.
Boyle's statement is inconsistent with a '10 story gouge'.

What Boyle said doesn't necessarily require there was only a single hole or rule out damage below the 9th Floor. He said "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."
Again, Boyle described a '20 story hole'

Come on Christopher ... admit that you have no evidence that there wasn't a large gouge towards the middle of the structure below the 9th floor. You can't see the area in any of the photos (yet the photos and videos we do have would certainly suggest there might be significant damage below what can be seen). You apparently can't give us the name of the firefighter who supposedly said there was "no heavy debris in lobby area".Please
FEMA and NIST did not give the names of the firefighters.

The NIST report is the 'official report'.

Just because you have the name of the firefighter who described a '20 story hole' doesn't mean anything.

So now you think the firefighters in the FEMA and NIST reports are liars?


the building toppled towards the southeast for a reason. Couldn't damage to the structure be that reason? Least resistance and all that?WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint. [see NIST Apx. L pg 33]

Look at the debris pile. the center of the pile is a little NORTH of center
There is more debris on Barclay than there is on Vesey

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9131/copyof4ai9.jpg

[cloudshipsrule]

There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

It was not!

Show me visual evidence that there was no debris damage near the columns where collapse began, or is this simply a guess. No one can say conclusively there was no damage there, not even Nist.

Debris damage WAS a factor in the way the building collapsed. Whether or not debris damage aided in collapse initiation, it certainly affected the way in which the building fell. The building may not have totally collapsed had there been less debris damage.

[BeAChooser]

Are you calling the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side a liar? He was very specific about the damage.

First of all, why don't you give us the name of that firefighter and the URL where he is quoted saying whatever he said. If you can.

Second, smoke is NOT obscuring the presence of a hole at the 9th floor level just to the left of column #5 in the Spak photo you posted. There clearly is a hole there ... with smoke coming OUT of it.

Just curious ... are you one of those folks who claim the hole in the outside of the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across?


Please
FEMA and NIST did not give the names of the firefighters.

They also did not say they were quoting firefighters. Funny how you can't name any of the firefighters you are claiming to *quote*.

WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint.

You seem to be having trouble interpreting photographic evidence. This site:

xttp://xxx.debunking911.com/pull.htm (replace the first x with h and the xxx with www)

has a very thorough and very convincing discussion of this issue, with many photos that clearly show that the structure toppled to the southeast. Once I reach 15 posts I'll be happy to repost some of them here to prove you are absolutely wrong.

Look at the debris pile. the center of the pile is a little NORTH of center
There is more debris on Barclay than there is on Vesey

There are much better images of the collapse than that at the website URL I gave above. They clearly show the north face of the building drapped OVER the rubble pile. That would be hard to do if the building came "straight down" as you claim. The website also has images during the collapse that very clearly show the entire building tilting to the southeast. Don't you believe your eyes, Christopher?

[Belz...]

There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

You sound like a broken record, Chris. I know this. We've already discussed this and established it to be irrelevant. Let's move on, shall we ?

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse, remember ?

The debris damage started the fires. That's all.

There is no evidence that the debris had any significant structural effect on the area of the [I]initiating event.

I can smell the straw burning from here...

Belz, i have posted four statements from the FEMA and NIST reports and the Oral Histories published in the NY Times.
The completely refute the '10 story gouge' that was described on pg 18 of Apx. L

A witness' statement does not "completely refute" anything. It's just a piece of the evidence. And we KNOW that there was a huge hole in the building.

[Belz...]

The term 'twoofer' is childish.

Actually, it's spot on.

I believe the firefighters, do you?

Actually, you believe SOME of the firefighters.

Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Well, pity for your imagination, but I can easily reconcile the 10-storey hole, the 20-storey hole and the 47-storey hole.

There is no mention of controlled demolition in the NIST Apx. L

They never considered it.

Of course they didn't. It's the most ludicrous theory ever devised. Why the hell would someone demolish a building after a skyscraper fell on it, while at the same time trying to deal with this unprecedented crisis ? Words fail me.

WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint.

And then you post a picture showing that it toppled to the southeast. Again, words fail me.

[Christopher7]

Show me visual evidence that there was no debris damage near the columns where collapse began, or is this simply a guess. No one can say conclusively there was no damage there, not even Nist.
Show me some evidence that there was any damage to the area of the initiating event.

NIST has 25 photographs and 2 videos of the south east part of WTC 7.
They will not release them until the 'investigation' is done.

There is NO evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

If NIST had any, they would have included it in their 'progress' report.

They have had over 6,000 photos all along.

They showed photographs of every side of WTC except the south east side.

Why?

Debris damage WAS a factor in the way the building collapsed. Whether or not debris damage aided in collapse initiation, it certainly affected the way in which the building fell. The building may not have totally collapsed had there been less debris damage.Wrong!

WTC 7 collapsed 1/2 second after the remainder of the core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse collapsed.

Danny Jerwenko is a CD expert.
He said that if you blow the core columns, the building will fall.
That is what happened.
Perhaps you think you know better than him.

NIST Apx. L pg. 33
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly facade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior."

i.e. WTC 7 fell mostly straight down.

The author of debunking 911 seems to think he knows better that the experts at NIST.

He said "Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and the middle the path of least resistance."

The Spak photo clearly shows that there was NO 20 story hole in the middle of WTC 7.

There is a hole around column 5, well to the east of the middle.
Part of the facade appears to be hanging from column 5.

He goes on to say
"What will they say now?"

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in it's own footprint" you might say.

Actually, NIST did say it landed mostly within it's own footprint

They DID NOT say that it fell over.

They said it IMPLODED [fell IN on itself]

All the photos of the debris pile clearly show that the debris pile is mostly within the original foot print.
There was overspill, of course, because there was too much debris to be contained entirely within the original footprint.

[Gorgonian]

This thread has drinking game written all over it.

[Christopher7]

First of all, why don't you give us the name of that firefighter and the URL where he is quoted saying whatever he said. If you can.

They also did not say they were quoting firefighters. Funny how you can't name any of the firefighters you are claiming to *quote*.
Since you can't deny that

there was no heavy debris in the lobby

or that

the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact

you're going to nitpick and babble about the word *quote*

So what?

Facts are facts!

These two statements prove that:

There was NO 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on the same page.

You seem to be having trouble interpreting photographic evidence. This site:

xttp://xxx.debunking911.com/pull.htm (replace the first x with h and the xxx with www)See my last post

[BeAChooser]

Danny Jerwenko is a CD expert.

So are you willing to go on record saying you agree with him that the demolition of WTC 7 was a spur of the moment decision by Silverstein after the collapse of the WTC towers damaged WTC 7?

So are you willing to go on record saying you agree with him that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT pre-planned, controlled demolitions?

Oh ... and by the way ... there are dozens of other CD experts and not one of them seems to agree with Danny Jowenko about WTC 7. Not one.

From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly facade structure.

So explain to us how the north facade could end up on top of the debris pile if the structure didn't topple to the southeast?

There is a hole around column 5, well to the east of the middle.

Looks to me like you are using the term "well to the east of the middle" just as loosely as Boyles may have used the term "middle". The middle of the south face would appear to be around column 7 or 8 ... not all that far away. Perhaps Boyle came to the conclusion that it was near the middle because the lobby is actually "well to the east of the middle" too. At least Boyle had the excuse of being in a very confused and tense situation with smoke and fire everywhere. What's yours?

[BeAChooser]

you're going to nitpick and babble about the word *quote*

Nitpick? You CLAIMED those are statements by firefighters yet the NIST report doesn't actually say that and you can't seem to provide the name of the firefighters who said those things. Were you just making that up?

There was NO 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on the same page.

Based on what? A "quote" by a firefighter whose name you can't even provide? ROTFLOL!

[Christopher7]

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

has a very thorough and very convincing discussion of this issue, with many photos that clearly show that the structure toppled to the southeast. Once I reach 15 posts I'll be happy to repost some of them here to prove you are absolutely wrong.

There are much better images of the collapse than that at the website URL I gave above. They clearly show the north face of the building drapped OVER the rubble pile. That would be hard to do if the building came "straight down" as you claim. The website also has images during the collapse that very clearly show the entire building tilting to the southeast. Don't you believe your eyes, Christopher?
The video shows the north facade buckling out near the bottom, damaging the building to the north, and the top part falling south [landing on top of the debris pile].

The building did not fall over in both directions at once.

He says:
"To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east"

Since the front was the south side, backward would be to the north.

So he has the building falling over to the north and the south-east at the same time.
That's nuts.

FEMA said that WTC 7 imploded, that is, it fell IN on itself.
NIST says that it landed mostly in it's own footprint.
The photos confirm this.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.


WTC 7 DID NOT FALL OVER!

As for the north facade;

Some fell north, some fell south.

some [bs] fell out of the kookoo's mouth.

[Christopher7]

Nitpick? You CLAIMED those are statements by firefighters yet the NIST report doesn't actually say that and you can't seem to provide the name of the firefighters who said those things. Were you just making that up?
Oh master of sophistry and point avoiding

NIST does say that firefighters led people out of the building.....no fires....reported as they left floor 8...... no heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited.....
Your reading comprehension is very poor indeed.

Based on what? A "quote" by a firefighter whose name you can't even provide? ROTFLOL!1) NIST did not give the names, nor should they
2) It does not matter what their names were
3) It does not matter if it is a direct quote or a paraphrase
The point is:

There was no heavy debris
in the lobby area

[twinstead]

Chris do you believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD?

[Jonnyclueless]

Just because a document from an administration, that systematically distorts scientific documents, says there is no evidence of CD, does not mean there is none.

BTW: You would not accept a check from a person who systematically writes bad checks.

Why are you willing to accept as gospel, a report from an administration who systematically distorts scientific documents?

So if they are distorting the documents, then your claims have no merit sicne the evidence you are using form them must be distorted.

And this of course being opposed to what your organizations do right? No distortions form your end what so ever...

[Christopher7]

Chris do you believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD?
You wouldn't be trying to change the subject to avoid admitting that there was

no heavy debris in the lobby

would you?

[Christopher7]

So if they are distorting the documents, then your claims have no merit sicne the evidence you are using form them must be distorted.
Very good point ;)

That insipid piece of misleading dribble that i have come to know and love contains little pearls of truth here and there.

The analysis is based on the absurd hypothesis that the failure of a single core column would lead to the total collapse of a modern high rise building.

However, the data about the location and progression of the fires, backed up by photographs, is accurate.
The data about the location of the diesel fuel tanks, pipes and generators is also accurate.
The data about the debris damage is accurate insofar as the area of the [I]initiating event is concerned.
I take the statements of the firefighters at face value unless there is clear reason to doubt them.
The only statement i have found to be false is the one about the 10 story gouge described on pg 18.
NIST does not say if it was a firefighter that made that statement.


If they couldn't find anything in the 6,000 photos they have withheld from the public for nearly 6 years, including 25 of the south east face, it is excessively doubtful they will, at this late date, discover anything significant.
Perhaps you believe they are so bloody incompetent that they missed vital information in those photographs in the two years they had to study them before releasing their 'preliminary' report.


I don't belong to any organizations.
I used to be a Democrat [until they rolled over and played dead last week :mad:]
but that does not qualify as an 'orginization'.

[BeAChooser]

Oh master of sophistry and point avoiding

Sophistry? There's nothing deceptive about my statements. And I've backed up everything I've claimed. What's deceptive is claiming that something is a quote by a firefighter when it fact you have nothing to support that assertion. What is deceptive is claiming the only damage to the building on the 9th floor was on the SW corner when a photo clearly shows a gaping hole just to the left of column #5. What is deceptive is claiming the members of ae911truth are qualified with regards to structures, demolition, impact, materials, fire and macro-world physics when you clearly can't support that claim. What is deceptive is ignoring the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse more than 6 seconds before the rest of the structure fell. What is deceptive is ignoring the fact that Jowenko says WTC1 and WTC2 were NOT controlled demolitions when I'm willing to bet you believe they were. No, Christopher ... the only master of sophistry around here is you.