10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 12

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 01:24 PM

Hey, just trying to change the pace and give you an out to talk about something else, since you have argued nothing but semantics with no real evidence since the OP.
Well, you had your chance. Now, perhaps you could name some names of firemen whose testimony support your theory and we'll compare it to the names of the firemen whose testimony supports ours.
Do you think we should disregard the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they didn't give the names of the firefighters?
Get serious.

Then we can gather up all the other evidence and testimony of that day and we can compare them side-by-side talk about how your evidence presented so far would stack up in a court of law.

I submit it would be destroyed the first day. How do you think your evidence would stand up in a formal court?Four statements refuting one statement and the total lack of evidence to back up that one statement would stand up in a court of law.

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 01:58 PM

Chris, you seem to be now obsessed with playing with words, and contesting things only because they weren't precisely, exactly as they were initially described. Where is this going to take this thread ? What's your point ?
There was no gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7.

We've seen the hole, we seem to agree that it could be the one described. Ergo we can just forget about the 10-floor one, assuming it is the same, and move on.I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.
Column 5 is not in the middle of the south side, the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

twinstead

24th June 2007, 02:02 PM

Four statements refuting one statement and the total lack of evidence to back up that one statement would stand up in a court of law.

So you say there's only ONE statement that supports our theory, and four that support yours????

Oh how I wish this could be tried in a court so I could rub your little arrogant nose in the results...

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 02:15 PM

So you say there's only ONE statement that supports our theory, and four that support yours????

Oh how I wish this could be tried in a court so I could rub your little arrogant nose in the results...
I was refering to the '10 story gouge' [as if you didn't know]

BeAChooser

24th June 2007, 02:28 PM

So, based on your photo analysis skills, you think the firefighter who

"walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, [and reported that] the only damage to the 9th floor facade was to the southwest corner"

is a liar.

Given what these photos show?

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_02.jpg

Yes. Or he was misquoted by the folks at FEMA (who didn't demonstrate all that much competence in this matter by the way). Or perhaps we just have a different view of what SW corner means. Hard to know which since we don't know the name of this supposed firefighter and that claim is found nowhere else.

It's amazing how you are willing to believe supposed statements from firefighters that are not named but ignore those from firefighters that actually are named.

In any case, since you don't want to tell us whether you think WTC1 and WTC2 were CDs, I'm curious whether you'll tell us whether you think the demolition of WTC 7 was pre-planned or something decided after the collapse of the towers?

cloudshipsrule

24th June 2007, 02:28 PM

I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.
Column 5 is not in the middle of the south side, the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

It's humorous how you type in an authoritative tone on this subject, almost as if you were at WTC7 the day of the attack as a photo-journalist. Well, were you there that day? Did you check out the building with your own peepers that day to assess damage before the collapse?

No? Then stop stating information as fact when you don't know for a fact that said information is in fact a fact. Got it?

My aunt, Molly, was there. She said there was a hole at least 78.3 feet wide from the 11th floor to the ground. She even saw a rat climbing around the hole looking for food, and saw the words "This is Floor #11 600V UL" on some cables that were exposed. (This is standard information found on important cables in expensive buildings, but you already knew that.) I know she wouldn't lie. Do you believe my aunt Molly?

twinstead

24th June 2007, 02:33 PM

Cloudshipsrule, you say 'authoritative tone' I say 'arrogant tone'

Tomayto, tomahto, I suppose. ;)

cloudshipsrule

24th June 2007, 02:37 PM

Is it 'pecan' or 'pecan'? :)

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 05:52 PM

Given what these photos show?

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_02.jpg

Yes. Or he was misquoted by the folks at FEMA (who didn't demonstrate all that much competence in this matter by the way). Or perhaps we just have a different view of what SW corner means. Hard to know which since we don't know the name of this supposed firefighter and that claim is found nowhere else.

It's amazing how you are willing to believe supposed statements from firefighters that are not named but ignore those from firefighters that actually are named.
I am not ignoring any statements.

None of the statements in Firehouse Magazine say there was a gouge floor 10 to the ground.

Boyle's dessription of a 20 story hole obviously NOT in the middle [column 8] of WTC 7 as this photo clearly shows.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

Will you guys ever run out of reasons to deny any evidence that you can't deal with?

Now you want to ignore, or consider less valid, all the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they did not name the fire fighters.

BTW, they did not name the person who said there was a 'gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor10 to the ground'.

Are you going to ignore, or consider that one less valid too?

twinstead

24th June 2007, 06:01 PM

Now you want to ignore, or consider less valid, all the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they did not name the fire fighters.

BTW, they did not name the person who said there was a 'gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor10 to the ground'.

Are you going to ignore, or consider that one less valid too?

Do you DARE accuse us of ignoring evidence that contradicts our positions?

You have some nerve! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 10:40 PM

stop stating information as fact when you don't know for a fact that said information is in fact a fact. Got it?
If you don't consider the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports to be factual, then how can you claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?

The NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is largely based on those statements.

Other than Chief Fellini, we don't know the names of the people who made the statements in the next post.

That includes the '10 story gouge, 40 to 60 feet wide' statement.

Here's a FACT

The hole to the left of column 5 is nowhere near the area of the initiating event.

Christopher7

24th June 2007, 10:41 PM

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.

Jonnyclueless

24th June 2007, 11:32 PM

I think Christopher is simply so used to how the truther sites only use testimony that supports their case and hide the testimony that doesn't support their case. When a legitimate source provides all the testimony regardless of conflict or not, this can be confusing.

And when someone comes from the mindset of trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion, such as the two sites do, it can seem suspicious to have conflicting testimony from the same source. As if it's some accident or that the source didn't realize it.

This also explains why the jump to conclusions when the report has not even been released yet.

Afterall, Prison Planet never had eyewitness testimony that conflicted. All their witnesses all heard "bombs", etc.

BeAChooser

25th June 2007, 01:35 PM

Christopher, I'm more than willing to admit there are inconsistencies in the descriptions of damage at WTC 7. The NIST report even admits this. So given the lack of clear images of the south side, we aren't going to resolve this at this time. So I'd like to delve into what you really believe happened. Do you believe the demolition of WTC 7 was pre-planned (i.e., planned and set up before the planes hit the towers) or a spur of the moment decision after the collapse of the towers (because of the damage to WTC 7) ... or something else? In other words, let's get to the heart of the matter.

Belz...

26th June 2007, 05:30 AM

No and No.

Well, if you keep changing your mind between posts, what's the point ?

It ain't necessarily so.

But you admitted it was a reasonable hypothesis.

Four witness statements do completely refute the 10 story gouge.

Actually, no, they don't. Thousands of witnesses would not "refute" reality.

Grow up

'Grow up' ? So grown ups can't use humour, is that it ? I suppose you think all parodies are childish, too ?

I take firefighters statements at face value unless there is reason to doubt them.

That's a clean path to being wrong, because "reason" to doubt them is based on your own personal preferences.

So, based on your photo analysis skills and a couple assumptions,

Nope. Just simple reasoning.

you think the firefighter who said

"the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner."

is a liar.

False dichotomy. I think he was wrong.

Words fail me.
So does logic and reason.

'Grow up'.

Belz...

26th June 2007, 05:40 AM

There was no gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7.

Yeah. I wasn't born at 20:29, either.

I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.

Good. Let's move on to the REAL hole, then.

the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

I thought we shouldn't make statements such as these without evidence ?

Belz...

26th June 2007, 05:41 AM

Will you guys ever run out of reasons to deny any evidence that you can't deal with?

You think that's what it's about ? Please stop trying to guess what's going on in other people's heads. You're very bad at it.

Christopher7

29th June 2007, 12:59 AM

I think Christopher is simply so used to how the truther sites only use testimony that supports their case and hide the testimony that doesn't support their case. When a legitimate source provides all the testimony regardless of conflict or not, this can be confusing.

What hidden testimony?

We have discussed Boyle's damage description.

Belz and i agree that Boyle was probably describing a '20 story hole' left of column 5 and not the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Do you know of any testimony that supports the single, unnamed source of the statement

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

?

Belz...

29th June 2007, 07:44 AM

Belz and i agree that Boyle was probably describing a '20 story hole' left of column 5 and not the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Actually I said he probably described the huge hole you can see in this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

Which seems to be the same hole as in this one:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6006)
But the upper stories of which were obscured by smoke from his point of view.

Get your opinions straight. And mine

BeAChooser

29th June 2007, 11:29 AM

Actually I said he probably described the huge hole you can see in this picture:

There are some great images of that hole here:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html

Christopher7

29th June 2007, 01:28 PM

Actually I said he probably described the huge hole you can see in this picture:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg

Which seems to be the same hole as in this one:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg
But the upper stories of which were obscured by smoke from his point of view.

Get your opinions straight. And mine
I have it straight.

The hole in the second picture is to the left of column 5.

The holes seen in the two photos are NOT the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7' described on pg 18.

slingblade

29th June 2007, 02:19 PM

Almost 3,000 posts, and still the argument does not progress.

(Walks down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

Is all that really--really--what you intended, Chris? Because it's about all we've had.

twinstead

29th June 2007, 03:20 PM

Is all that really--really--what you intended, Chris? Because it's about all we've had.

In actuality, when one holds an untenable position as fiercely as Chris does, that's about all one can do.

Jonnyclueless

29th June 2007, 03:40 PM

What hidden testimony?

We have discussed Boyle's damage description.

Belz and i agree that Boyle was probably describing a '20 story hole' left of column 5 and not the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Do you know of any testimony that supports the single, unnamed source of the statement

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

?

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?

JimBenArm

29th June 2007, 04:56 PM

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?
Actually, there is a point. It's taken me a while to figure it out, but here it is.
ChristopherA is famous for having the longest thread here by a person named Christopher. Christopher7 is jealous, and wants that title for himself. So, until this thread exceeds that of ChristopherA, it will continue.

DGM

29th June 2007, 07:32 PM

I wonder if he'll keep this up until the final report comes out. Why again is he arguing this from the interim report?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Christopher7

29th June 2007, 10:47 PM

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?
There are 4 statements in conflict with the one [unnamed source] statement about a 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

You banter on about cherry picking but you have posted no statements or other evidence to support the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.

Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence.

There was NO gouge, floor 10 to the ground, as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

Christopher7

29th June 2007, 11:48 PM

I wonder if he'll keep this up until the final report comes out. Why again is he arguing this from the interim report?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html
Because the release final report just got postponed again. Now they are saying "the end of the year".

The FACT that the 10 story gouge would have left a 60 to 80 foot wide pile of heavy debris in the lobby is not going to change.

The FACT that it would have taken out much of the atrium [ground to floor 5] is not going to change.

The statement of the firefighter who reported "the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner" is not going to change.

The Chief of operations at WTC 7 reported "steel ripped out between the 3rd and 6th floors"

None of this will change in the ever elusive 'Final' report.

You desire to ignore existing evidence in the interim report [and elsewhere] that there was 'No 10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] until the final report comes out,
yet you believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F based on that same 'interim' report.

Jonnyclueless

30th June 2007, 12:05 AM

There are 4 statements in conflict with the one [unnamed source] statement about a 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

You banter on about cherry picking but you have posted no statements or other evidence to support the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.

Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence.

There was NO gouge, floor 10 to the ground, as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

So let me get this straight. The number of arguments determines the validity? Is there a mathematical formula for that? It could also be that 4 people are wrong and 1 is right. Or it could be that they are all wrong. Or it could be that they are all right. Take your pick. Obviously you already did. And instead of considering them all and waiting for the real analysis, you have already decided exactly what happened. You just found an easy way to try and dismiss what you don't want to hear rather than consider the possibilities. You wlaready know what you want to believe, so what does it matter?

And when the final report comes out, you will do the same thing. You will look at the contradicting reports (of which there will be ) and use it so you can simply pick the evidence you want to use. Just like you carefully hand worded this thread so you could guide the conversation into a direction that you wanted it to lead into rather than an actual discussion. No having to deal with the onslaught of even greater contradictions in your proposals when you weed that conversation out and go on a mindless banter over simple opinion that you want to try to somehow convince everyone else is fact.

Simply saying there was no gouge does not make it true, no matter how dishonest you are with yourself. And if there wasn't it also does not in any way mean the building could not have collapsed without explosives. And these guys who sure know a lot more than you would certainly be able to detect that.

Oh but let me guess your answer for that outcome: They're all in on it and paid to say such things. Right? Just like those magical explosives which somehow just left no evidence either. Yes, so long as you simply limit the topic of discussion you don't have to be held responsible for your claims and you can use empty rhetoric to make up for it such as:

"Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence."

While again quoting one page and ignoring others.

Stop ignoring the evidence begin used to refute opinion.

Christopher7

30th June 2007, 12:49 AM

So let me get this straight. The number of arguments determines the validity? Is there a mathematical formula for that? It could also be that 4 people are wrong and 1 is right.
Not in this case.

Or it could be that they are all wrong. Or it could be that they are all right. Take your pick. Obviously you already did. And instead of considering them all and waiting for the real analysis, you have already decided exactly what happened. You just found an easy way to try and dismiss what you don't want to hear rather than consider the possibilities. You wlaready know what you want to believe, so what does it matter?Talk to yourself much?

I did not know that the 10 story gouge OTers kept talking about was a misrepresentation of the facts until i read the NIST report and found two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

And when the final report comes out, you will do the same thing. You will look at the contradicting reports (of which there will be ) and use it so you can simply pick the evidence you want to use. I have listed ALL the statements concerning the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to have been.

Simply saying there was no gouge does not make it trueThe 4 statements that are in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge make it true.

"Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence."

While again quoting one page and ignoring others.

Stop ignoring the evidence begin used to refute opinion.You keep saying i'm ignoring evidence. Where is it?

Post your evidence if you have any.

BeAChooser

30th June 2007, 02:26 AM

Belz...

30th June 2007, 06:11 AM

I have it straight.

The hole in the second picture is to the left of column 5.

The holes seen in the two photos are NOT the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7' described on pg 18.

They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger.

DGM

30th June 2007, 07:30 AM

yet you believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F based on that same 'interim' report.

Actually because it is only an interim report I tend to lean more toward the eyewitness reports. The majority of which point away from any form of controlled demolition.
Besides the fact that I have not heard a single convincing argument as to WHY the building was destroyed.

Christopher7

30th June 2007, 01:56 PM

So Christopher ... do you believe the demolition of WTC 7 was pre-planned (i.e., planned and set up before the planes hit the towers) or a spur of the moment decision after the collapse of the towers (because of the damage to WTC 7) ... or something else? Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue.
The issue in this thread is the lack of evidence for the official theory.

There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.
There are 4 statements in conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is evidence that there was no fire in the NE generator room.

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

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fires causing a core column to fail.
There is evidence that vertical support columns are not significantly affected by severe fire exposure.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2704131#post2704131

The 'Final report' has been delayed until the end of the year.
So now you can say "wait for the final report" for another six months.

OTers want to ignore all existing evidence that disproves the 'official hypothesis' until the 'final report' comes out while, at the same time, quoting any statements they believe support that hypothesis.

BeAChooser

30th June 2007, 07:02 PM

Jonnyclueless

30th June 2007, 07:49 PM

Not in this case.

Talk to yourself much?

I did not know that the 10 story gouge OTers kept talking about was a misrepresentation of the facts until i read the NIST report and found two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

I have listed ALL the statements concerning the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to have been.

The 4 statements that are in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge make it true.

You keep saying i'm ignoring evidence. Where is it?

Post your evidence if you have any.

Not in any case and apparently you indeed like to talk to yourself. At least you finally got the point.

So statements were in contradiction with each other, and you have this magical power to know which one is the correct one. I see. What kind of magic would this be?

4 statements in contradiction to 1 do not make it true. Once again, please tell me what is the mathematical formula you say doesn't exist in this case, but clearly are using to make such an absurd claim. is it 4:1? Is it 2:1? And as always, you are ignoring the fact that they could all be right and they could all be wrong. You're merely assuming the one you want is right.

Where is the rest of the evidence? In the rest of the report that you conveniently want no one to discuss.

Jonnyclueless

30th June 2007, 07:51 PM

The issue in this thread is the lack of evidence for the official theory.

There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.
There are 4 statements in conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is evidence that there was no fire in the NE generator room.

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

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fires causing a core column to fail.
There is evidence that vertical support columns are not significantly affected by severe fire exposure.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2704131#post2704131

The 'Final report' has been delayed until the end of the year.
So now you can say "wait for the final report" for another six months.

OTers want to ignore all existing evidence that disproves the 'official hypothesis' until the 'final report' comes out while, at the same time, quoting any statements they believe support that hypothesis.

I think you just summed it all up. There has been no "official theory" yet and you are already saying it's wrong. Far be it for you to wait for the facts to come in, you already made your decision.

The rest of us will wait for there to actually BE an "official story" so we can make a proper assessment instead of hopefuly guessing such as yourself.

And you will continue to ignore all the evidence that proves your claims wrong and continue to avoid any conversation that makes it painfully obvious.

Christopher7

30th June 2007, 10:56 PM

4 statements in contradiction to 1 do not make it true. Once again, please tell me what is the mathematical formula you say doesn't exist in this case, but clearly are using to make such an absurd claim. is it 4:1?
4>1
....they could all be rightThat would be impossible as the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby and taken out much of the atrium glass.

and they could all be wrong.
The firefighters who were leading people out of the building gave a very detailed report of what they observed.

There is NO reason to doubt the accuracy of what they reported.

You're merely assuming the one you want is right.[/quote]

No, the [B]3 statements of professional firefighters and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.

Where is the rest of the evidence? Here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2717417#post2717417

If you have any other evidence or statements to offer, please do so.

Jonnyclueless

1st July 2007, 12:06 AM

4>1
That would be impossible as the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby and taken out much of the atrium glass.

The firefighters who were leading people out of the building gave a very detailed report of what they observed.

There is NO reason to doubt the accuracy of what they reported.

You're merely assuming the one you want is right.

No, the [B]3 statements of professional firefighters and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.

Here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2717417#post2717417

If you have any other evidence or statements to offer, please do so.[/QUOTE]

So 4:1 is the formula? If there are 4 witnesses, they overrule one? Or is it a smaller number?

No it would not be impossible for them to all be right. They could be reporting the building from different points of time. The damage could have changed over the course of the 7 hours, so the ones contradicting the gash, could have been reported before it existed.

And what you mean is that the firefighters who tell you what you want to hear give a very detailed description, and the ones who don't help you, don't give a detailed description.

There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the people who tell you what you want to hear. And the people who counter what you want to hear are all to be dismissed based on the people who tell you what you want to hear. You're pretty easy to figure out, no question about that.

I on the other hand am not assuming anyone is right or wrong, only YOU are. And not only that, you are trying to present it as fact rather than your biased opinion that it is.

And as has already been pointed out, the source that you don't want to listen to was not unnamed, it was also a firefighter. AND there were many, they just aren't all listed in that report, which is not a final or official one.

Once again, if you want that evidence, you can go back and read it. But why bother, it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. But sooner or later you will have to be honest with yourself.

BeAChooser

1st July 2007, 11:07 AM

No, the 3 statements of professional firefighters [/SIZE][/SIZE]and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.

Shouldn't that principle also apply to what demolition experts SEE in viewing videos and images of what happened that day? Seems to me the number of demolition experts who say the structures were not CD's far outnumber those who do. Same goes for structural engineers. So, Christopher, are you ready to concede that the collapse of the towers and WTC 7 were NOT controlled demolitions ... using the principle you've cited above? ROTFLOL!

Christopher7

1st July 2007, 01:01 PM

[quote]No it would not be impossible for them to all be right. They could be reporting the building from different points of time. The damage could have changed over the course of the 7 hours, so the ones contradicting the gash, could have been reported before it existed. The debris damage did not change after the collapse of WTC 1.

There were NO reports of collapses.

We are debating the existence of a '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide'.

There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the people who tell you what you want to hear. And the people who counter what you want to hear are all to be dismissedI have dismissed no one.
Please list one person whose statement supports the '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18, or stop making that claim.

And as has already been pointed out, the source that you don't want to listen to was not unnamed, it was also a firefighter.If you mean Boyle, he described a '20 story hole', not 'the 10 story gouge' in question.

Christopher7

1st July 2007, 01:07 PM

They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger.
They are NOT the 10 story gouge described on pg 18.

They are well to the east of the middle of WTC 7.

Jonnyclueless

1st July 2007, 01:24 PM

[quote=Jonnyclueless;2733175]

The debris damage did not change after the collapse of WTC 1.

There were NO reports of collapses.

We are debating the existence of a '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide'.

I have dismissed no one.
Please list one person whose statement supports the '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18, or stop making that claim.

If you mean Boyle, he described a '20 story hole', not 'the 10 story gouge' in question.

A building struck by tons of falling building and burning for 7 hours and the damage did not change? And you know this how? Right, because it hurts your story to acknowledge a common occurrence of a damaged and burning building.

Oh right, we're debating the existence of a hole, because without that hole the burning building could not possible collapse right? And because this somehow proves your demolition claims which have no evidence what so ever, but we're not allowed to talk about since doing so puts a big dent in your claims.

One person? Sure. Capt. Chris Boyle. Now stop making false counter claims as this has been repeatedly pointed out despite your continual denial.

Do you think he sat there and counted each floor one at a time? Or do you think he, like all other witnesses just tried to remember to the best of their recollection? Just like the 4 who you say conflict with that testimony. Once again, they could all be wrong, or they could all be right.

Your argument is getting really tired, as is your attempt to curb the focus of discussion so as to not have to take responsibility for your claims and attempts to present your personal opinions as factual. We can do this for as long as you want, but sooner or later you are going to have to start being honest. Until then, continue the futility and we will go in an endless circle.

BeAChooser

1st July 2007, 04:12 PM

Notice how Christopher7 has suddenly decided to ignore my posts and the questions I am asking? ROTFLOL!

Christopher7

2nd July 2007, 01:47 AM

Oh right, we're debating the existence of a hole, because without that hole the burning building could not possible collapse right? And because this somehow proves your demolition claims No

I am just looking at the evidence and discovering

there is NO evidence that the debris damage had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event

One person? Sure. Capt. Chris Boyle.
Do you think he sat there and counted each floor one at a time? Or do you think he, like all other witnesses just tried to remember to the best of their recollection? Just like the 4 who you say conflict with that testimony.
Lets look at the statements

NIST Apx. L pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

- Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8

- Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on floor 7 just before leaving

- 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

[This a detailed report.
Do you think the firefighters got it all wrong or just the part about "no heavy debris in the lobby" ?]

"noted that the atrium glass was still intact"

[This was "noted" for a reason, clarity.]

Capt. Chris Boyle
Firehouse Magazine

".....on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall...."

"It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Either he remembered the hole as being twice as large as the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18, or he was describing damage that occurred elsewhere.

A gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 1/3 the width, in the middle of WTC would take out everything within the purple line.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9941/copyof3al2.jpg

The atrium [ground to floor 5] is the area between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right. [Spak columns 9 - 12]

About a third of it, right in the middle of it would have taken out most of the atrium glass.

Do you think the person who "noted that the atrium glass was still intact" was lying?

Do you think the Chief of operations, whose job it was to assess the damage, didn't notice a 10 story gouge, 1/3 the width of the building?

Do you also think that the firefighter who said "the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner was lying?

Christopher7

2nd July 2007, 01:53 AM

Notice how Christopher7 has suddenly decided to ignore my posts and the questions I am asking? ROTFLOL!
This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7.

If you want to discuss CD, please post your questions here:

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

Dog Town

2nd July 2007, 02:04 AM

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7.

If you want to discuss CD, please post your questions here:

So it begs the question, if not CD, where are you going with this?

Christopher7

2nd July 2007, 03:34 AM

So it begs the question, if not CD, where are you going with this?
Reading the government reports said to support the claims that "WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F", i have found that there is no evidence to support the claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, nor is there any evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

The hypothesis "the initiating event, vertical progression, horizontal progression, total collapse" has some problems.

Christopher7

2nd July 2007, 03:36 AM

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.

Columns are attached to at least 2 floors in all directions as well as up and down. Floor beams are not as big as the girders between the columns and and the connections from beam to girder are not as strong as the ones connecting the girders to the columns.

The floor beams would tear away from the girders and columns.
They would not tear the columns away from the girders on 2 floors.

DGM

2nd July 2007, 05:35 AM

Reading the government reports said to support the claims that "WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F", i have found that there is no evidence to support the claim that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7, nor is there any evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

The hypothesis "the initiating event, vertical progression, horizontal progression, total collapse" has some problems.

Just out of curiosity, Have you contacted NIST and explained were they are going wrong. The investigation is still open and you seem to know something they don't. I have included the email address for you.
inquiries@nist.gov

Belz...

2nd July 2007, 06:15 AM

They are NOT the 10 story gouge described on pg 18.

They are well to the east of the middle of WTC 7.

Chris, try to slow down, read why I post, and attempt to understand the meaning.

I said: "They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger."

I'm aware it's not dead-center, and I'm aware it's larger than 10 stories. But it could still be the hole that was described. There could be any number of reasons why the descriptions do not precisely match reality, as in ANY EYEWITNESS report.

Belz...

2nd July 2007, 06:19 AM

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.

It's a very reasonable assumption given the evidence that we DO have.

If you think that sentence above supports your CD theory, then you have no ability to make a logical discourse.

There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

Other fires have not fell steel buildings ? Yes they have.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

Didn't that one have a concrete core ?

The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

You know, I'd really love it if you twoofers stopped comparing apples to oranges.

BeAChooser

2nd July 2007, 08:29 AM

Christopher7 wrote: "The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours."

Didn't that one have a concrete core ?

There were many significant differences between the Meridian Plaza fire and the WTC fires ... differences that *truthers* seem intent on ignoring.

The United States Fire Administration Technical Report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf) states "this fire was finally stopped when it reached a floor where automatic sprinklers had been installed." There were not automatic sprinklers working in the WTC fire.

The Meridian fires again happened on floors that were much lower than the fires in the WTC towers. So firefighters and their hoses could more easily get access to the fires. Even so, exhaustion of the firefighters from climbing the stairwells "was a problem for the duration of the incident."

And again, the fires spread relatively slowly compared to the WTC tower fires.

Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that.

The fire protection coatings on the steel members in this building were intact. The report states the building columns had a 3 hour rating and there was a 2 hour rating on horizontal beams and floor/ceiling systems. The fire on each floor generally exhausted itself in those times. Even so, the report suggests they had some reason to be concerned.

The report states "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."

The reports states "Prior to deciding to evacuate the building, firefighters noticed significant structural displacement occurring in the stair enclosures. A command officer indicated that cracks large enough to place a man’s fist through developed at one point. One of the granite exterior wall panels on the east stair enclosure was dislodged by the thermal expansion of the steel framing behind it. After the fire, there was evident 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 fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

Fortunately, the construction of the Meridian tower was significantly different than that of the WTC towers. The floors didn't come loose from the columns. So the columns retained their integrity from buckling. And that's the most importance difference.

As noted in http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html "In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor)." Remove that restrain, as happened in the WTC towers, and the strength of the columns falls dramatically. Funny how *truthers*, like Christopher7, fail to understand that.

BeAChooser

2nd July 2007, 11:23 AM

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7.

If you want to discuss CD, please post your questions here

Very well:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2736259#post2736259

Christopher7

3rd July 2007, 01:25 AM

I said: "They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger."

I'm aware it's not dead-center, and I'm aware it's larger than 10 stories. But it could still be the hole that was described. There could be any number of reasons why the descriptions do not precisely match reality, as in ANY EYEWITNESS report.
The first photo you posted shows damage where the
"Roof and Upper Level Debris Damage" occurred [between columns 5 and 6] and the second photo shows a
"large debris hole near the center of the south face around floor 14".
The damage below the large hole around floor 14 is to the left of column 5.

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

Is consistent with:

The inner area of the "Approximate region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" is about 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the larger area is about 1/3 the width.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

Belz...

3rd July 2007, 06:39 AM

Okay, Chris. Did you have a point, there ?

Christopher7

3rd July 2007, 12:07 PM

Okay, Chris. Did you have a point, there ?
The debris damage in the photos you posted is NOT the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' described on pg 18 and shown in the NIST graphic i posted.

simakperrce

3rd July 2007, 04:32 PM

Chris, why was Building 7 imploded?

Christopher7

3rd July 2007, 10:19 PM

Christopher7 wrote: "The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours."

There were many significant differences between the Meridian Plaza fire and the WTC fires.
The United States Fire Administration Technical Report on the One Meridian Plaza fire (http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf) states "this fire was finally stopped when it reached a floor where automatic sprinklers had been installed." There were not automatic sprinklers working in the WTC fire.So what?
The Meridian burned out of control for 19 hours before the sprinkler system put it out.

WTC 7 collapsed after burning out of control for 7 hours.

The Meridian fires again happened on floors that were much lower than the fires in the WTC towers. So firefighters and their hoses could more easily get access to the fires. Even so, exhaustion of the firefighters from climbing the stairwells "was a problem for the duration of the incident."
And again, the fires spread relatively slowly compared to the WTC tower fires.Did you just subject shift to the Trade Towers?

Even so, the report states "After more than 11 hours of uncontrolled fire growth and spread, interior firefighting efforts were abandoned due to the risk of structural collapse." Now they must have had some reason to be concerned about that.A structural engineer thought the building was in danger of collapse.
They pulled their people out of the building.
It did not collapse.

When firefighters die, Fire Chiefs feel personally responsible and they are not willing put other firefighters at any unnecessary risk.

http://www.firetactics.com/meridian.pdf
The reports states After the fire, there was evident 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 fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.

Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

Fortunately, the construction of the Meridian tower was significantly different than that of the WTC towers. The floors didn't come loose from the columns. So the columns retained their integrity from buckling. And that's the most importance difference.Double talk. NIST did not say the floors came loose from the columns.
pg 36 [40 on pg counter]
"there must have been a component or group of components that failed first"

As noted in http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html "In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor)."

Remove that restrain, as happened in the WTC towers, and the strength of the columns falls dramatically.We are discussing WTC 7, not the Trade Towers.

BeAChooser

3rd July 2007, 11:03 PM

So what?
The Meridian burned out of control for 19 hours before the sprinkler system put it out.

So if there had been no sprinkler system, the implication is that the fire would have continued burning, totally gutting the structure. And perhaps at some point in that process, steel might have begun to actually fail as it did in the Madrid fire.

Did you just subject shift to the Trade Towers?

Are you trying to compare apples and oranges? The structural system in the Meridian tower wasn't at all similar to that in WTC7. It was VERY different. For example, engineers are on the record saying that the cantilevered design of WTC7 was problematic and may have lead to the failure of the building. Also, diesel fuel may have fed the fires causing members to experience heat loads for much longer periods then any given member in the Meridian tower saw.

Double talk. NIST did not say the floors came loose from the columns.

They don't know what happened in WTC 7, and neither do you. You can't even tell us why the east penthouse collapsed (oh wait, your theory is premature detonation of the explosives???). As far at the towers are concerned, if the floors didn't come loose, how do you explain the severe sagging of the floors noted through the windows in photos shortly before the collapse of the towers?

Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members,

First, there are no similar fires to WTC7. The Meridian Plaza fire was fought by firefighters almost every step of the way. WTC7 was not. The structural design of WTC7 is very different from any of the other high-rise fires you can name. None of the other fires had large quantities of diesel fuel present with a system to pump that fuel higher into the building even when the power was down to the building. The other buildings were not damaged by tons of falling debris. And finally, if columns are the least vulnerable structural member, why did the collapse of the WTC towers apparently occur because the perimeter columns failed?

Jonnyclueless

4th July 2007, 12:15 AM

Can anyone tell me how large the building was that collapsed onto the Meridian?

Belz...

4th July 2007, 05:30 AM

The debris damage in the photos you posted is NOT the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' described on pg 18 and shown in the NIST graphic i posted.

That's what I keep saying, Chris. Please pay attention. The REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?

DGM

4th July 2007, 06:15 AM

Chris;
The Mariden is not a very good example for you. A large portion of the building DID collapse and within a few hours. The building construction was also quite different and it was 15 storeys shorter. Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

BeAChooser

4th July 2007, 10:01 AM

Chris;
The Mariden is not a very good example for you.

Actually, the case you cite is the Windsor Tower, not the Meridian Plaza. But it is interesting how Christopher wants to ignore the Windsor Tower case.

DGM

4th July 2007, 10:06 AM

Actually, the case you cite is the Windsor Tower, not the Meridian Plaza. But it is interesting how Christopher wants to ignore the Windsor Tower case.
Wow! My bad it was early.

Windsor is a case I'm sure he doesn't like.

Christopher7

7th July 2007, 02:32 AM

So if there had been no sprinkler system, the implication is that the fire would have continued burning, totally gutting the structure. And perhaps at some point in that process, steel might have begun to actually fail as it did in the Madrid fire.
Probably not.

The Caracas Towers did not have a sprinkler system. The fire burned to the roof and gutted much of the building.

It did not collapse.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/8092/648pmdw1.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/342/madridwindsortk8.jpg

The light weight perimeter columns on the upper 10 floors of the Windsor Tower were much smaller than the massive core columns in WTC 7.

Windsor perimeter column:
120mm [4.75 inches] square x 7mm [1/4 inch] thick
18 pounds per lineal foot
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

WTC 7 core columns:
Built up 14 inch wide flange I beams
730 pounds per lineal foot
[see NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 14 [17 - 18 on pg counter]

slingblade

7th July 2007, 04:20 AM

You can't take two different incidents that have certain things in common, but not others, and say they should have had similar results.

FactCheck

7th July 2007, 06:23 AM

You can't take two different incidents that have certain things in common, but not others, and say they should have had similar results.http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

BeAChooser

7th July 2007, 11:58 AM

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

Thank you for posting my response to Christopher.

Christopher7

7th July 2007, 10:00 PM

You can't take two different incidents that have certain things in common, but not others, and say they should have had similar results.Correct ..... but ........ where did i say that?

I was indicating just the opposite.

WTC 7 should have a different result because the core columns in WTC 7 were 40 times as massive as the perimeter columns in the Windsor Tower.

slingblade

8th July 2007, 03:54 AM

....a building fell on the Windsor?

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 03:58 PM

That's what I keep saying, Chris. Please pay attention. The REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?Just to be clear, by the 'reported hole' do you mean the

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

as described in NIST Apx. L pg 18 and depicted in the graphic on pg 31 as
'Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris'

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

is actually further west, around column 5 as seen in the photos you posted?

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 09:37 PM

....a building fell on the Windsor?
A building fell on WTC 7 ?

There was a lot of damage to the south west side if WTC 7 but:

There is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the
initiating event

Belz...

9th July 2007, 05:42 AM

Just to be clear, by the 'reported hole' do you mean the

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

as described in NIST Apx. L pg 18 and depicted in the graphic on pg 31 as
'Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris'

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg

is actually further west, around column 5 as seen in the photos you posted?

Seems like it, doesn't it ? Of course, my point is that:

the REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?

There is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the
initiating event

And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.

Christopher7

13th July 2007, 12:59 AM

Seems like it, doesn't it ? Of course, my point is that:

the REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?

OK, we agree the 'gouge' was further west and the damage in the graphic i posted "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" is a misrepresentation of the actual damage.

And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.We agree

Jonnyclueless

13th July 2007, 01:45 AM

A building fell on WTC 7 ?

There was a lot of damage to the south west side if WTC 7 but:

There is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the
initiating event

Funny, no evidence of explosives either. But yet when it comes to that, you have no problem. Isn't that funny?

slingblade

13th July 2007, 02:27 AM

And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.

That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?

I'm so confused by your arguments, Chris. I just keep seeing a rehash of "if they got this part wrong in the report, then there must have been CD." I know that's boiling your argument down to near-absurdity, but that is, essentially, what you seem to argue.

And it's a crap way to argue. Not ad homming you, but the argumentative style. Instead of concentrating on what isn't said, what isn't shown, what isn't proven, and calling that evidence of CD, you really need to be showing positive evidence of CD.

I don't care if there was or was not any debris in the lobby. While that shows me something's been missed, it doesn't show me that bombs went off.

Show me the bombs. Show me positive evidence of bombs that isn't "this wasn't there, so bombs must have been used."

Belz...

13th July 2007, 05:33 AM

That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?

I suppose you can only deny for so long that someone else's position pretty much coincides with reality. Seems Chris has reached that point.

Christopher7

13th July 2007, 01:45 PM

That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?
I have been saying that the debris damage did not have any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
You and Belz agree that it doesn't seem crutial.

I'm so confused by your arguments, Chris. I just keep seeing a rehash of "if they got this part wrong in the report, then there must have been CD." I know that's boiling your argument down to near-absurdity, but that is, essentially, what you seem to argue.
No

This thread is not about proving CD, it is about the facts related to the 'WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F' hypothesis.

twinstead

13th July 2007, 01:52 PM

This thread is not about proving CD, it is about the facts related to the 'WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F' hypothesis.

Perhaps, but the usual technique of debate for a conspiracy theorist is to find tiny and sometimes irrelevant points (and in this case a preliminary report) to discredit in whole what is considered for the most part by real experts a credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 and then shoehorn their unsupported pet theories in the little holes they try to create.

We know you believe in CD. CD is your little unsupported pet theory you will eventually get around to trying to insert in all your little holes.

It's obvious to all; since you could never 'prove' CD, this is your way of trying to slip it in by default.

It's almost as if you think we've never seen it done before.

Christopher7

13th July 2007, 01:59 PM

Funny, no evidence of explosives either. But yet when it comes to that, you have no problem. Isn't that funny?
[bolding mine]

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

Evidence for explosives is being discussed on the C7 --- C4 thread.

Christopher7

13th July 2007, 02:39 PM

Perhaps, but the usual technique of debate for a conspiracy theorist is to find tiny and sometimes irrelevant points (and in this case a preliminary report)
The fact that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event is very relevant.

NIST had two years to gather all the relevant facts regarding the debris damage and fires in WTC7. They have 25 pictures of the south east side of WTC7. If there was any evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event, they would have included it in the 'preliminary report'.

If NIST could now say that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage, they would have released their report in the spring as they projected.
Instead, they have postponed it again until the end of the year.

to discredit in whole what is considered for the most part by real experts a credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7There are 'experts' on both sides of this issue.

It's obvious to all; since you could never 'prove' CD, I disagree

this is your way of trying to slip it in by default.
I disagree with your terminology "slip it in by default" but you are essentially correct.

The fires that burned out of control in WTC 7 were not sufficient to cause a core column [that weighed 730 pounds per foot] to collapse.

slingblade

13th July 2007, 02:55 PM

I have been saying that the debris damage did not have any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event. You and Belz agree that it doesn't seem crutial.

Okay, but I want to be quite clear about a couple of things:

First, I'm no scientist--I'm a word-person. I'm very good at language. I do have more basic scientific knowledge than it seems the average high-school graduate ( +/- a few years) does, but I'm still no scientist. My opinions aren't worth much, scientifically.

And second, my position is thus: There was significant debris damage to WTC 7, caused by the collapse of one or both WTC towers. This debris did damage the structure, and also caused fires, which were fed by many fuel sources within the building. The initiating event referred to in the Appendix report was the fire, caused by this debris. Therefore, in differing ways, both events are significant, since the fire wouldn't have happened without the debris.

As to whether the debris damage contributed in other, significant ways to the collapse....frankly, I'd have to read the appendix again to be certain just what it says, and I haven't time at the moment. (I get to go see Harry Potter! :D) I think it does suggest this, however, and as I recall, I was comfortable with the reasoning and evidence.

This thread is not about proving CD, it is about the facts related to the 'WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F' hypothesis.

I think this interim report does an adequate job of explaining that hypothesis.

twinstead

13th July 2007, 03:25 PM

There are 'experts' on both sides of this issue.

Perhaps, but many of the experts' expertise on your side are dubious, and I would bet money that the vast majority of 'experts' world-wide would support my position over yours.

Regardless, if this conspiracy of yours, this CD, is SO obvious, how do you account for so many experts who fail to see it? There are experts from around the world who have studied the entire event. Where are the droves of them coming forward and demanding answers? Since I don't have the expertise personally to judge for myself by simply looking at videos (you obviously think you do, though) the consensus of experts while not everything is a very important part of my personal understanding of the event.

I disagree I know you think you can prove CD. What I am saying that no matter what you think, IMO and in the opinion of quite a few experts, you cannot.

I disagree with your terminology "slip it in by default" but you are essentially correct.I would assume you would disagree with my terminology. By 'slip it in by default' I mean of course you would try to pass off some untenable theory as the winner by default just because you find a couple small holes in an otherwise totally supportable theory that just cannot be right in your mind because your world view precludes anything BUT conspiracy.

Jonnyclueless

13th July 2007, 04:38 PM

[bolding mine]

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

Evidence for explosives is being discussed on the C7 --- C4 thread.

How do you know there is no evidence? The report has not been released. You are simply assuming there isn't. Unlike you the rest of us have not made judgment on the exact cause of the collapse or how it initiated. And we're not discussing evidence for explosives remember? We're talking about double standards being used in this thread.

Christopher7

13th July 2007, 11:37 PM

There was significant debris damage to WTC 7, caused by the collapse of one or both WTC towers. This debris did damage the structure, and also caused fires, which were fed by many fuel sources within the building. The initiating event referred to in the Appendix report was the fire, caused by this debris. Therefore, in differing ways, both events are significant, since the fire wouldn't have happened without the debris.
I'm with you so far.

As to whether the debris damage contributed in other, significant ways to the collapse....frankly, I'd have to read the appendix again to be certain just what it says, and I haven't time at the moment. (I get to go see Harry Potter! :D) I think it does suggest this, however, and as I recall, I was comfortable with the reasoning and evidence.At your suggestion, i've been re-reading "Collapse Initiation Scenarios"
On pg 36 - 40 [40 - 44 on pg counter]

pg 38, I4.2
"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. ............ This column ... would be approachingts its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.

As the report states, 4 floors would have to collapse all around a column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to more than 500 C, before it failed.

This would have to happen before the vertical progression could begin.

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 06:08 AM

How do you know there is no evidence? The report has not been released. You are simply assuming there isn't.

The had 2 years to gather the evidence of what happened for the 'interim report'.

They had no evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event as of June 2004.

Do you think they missed something critical?

They have photographs of the south east side of WTC 7.

What makes you think they will find evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event at this late date?

The 'final report' has been delayed another six months because they have not as yet been able to demonstrate, with any certainty, that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

Unlike you the rest of us have not made judgment on the exact cause of the collapse or how it initiated.Maybe not the 'exact' cause of how it was initiated, but you have made up your mind that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

DGM

14th July 2007, 06:23 AM

The 'final report' has been delayed another six months because they have not as yet been able to demonstrate, with any certainty, that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

Do you have information on the delay that no one else has?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

twinstead

14th July 2007, 09:22 AM

Maybe not the 'exact' cause of how it was initiated, but you have made up your mind that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

And you have made up your mind that CD caused the collapse of the WTC7. So?

I believe the evidence doesn't support you. You disagree. We shall see.

I would LOVE to see you present your case to a court of law, or some kind of official inquiry.

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 01:56 PM

And you have made up your mind that CD caused the collapse of the WTC7. So?

I believe the evidence doesn't support you. You disagree. We shall see.

I would LOVE to see you present your case to a court of law, or some kind of official inquiry.I would also like to see the evidence presented in a court of law, however, it's not my evidence, it's the evidence.

You cannot dispute the fact that the massive core columns were capable of supporting several stories without any bracing.

Fires would have to burn very hot, for a long time, on 4 contiguous floors to cause the floor beams and girders to fail all around a column and heat that column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to greater than 500 C.

These fires would have to burn all around column 79, 80 and/or 81 for hours, without spreading to the north and east exterior walls.

The columns in WTC 7 were larger than the ones in the Meridian Plaza because there were fewer of them.
The support columns in the Meridian Plaza suffered no apparent damage despite the extraordinary exposure.

Alferd_Packer

14th July 2007, 02:05 PM

You cannot dispute the fact that the massive core columns were capable of supporting several stories without any bracing.

Oh, I think I can.

First you have to define what you mean by bracing.

Are you taling about bracing against lateral racking movements?

Are you talking about bracing against buckling?

Be a little more precise, please

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 10:54 PM

Oh, I think I can.

First you have to define what you mean by bracing.

Are you taling about bracing against lateral racking movements?

Are you talking about bracing against buckling?

Be a little more precise, please
Please see the quote from Apx. L in post 2846

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 04:27 PM

Do you have information on the delay that no one else has?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.htmlNo

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 11:06 PM

Regardless, if this conspiracy of yours, [you talk like i'm the only one saying this] this CD, is SO obvious, how do you account for so many experts who fail to see it? There are experts from around the world who have studied the entire event.
Would you please list some of these experts or did you just make that up.

Christopher7

16th July 2007, 12:25 AM

FWIW

NIST Apx. L pg 38, [42 on pg counter] I4.2

"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. ............ This column ... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.
[emphasis mine]

As the report states, 4 floors would have to collapse all around a core column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to more than 500 C, before it failed.

This would have to happen before the vertical progression could begin.

Jonnyclueless

16th July 2007, 12:54 AM

It's a pointless argument since the findings and data are not out yet. It's a persona who is making assumptions arguing against people who want to see all the data first. So for now it's pretty much debating opinion, something no one here cares to do, except for conspiracy theorists.

But of course al the worlds structural engineers are all keeping quiet about this obvious cover up because they're all afraid of losing their jobs right?

Belz...

16th July 2007, 08:02 AM

I have been saying that the debris damage did not have any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
You and Belz agree that it doesn't seem crutial.

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

Indeed. We also seem to agree that fires started by the debris could have SPREAD to the area of the initiating event.

Belz...

16th July 2007, 08:05 AM

There are 'experts' on both sides of this issue.

Yes. 10,000 to one. Very impressive.

I disagree with your terminology "slip it in by default" but you are essentially correct.

False dichotomy.

twinstead

16th July 2007, 10:38 AM

Would you please list some of these experts or did you just make that up.

Oh, I forgot. Part of your particular fantasy is to suggest that the only reasons why the majority of CD experts on Earth hasn't come out and questioned the official story is because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

You find nothing wrong with the crickets chirping in the world of CD experts concerning the WTC because you have built into your (and by YOUR I mean the minority view that you hold concerning CD) little theory a nice little out to explain it.

I find the silence very telling, but for quite another reason.

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 12:13 PM

Indeed. We also seem to agree that fires started by the debris could have SPREAD to the area of the initiating event.
Yes

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 12:19 PM

Yes. 10,000 to one. Very impressive.
You are assuming that there are 10,000 experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

Please list some of these experts or stop making that claim.

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 12:47 PM

Oh, I forgot. Part of your particular fantasy is to suggest that the only reasons why the majority of CD experts on Earth hasn't come out and questioned the official story is because they are afraid of losing their jobs.
No, the majority of experts on Earth have not stated any opinion one way or the other.

Most are not aware of the controversy about WTC 7.

How many experts have said that WTC 7 was not a CD?

No one will loose their job for supporting the 'official' hypothesis.

You find nothing wrong with the crickets chirping in the world of CD experts concerning the WTC because you have built into your (and by YOUR I mean the minority view that you hold concerning CD) little theory a nice little out to explain it.You don't know what the experts think because the only CD expert to say one way or the other is Jowenko.

If you know of any CD experts who have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD, please list them.

Jonnyclueless

19th July 2007, 01:53 PM

The world body of experts have all seen the collapse of WTC and have read about it. If they felt there was error in the conclusion, you can be sure that they would say something. And yes there have been many who have directly stated that it does not appear to be a CD.

Please prove to us that the entire world body of experts are all being quit because the entire world body of experts will all lose their jobs if they say anything other than what they have already been saying. You keep making the claim, now prove you aren't just making it up because your claims hold no water. Anyone can sit here and say "Oh well they don't speak out because they would lsoe their jobs". Forget about it being an absolutely unfounded and absurd claim, back it up.

No one will lose thier job for saying it was a CD. You accuse someone of not knowing what the experts think, while you go about claiming exactly what they think. Talk about a ******** artist. Companies like Implosion world and others have gone on the record stating it was not a CD.

Wow, you got one guy who knows veery little about the circumstances and you use that one person to dismiss everyone else. Once again, referring to your cherry picking information to support your pre-determined conclusions.

Tell us, did Jowenko lose his job? Oops, that's right, you just disproved your own claims.

GregoryUrich

19th July 2007, 03:13 PM

I happened upon this interesting video. There is an explosion and one of the guys looks back. Another voice says "what was that"? Listen to the audio carefully as one of the workers or the cop is saying the building is going to blow up. The audio seems like someone monkey'd with it though. I can't tell if they are just repeating what one of the guys said or if it's a voice over or combined audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 05:35 PM

The world body of experts have all seen the collapse of WTC and have read about it. If they felt there was error in the conclusion, you can be sure that they would say something.
WTC ? .... you left off the '7'

There is no way you could know if the world body of experts has seen the videos of WTC 7.

And yes there have been many who have directly stated that it does not appear to be a CD. You keep saying that, but you have yet to post the statements of any CD experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

The editors of Implosions World are very knowledgeable but they are not CD experts and they did not address the videos of the WTC 7 implosion.

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 01:41 AM

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:49 AM

You are assuming that there are 10,000 experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

Please list some of these experts or stop making that claim.

Do I ? No, no. I think I'll stick with the experts who actually make the report. Let's see, shall we ?

Most are not aware of the controversy about WTC 7.

Argument from ignorance, then.

Why do you think that only twoofers are aware of 7 WTC ?

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 09:49 PM

Do I ? No, no. I think I'll stick with the experts who actually make the report. Let's see, shall we ?
What experts?

Who is it that you are sticking with?

Just because people contributed to the NIST report does not mean they personally believe that WTC 7 was not a CD.

The Final report of 4-5-05 contains he statement "NIST has seen no evidence of CD".

There are no names of experts listed in this report.

As of right now, there are NO experts who have publicly stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.

Ronald Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting and one of the contributers to the NIST report, said:
"It appeared to me that charges had been places in the building"

Jonnyclueless

20th July 2007, 10:05 PM

WTC ? .... you left off the '7'

There is no way you could know if the world body of experts has seen the videos of WTC 7.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to post the statements of any CD experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

The editors of Implosions World are very knowledgeable but they are not CD experts and they did not address the videos of the WTC 7 implosion.

Yes I can absolutely say that. And it's pretty well established. Are you going to sit here and claim that the majority of the world knows nothing of the collapse of WTC 7 including those people who study these very things? Quite a claim there.

This forum has been full of statements made by structural engineers and demolition experts saying so. Unfortunately for you these petty circular argument are not worth my time to go dig them up. If you actually had any interest in them, I might go to the effort, but we both know that's not the case. how about you go find a 2nd expert? LOL!!!

You know, because you have found the only person in the world who knows about WTC 7. So since everyone else is unaware of it....

Just like now you are claiming that it's very likely that engineers working on the NIST project may very well blieve it was a CD, yet they specifically state that they can find nothing what so ever to indicate it was one. If one of the engineers thought it was, they would think so because they would find evidence to make them think so. Yet none of them state any such evidence and they go out of their way to claim they have found none.

I apologize for not falling for your cute little tricks. I know the majority of people on the forum don't even respond to you because all you offer are little tricks of wording but actually are completely unable to provide anything substantial while you attack a report that has not even been published yet. But I have a hard time sitting around watching you play games.

I haven't seen a single scientists on records specifically claiming the moon isn't made of cheese. So I guess I win that argument since you cannot refute that the moon is made of cheese.

Jonnyclueless

20th July 2007, 10:11 PM

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 11:57 PM

This forum has been full of statements made by structural engineers and demolition experts saying so.
No one has posted the name of a CD company or demolitions expert on this thread that says WTC 7 was not a CD.

Just like now you are claiming that it's very likely that engineers working on the NIST project may very well blieve it was a CD,No

yet they specifically state that they can find nothing what so ever to indicate it was one. If one of the engineers thought it was, they would think so because they would find evidence to make them think so. Yet none of them state any such evidence and they go out of their way to claim they have found none.
The engineers did not say there is no evidence for CD, NIST did.

The owner of a demolitions company says WTC 7 was a CD based on the video evidence.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Jonnyclueless

21st July 2007, 12:19 AM

Yes, demolition companies most certainly HAVE been named and in this very thread. Implosion World is one that I myself names, and in this thread.

Yes you were making that implication.

Oh NIST said there was no evidence. And is NIST a mythical creature? Or just a magical one?

And what do you have, an owner of a Demolition company who's only evidence was the video that was hand picked by CTers and nothing more. He doesn't have all the rest of the information needed to make a proper assessment.

Yet you think the video is all that is needed in order to determine a CD. Therefore proving that the tnrire rest of the world body of engineers, who you and I BOTH know have seen those videos are all just keeping quiet. And to explain that you say they are all afraid to lose their jobs. A claim that you CANNOT back up.

Again, nothing but a song and dance like Lyte. It's getting old and in the end you have absolutely nothing. This is why you and your little movement are not taken seriously, especially not by professionals. This is why when you guys talk about your movement the reaction is generally "9/11 What?".

Because making a legitimate case is about more than dancing around symatics and jumping from issue to issue, and using cheap tactics.

Christopher7

21st July 2007, 01:10 AM

Chris conveniently leaves out the part where the guy also states that he concluded there were no explosives used. When asked what resolved his doubts, he said his work on the project.

But this is a good example of deception.
Point taken

It's also a bit off topic because he was talking about the towers.

He said that WTC 7 was the first major structure in the US to collapse because of fire.

He is the first structural engineer i have found that [effectively] says that WTC 7 was not a CD.

Unfit4Command

21st July 2007, 01:20 AM

Christopher7

21st July 2007, 03:12 AM

Yes, demolition companies most certainly HAVE been named and in this very thread. Implosion World is one that I myself names, and in this thread.Implosion World is not a controlled demolition company.
They do blast analysis and video document CD's.

They did not address the videos of WTC 7.

Oh NIST said there was no evidence. And is NIST a mythical creature? Or just a magical one? NIST is headed by a Bush appointee and it is part of the Commerce Department which is headed by a Bush appointee.

The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.

Do you really think that they would not distort this one?

And what do you have, an owner of a Demolition company who's only evidence was the video that was hand picked by CTers and nothing more. He doesn't have all the rest of the information needed to make a proper assessment. He was certain after seeing one video. He was then shown another [CBS] several times, and he did not waver in his assessment.

He knows better than you what he needs to say it was a CD.

There is also:

Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

William Rice, Civil engineer

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

Richard Gage, Architect

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

Yet you think the video is all that is needed in order to determine a CD.So does the owner of a demolitions company and a few million other people.

A poll taken in 2006 said 16% of Americans believe that the collapse of the twin towers were CD's. That's 44 million people. Even allowing for a large margin of error, it's tens of millions.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Christopher7

21st July 2007, 07:46 AM

This video has a few quotes from someone who looked at the steel from WTC 7 shortly after the attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXKVVI7ZBOY

"It's all complete nonsense. I didn't see any explosives...just evidence of an intense fire."
Ok, so now we have a structural engineer and a professor of engineering who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

Hamburger:

"We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely "

"Hamburger noted that the fuel in both jetliners burned off rapidly "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec01/structure_9-11.html

Ron Hamburger:
What they just were not able to survive was the incredibly intense fires that ensued from all of that burning jet fuel.

Hassan Astaneh:
We are not sure, of course, what was in those planes but the amount of fuel that came and was delivered to this building was enough, in my opinion, ........... What happened here was the initial impact did not cause much damage; it just ignited the fire.

This is what they said in 2001, before they 'did the math'

BTW, they don't mention WTC 7 except to say it collapsed because of fire.

Hamburger did not say how he came to this conclusion in three months.

FEMA and NIST had two years and could only say it "appears possible" in a preliminary report.

Christopher7

21st July 2007, 03:35 PM

This video has a few quotes from someone who looked at the steel from WTC 7 shortly after the attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXKVVI7ZBOY

"It's all complete nonsense. I didn't see any explosives...just evidence of an intense fire."
He also said:
"Gravity brought the building down because the bottom collapsed."

Christopher7

22nd July 2007, 03:19 AM

This video has a few quotes from someone who looked at the steel from WTC 7 shortly after the attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXKVVI7ZBOY

Do you know of any other experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD?

Christopher7

22nd July 2007, 05:22 PM

Chris, can you define "a smoking gun?" We seem to have different ideas about that. Please fill me in, m'kay?
This is the smoking gun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ)

These people agree:

Danny Jowenko, owner of a CD company
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*.
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

William Rice, Civil engineer
http://www.vermontguardian.com/comme...inTowers.shtml (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml)

Richard Gage, Architect
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

Do you know of any qualified people who have viewed the videos of the implosion of WTC 7 and said that it was not a CD?

twinstead

22nd July 2007, 05:40 PM

But Chris. What if somebody where to actually risk embarrassing ones self and go around to every CD company and expert on Earth and ask if they thought the WTC was brought down by CD, and say 90% of them said no. Say 80% said no. Say 70% said no

You know what? That would be meaningless to you because no matter WHAT, no matter how much evidence that contradicts you theory is presented, you will never even come close to admit that there may be a chance you are wrong.

Hell, most of us would change our minds in a heartbeat of compelling evidence was presented. The problem is you, the CT, and we, the skeptics disagree fundamentally on what evidence is, and what constitutes a 'smoking gun'.

We disagree on a level so fundamental that we will never come eye-to-eye no matter what.

You can't argue with an ideologue. Now, who exactly is the ideologue here, Chris?

Unfit4Command

22nd July 2007, 09:27 PM

He also said:
"Gravity brought the building down because the bottom collapsed."

Did gravity not bring down the building? Did he find evidence of explosives and not tell anyone? This is pointless, he got one thing wrong, therefore everything he says is false? Well...if you want to be that way.

William Rice also said:
"in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."

Wrong.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed."

Wrong, both collapses took longer than 10 seconds.

"The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed."

This sounds like he has just read a few conspiracy sites without doing any research. The 9/11 Commission report wasn't an engineering report, nor was it meant to cover the collateral damage from the attacks.

"The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view."

Why did the media show its collapse several times on 9/11? Why was it even mentioned in "America Rebuilds"?

"Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11."

It didn't collapse onto itself. The Verizon Building and 30 West Broadway were both dealt serious damage and Barclay Street was covered by debris.

"This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today."

Remind me why the FDNY Chief of Operations, Daniel Nigro call for an evacuated from around Building 7? Because he, along with several other Firemen felt the building was too damaged and may collapse.

"Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing."

WTC 3 remained standing? The building that was 22 stories tall and had a 3 section standing after the North Tower Collapsed? All of the others partially collapsed and several of the columns on ther perimeter bowed due to heat.

"The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more."

Molten metal is a byproduct of explosives? That's news to me. You know what molten metal is a byproduct of? Large, hot fires. You know what burned under the rubble piles for weaks after 9/11? Large, hot fires.

The large dust clouds in controlled demolitions aren't caused by the explosives. It's the collapses themselves. Like these buildings that collapsed with no explosives, guess what? Massive dust clouds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHbC9gc_Ylo

It would be pointless and it would take a HUGE amount of explosives to pulverize all of the concrete. And when will people get it through their heads that all of the concrete didn't turn to dust?

Is he refering to the massive section of perimeter columns that pivoted over from the North Tower and fell on the Winter Garden and several other structures?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX74_P5BI0E

Many of the beams that were found stuck inside of other buildings near the Twin Towers probably broke off of sections like the one above.

"The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated."

What percentage of the building did the above agencies control? And which of them actually had an entire floor to themselves? I believe the Secret Service is the only one.

And again, the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't meant to investigate the collateral damage of the attacks, it wasn't an engineering report.

Has yet to be investigated? That's really sad, he obviously hasn't read the NIST report or even heard about it. So how educated do you think he is about Building 7's condition?

Well, I guess this means William Rice isn't an expert you can refer to, he was wrong about a few things.

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 12:42 AM

Did he find evidence of explosives and not tell anyone?
He did not see explosives on the steel he inspected.

"I didn't see any explosives ... just evidence of intense fire."

Unless he inspected all or most of the steel, his statement

"It's (explosives theory) all complete nonsense."

is unfounded.

he got one thing wrong, therefore everything he says is false? No

Neither Hassan Astaneh or Ron Hamburger said why they thought WTC 7 had collapsed because of the fires or what evidence they had.

William Rice also said:
"in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."

Wrong
Good counter point.
That should be high rise building.

That's probably what he meant.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed."

Wrong, both collapses took longer than 10 seconds.Originally, FEMA said 10 and 8 seconds, i believe.
What is the current 'official' time according to NIST?

"The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed."

The 9/11 Commission report wasn't an engineering report, nor was it meant to cover the collateral damage from the attacks.I agree

Many CT'ers would argue, it should have been included.

"The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view."

Why did the media show its collapse several times on 9/11? Why was it even mentioned in "America Rebuilds"?Other than on 9/11 and the History Channel special, it has not been shown, to my knowledge.
In the HC special, there is a 5 second clip [street view] of WTC 7 collapsing and they went straight to something else.

I saw that special but i did not notice the WTC 7 collapse because it went by so fast.

In 2005 i saw a 'conspiracy theory' special on LINK TV.

Until then, i was like you, conspiracy theory, yea, yea.

When i saw the video with the redish building in the foreground, my first reaction was denial. I knew it was a CD so i rationalized that they were lying, ...... that was not building 7.

A few months later, i saw the History Channel special again.

This time i watched for WTC 7.

That's when i had my "Oh s*it" moment.

I have told hundreds of people about WTC 7 and given out LC2 and the 4 min. video i made.

None had seen the videos of WTC 7.

All vaguely remembered WTC 7 or not at all.

Most now believe that WTC 7 was a CD.

Belz...

23rd July 2007, 05:59 AM

What experts?

Oh, you know, those working on the report on 7 WTC.

Who is it that you are sticking with?

The sane people.

Just because people contributed to the NIST report does not mean they personally believe that WTC 7 was not a CD.

I don't care about their personal beliefs. Why should you ?

The Final report of 4-5-05 contains he statement "NIST has seen no evidence of CD".

Which is evidence that there was no CD.

There are no names of experts listed in this report.

So they're farmers, or something ?

As of right now, there are NO experts who have publicly stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.

Are you trying to make me prove a negative ?

"It appeared to me that charges had been places in the building"

Key word: appeared.

Belz...

23rd July 2007, 08:03 AM

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Only to a layman.

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 01:21 PM

"Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11."

It didn't collapse onto itself. The Verizon Building and 30 West Broadway were both dealt serious damage and Barclay Street was covered by debris.

FEMA Ch 5 pg 30
“… the building imploded …”
[fell in on itself]

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
“The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.”
[it fell mostly straight down]

Part of the north facade buckled out and damaged the building across the street.

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

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

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

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9131/copyof4ai9.jpg

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 01:36 PM

I don't care about their personal beliefs. Why should you ?
You do not know or care weather or not they believe WTC 7 was a CD, yet you claim they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

Which is evidence that there was no CD.
A Bush appointee says "there is no evidence of CD", and that's evidence?

GlennB

23rd July 2007, 01:51 PM

As of right now, there are NO experts who have publicly stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.

There are no experts denying that mutant alien squirrels secretly steal our pocket lint at night to use as spaceship fuel*

This is not evidence that mutant alien squirrels are ... (etc)

Meanwhile - are you aware of the lies and leading questions Jowenko was subjected to? Watch those videos again.

*with apologies to Scott Adams

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 02:05 PM

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Only to a layman.
These people are experts, not laymen.

Danny Jowenko, "This is controlled demolition" "A team of experts did this"

Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

Richard Gage, Architect

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

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

BeAChooser

23rd July 2007, 04:42 PM

Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider

Their statements were based solely on looking at a few video recordings presented to them by conspiracists during an interview (just like they did Jowenko). And I've already proven how deceptive the interviewer was in Jowenko's case. Bet they were just as deceptive during Bachmann's and Schneider's quote mining exercise.

Now Bachmann, through his career, has focused on bridge engineering, concrete structures and, later, vibration problems and earthquake resistant structures. Not steel, fire and impact dynamics. Joerg's resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Again, not steel, fire and impact.

And by the way, neither seems to want anything to do with the *truth* movement now. Just like Jowenko. Go figure ... :D

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 06:24 PM

are you aware of the lies and leading questions Jowenko was subjected to? Watch those videos again.

Interviewer:
What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

The interviewer did not lie or ask leading questions.

After seeing one video of the WTC 7 implosion, Jowenko was absolutely certain that it was a CD.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Jonnyclueless

23rd July 2007, 08:10 PM

Imagine what opinion Jowenko would have if he too got to do some real research into the issue like some of the other engineers who also thought it originally was a demolition.

But we're expected to accept the opinion of someone who has only seem a small piece of footage over the many experts who have all done extensive research that far exceeds watching a couple of seconds of video.

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 09:24 PM

Their statements were based solely on looking at a few video recordings presented to them .....
That is the point!

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Now Bachmann, through his career, has focused on bridge engineering, concrete structures and, later, vibration problems and earthquake resistant structures. Not steel, fire and impact dynamics. Joerg's resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Again, not steel, fire and impact.They are Professors of structural analysis and construction.

It does not get more 'qualified' than that.

You are trying to say that these people are not qualified to say WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos.

They are experts, you are not.

They know far better than you weather or not the videos are evidence of a CD.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

Christopher7

23rd July 2007, 09:37 PM

Imagine what opinion Jowenko would have if he too got to do some real research into the issue like some of the other engineers who also thought it originally was a demolition.
He saw several videos but he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one.

In the phone call, a couple months later, he said

"I looked at the drawings of the construction, and it couldn't be done by fire."

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

You think you know better than the owner of a CD company, you don't.

Jonnyclueless

23rd July 2007, 09:44 PM

he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one? That must be why he kept saying he needs to see more information.

And a quote of him saying it couldn't be done by fire is not him saying it was a CD. But either way, it's not enough to make a proper determination. A lot of people thought it was a CD from just looking at the video. But when studying the rest of the details, every one has been convinced otherwise. Of course that doesn't stop a lot of CTers from taking quotes from before those experts changed their minds.

SOMERLED

24th July 2007, 02:46 AM

In no particular order:

1. Watergate
2. FBI’s “Virtual Case File” fiasco
3. Mars Polar Lander
4. Abscam
5. Mars Climate Orbiter
6. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Bribery Case
7. Rep. Ney pleads guilty to federal charges of corruption & bribery involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
8. Challenger Explosion
9. Former Bush aide David Safavian convicted on four of five felony counts of lying and obstruction.
10. Vioxx

There’s just ten. Need I go on?

Find ten when the same party held both the Presidency and a majority in both houses.

GlennB

24th July 2007, 03:06 AM

The interviewer did not lie or ask leading questions

Really?

From 2:33 in the first interview at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

I: "This is a map of the building .... blow up ... this heart .... these 12 (core columns) .... "

12 ?

Around 3:30
J: "It was not really clean"
.....
I: "But you can walk around it. So clean you can walk around it"

A lie

Around 4:51
I: "building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside wall going inside"

Another lie

Have you actually watched those interviews from start to finish?

The interviewer led and lied from the outset. And Jowenko comes across as very easily led.

Christopher7

24th July 2007, 03:08 AM

he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one? That must be why he kept saying he needs to see more information.
He needed more information to say HOW they did it.

He was certain it was a CD after seeing the first video.

He was certain at the end of the interview.

He was still certain a couple months later.

And a quote of him saying it couldn't be done by fire is not him saying it was a CD.Jeff: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny: Absolutely

But either way, it's not enough to make a proper determination.Danny, Hugo and Jörg think it is enough.

Do you really think they are full of it and you know better?

A lot of people thought it was a CD from just looking at the video. But when studying the rest of the details, every one has been convinced otherwise. A lot of people?

Name one

When Ron Hamburger saw the collapse of WTC 1, it appeared to him that charges had been placed in the building.

i.e. it looked like a CD.

He later decided that there were not any explosives.

He did not mention the videos of WTC 7.

He did not offer any explanation of why WTC 7 imploded other than to say it collapsed because of fire.

How could he be so sure less than three months after 9/11, when NIST wasn't sure 2 1/2 years later?

He has made no statements about WTC 7 since 2001 that i know of.

Belz...

24th July 2007, 05:51 AM

You do not know or care weather or not they believe WTC 7 was a CD, yet you claim they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth and answer the question.

Why should I care about someone's opinion when the evidence contradicts it ?

A Bush appointee says "there is no evidence of CD", and that's evidence?

Ad hominem.

These people are experts, not laymen.

I think you meant to say "three people are experts". And looking at videos arranged by CTers is not much to work with.

That is the point!

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Yes, and anyone who makes such a call without looking at all the available evidence is a moron.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

NO, because they don't show anything that's UNIQUE to a CD.

Christopher7

24th July 2007, 12:04 PM

Really?

From 2:33 in the first interview at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

I: "This is a map of the building .... blow up ... this heart .... these 12 (core columns) .... "
12 ?
Around 3:30
J: "It was not really clean"
.....
I: "But you can walk around it. So clean you can walk around it"
A lie
Around 4:51
I: "building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside wall going inside"
Another lie

The interviewer led and lied from the outset. And Jowenko comes across as very easily led.
Please

Interviewer:
What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Where is the lie or misleading statement?

Jowenko knew that WTC 7 was a CD after seeing the first video.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone not in denial.

The rest of the first video Danny is trying to explain HOW it was done.

You are right about the 12 columns and the 'clean' but Danny had already concluded that WTC 7 was a CD in the first minute.

These things had NO effect on his conclusion that WTC 7 was a CD.

Throughout the entire interview, he was adamant that WTC 7 was a CD.

He reaffirmed his conclusion in the phone call a couple months later after he had looked at the drawings of WTC 7.

You can't deal with the reality that the owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis and construction say WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, so you desperately try to find a reason to discredit their conclusions.

They are intelligent, educated experts, not idiots.

The videos speak for themselves.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

Jonnyclueless

24th July 2007, 12:23 PM

No he was not certain it was a CD, he needed more information to see what was going on. And he may have thought it was a CD at the end, but that's because it's all he conclude given the extremely limited data he got.

Do I think I know better? Do I think the 225 engineers who have done more than simply looked at a single video know better? ABSOLUTELY 100%.

Here's the funny part, you use a guy who has only viewed an extremely limited amount of data to counter hundreds of people who have vast amounts of data.

Yes a lot of people. Like I said, over 225 engineers just working on NIST alone. Do I have their individual names? Not on hand, but I am sure they can be looked up quite easily. Are you really sure you want people to go there? Are you really sure you don't want people to call your bluff in assuming that there isn't a single person that worked on the NIST reports?

Would you like us to send a request to NIST for a list of engineers involved?

Also, please prove your claim that all the world body of engineers are all simply silent on one of the most well known engineering issues in the history of man because they are all too scared. You and I both know that they don't say anything because they see nothing suspicious with the events of that day. And we ALL know the vast majority are well aware of the WTC 7 collapse.

So you can play these little games all day, but at the end of the day, your whole case is nothing but a little song and dance.

You have found 3 people in the whole world (1 of which might be somehwat credible, though lacked proper evidence to make a legitimate determination) to support your case. You can dance around all you want, but nothing is going to change this. You can try to use little tricks and bluffs to bolster your lack of evidence. But that's all it is. Just like you will take quotes of people before they did research to try to mislead people into thinking they claimed it is a CD.

And you can dress it up any way you want, but in the end, you're being dishonest and trying to use smoke and mirrors. I suggest a forum where people aren't smart enough to see your bluff.

THE VIDEOS ARE IN NO WAY EVIDENCE OF A CD. Not even the slightest bit.

Jonnyclueless

24th July 2007, 12:26 PM

Oh and for those who want to know the REAL reason why the majority of engineers don't speak out about the WTC. It's not because of the reason that Chris is COMPLETELY MAKING UP. It's because the majority of them have no awareness that there are actually people out there making these absurd claims of CD. The majority are no more aware of people like Chris as they are aware that there are actually people out there who think the world is flat. And to these engineers such claims are so absurd that they aren't taken seriously by the majority of structural engineers and not credible enough to be worth responding. It would be like us speaking out against people claiming the earth is flat. What would be the point?

Christopher7

24th July 2007, 05:16 PM

No he was not certain it was a CD, he needed more information to see what was going on. And he may have thought it was a CD at the end, but that's because it's all he conclude given the extremely limited data he got.
What part of 'absolutely' don't you understand?

J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

He was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD less than one minute into the interview.

The video of WTC 7 imploding is all the evidence he needed.

He knows better than you if the video is enough to say WTC 7 was a CD.

Do I think I know better? Do I think the 225 engineers who have done more than simply looked at a single video know better? ABSOLUTELY 100%.
So what?

What have those 255 engineers said?

Just because they contributed to the NIST report does not mean they they have seen the videos or that they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

So far, i have seen the statements of two of those experts.

Have any experts viewed the videos and said that Jowenko is wrong?

No

Also, please prove your claim that all the world body of engineers are all simply silent on one of the most well known engineering issues in the history of man because they are all too scared. You and I both know that they don't say anything because they see nothing suspicious with the events of that day. And we ALL know the vast majority are well aware of the WTC 7 collapse. In addition to the owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis and construction, there are 130 architects and engineers who have seen all the evidence and believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

You find fault with a few of the 130 and write them all off.

THE VIDEOS ARE IN NO WAY EVIDENCE OF A CD. Not even the slightest bit.Of course, The owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis are wrong.

You know better.

You also know that 255 engineers believe WTC 7 was not a CD, even though only two have said so.

Less than three months after 9/11, and 2 1/2 years before NIST concluded that it "appears possible", those two experts concluded WTC 7 fell because of fire.

Christopher7

25th July 2007, 12:08 AM

Why should I care about someone's opinion when the evidence contradicts it ?
What evidence?

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Yes, and anyone who makes such a call without looking at all the available evidence is a moron.So you think Danny Jowenko and the two Professors of structural analysis and construction are morons.

On the other hand, you're saying that the videos of WTC7 don't look like a CD, and your opinion is more valid than Jowenko and both professors.

Jonnyclueless

25th July 2007, 01:23 AM

Chir chris chirs.

Can you do more than play tricks? AS I said, these guys have not directly said there was no controlled demolition on an individual basis because they have no reason to say so. Just like they also didn't come out and state that the world is not flat for all the flat erarth believers out there.

You are preying on this common ocurrance and taking advantage of the fact that the majority of engineers don't even acknowledge your type of claims. You know they don't mention it because they don't feel there is a CD and they feel it's absurd. And if they did they clearly would say so. And they clearly would not conribute and work on a conclusion that directly contradicted their claims. And these guys did MORE than look at a single video.

Again, let me remind you. You have one guy who looked at one video. And you use that to contest the world body of structural engineers. Face it, no matter how you dress it up and take advantage of a complete lack of response to your absurd claims, you still haev absolutely nothing.

Wow! 1 guy, who saw a few seconds of video. Wow, clearly that's proof of a CD.

And once again, what was your explanation for the 1000s of structural engineers around the world not pointing out that this is clearly a CD? Why is it only cultists and a single demolitionist who only saw a few seconds of video think so? If it's so obvious, why aren't there thousands of engineers all crying murder? After all you claimed the video is all that's needed to make the determination.

Of course you contradict yourself by claiming that many of the NIST engineers (an assumption on your part) may have only seen the video and thus not be able to make a proper determination. Once agian you have been dishonest just like you have quoted out of context to mislead people.

Tell me, if you are so interested in truth, why are you being so dishonest?

And as for those guys being wrong? I would clearly side with the majority of the world body of engineers than a couple of guys (all but one being CTers) who have seen nothing more than a few seconds of video. Absolutely.

Are you saying that all the other engineers are wrong and you are right? See, we can both play these cute little games if you want. But in the end, you have to go to bed knowing you have nothing and knowing that your claims are not taken seriously by professionals except for the 3 (out of the 100's of 1000s in the world.

Are we supposed to be impressed that you found .000000000001%? I'll go with the other 99.99999999999999%

Jonnyclueless

25th July 2007, 01:26 AM

Oh and let me also add in direct response to your question of anyone coming out and saying Jowenco being wrong. I doubt hadrly any of the other experts know he is wrong, just as they likely aren't even aware that there are cult's such as yours that are claiming controlled demolitions, let alone wanting to even waste their time entertaining such absurd claims. And again, you are simply trying to take advantage of this fact that no one even consideres entertaining such nonsense.

Did you go talking to the NIST engineers? Did you go ask them these things? Of course you didn't. Doing so would onlyput a hole in your claims. Much easier to make absurdly false claims such as them all being too afraid to lose their jobs and other complete nonsense that you completely MAKE UP.

Jonnyclueless

25th July 2007, 01:28 AM

Heck, let's go one further Chris. If I find a single engineer (becase there is inevitably going to be one statistically) that thinks the earth is flat, will you concede that the earth is indeed flat? Because I don't see any geologists or scientists refuting these claims. I don't see them addressing the issue. Probably because they're all afraid to lose their jobs, right?

See, we can both play the same game if you want.

Belz...

25th July 2007, 05:29 AM

What evidence?

What do you mean "What" evidence ? we're 10,000 pages into this thread. Surely you remember.

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

"Proof" ? You've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN, Chris, that the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is in NO WAY unique to controlled demolitions. In fact, you've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN, Chris, that the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is INCONSISTENT with controlled demolitions because it lacks certain vital characteristics.

Why do you keep ignoring that ?

So you think Danny Jowenko and the two Professors of structural analysis and construction are morons.

Did they make their call without looking at all the available evidence ?

On the other hand, you're saying that the videos of WTC7 don't look like a CD, and your opinion is more valid than Jowenko and both professors.

Simple logic, Chris. Explosions make sounds. Explosions make blasts. None of that is visible or audible in the 7 WTC videos. Why is that ?

BeAChooser

25th July 2007, 08:40 AM

If I find a single engineer (becase there is inevitably going to be one statistically) that thinks the earth is flat, will you concede that the earth is indeed flat?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm "Few professional academics embraced it, though there were exceptions. Alexander McInnes, of Glasgow University, was a vehement flat-earther. So was Arthur V. White of the University of Toronto. White, a hydraulic engineer, designed several large hydroelectric dams built in Canada around the turn of the century."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/120698/fea_006-2099.000.shtml " Another Flat Earth fanatic was John Hampden, an English engineer who offered 5,000 pounds to anyone who could prove the world was round."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rxmXEJXKqykJ:cba.mit.edu/events/04.09.I0/bios.pdf "Danny*Cohen. Danny is a distinguished engineer at SUN, since 2001. He received his PhD from Ivan Sutherland at Harvard University. He pioneered realtime applications of packet switching networks ... snip ... Danny is a bona fide member of the Flat Earth Society."

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 02:36 AM

..... these guys have not directly said there was no controlled demolition on an individual basis because they have no reason to say so.
?

These guys say WTC 7 was a CD because they have looked at the videos.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.

Jowenko: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Do not mistake polite statements for lack of conviction.

These experts are saying that WTC 7 was a CD.

They are qualified to make that determination based on the videos.

At very least, the videos are evidence of a controlled demolition.

The simple concept that a fire cannot make a building implode the way WTC 7 did, is easy for some, hard for others.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 02:55 AM

.... the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is in NO WAY unique to controlled demolitions.
.... the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is INCONSISTENT with controlled demolitions because it lacks certain vital characteristics.
There are those guys [experts] who disagree with you.

Did they make their call without looking at all the available evidence ?In their expert opinions, the videos, without sound, were sufficient evidence to say that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

funk de fino

27th July 2007, 03:09 AM

At very least, the videos are evidence of a controlled demolition.

no,the videos are evidence that even experts can be fooled by poor quality videos and lack of supporting facts or background information

when i was first shown the video by a truther i instantly thought it "looked" very "similar" to a CD, i dug a little deeper and discovered there is no way in hell it could have been

if i can do this then i'm sure that this expert could, if he did and still had the same thought on this then he would be a signed up memeber of your truther brigade and would be shouting it from the rooftops

he isnt, go figure

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 03:55 AM

no,the videos are evidence that even experts can be fooled by poor quality videos and lack of supporting facts or background information
They saw the same videos we have all seen. Some are grainy, some are clear.

You're saying that these experts don't know what they are talking about.

As if

when i was first shown the video by a truther i instantly thought it "looked" very "similar" to a CD, i dug a little deeper and discovered there is no way in hell it could have been
Negative denial syndrome.

I can't figure out how they did it so it just can't be.

How 'bout

They placed the charges on the core columns in the elevator shafts, maintenance rooms and the mechanical floors [5 & 6] where only the 'maintenance' people who put them there would see them?

slingblade

27th July 2007, 04:08 AM

I only hope that someday Chris is accused of something (which he didn't actually do), and those accusing him use the same standards of evidence against him that he uses here.

He. will. not. be. amused.

GlennB

27th July 2007, 04:38 AM

How 'bout

They placed the charges on the core columns in the elevator shafts, maintenance rooms and the mechanical floors [5 & 6] where only the 'maintenance' people who put them there would see them?

Because you'd need to recruit 3 shifts of maintenance people to keep the conspiracy under wraps, and ensure not another soul entered those floors for the duration of the prep.

You'd leave detonation devices throughout the rubble pile.

You'd still have explosions and blasts (that were not witnessed on the day).

You'd have to be damn sure that WTC7 would be damaged and ablaze on the fateful day, otherwise the whole world would be seeing the totally spontaneous collapse of a very large building.

You'd still be lacking any motive for the crime.

and so on and so on .....

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 05:21 AM

I only hope that someday Chris is accused of something (which he didn't actually do), and those accusing him use the same standards of evidence against him that he uses here.
Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

slingblade

27th July 2007, 05:38 AM

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

If it makes you feel better to think so, no amount of reason will change your mind. That much has become apparent.

It really makes me sad. You have a good mind, Chris. You're just using it so poorly. That always makes me sad. But carry on. It appears you must.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 05:40 AM

Because you'd need to recruit 3 shifts of maintenance people to keep the conspiracy under wraps, and ensure not another soul entered those floors for the duration of the prep.

You'd leave detonation devices throughout the rubble pile.

You'd still have explosions and blasts (that were not witnessed on the day).

You'd have to be damn sure that WTC7 would be damaged and ablaze on the fateful day, otherwise the whole world would be seeing the totally spontaneous collapse of a very large building.

You'd still be lacking any motive for the crime.

and so on and so on .....
Those experts must be crazy, they shouldn't believe their eyes.

They should use reverse logic like you guys:

I can't figure out how they did it They would have to control 3 shifts and make sure no one looked in the elevator shafts or certain locked maintenance rooms.
No, it would just be too hard.

The experts must be wrong.

They didn't hear any explosives and they still thought WTC 7 was a CD.

I mean really, what do experts know anyway?

Belz...

27th July 2007, 05:40 AM

There are those guys [experts] who disagree with you.

Excellent! Why don't you get them together, and start a legal case against the US government. I can't wait to see your experts against their experts and see who's the more convincing.

Once the case is thrown out of court by the judge, I hope you'll drop this nonsense, too.

In their expert opinions, the videos, without sound, were sufficient evidence to say that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Then they are quacks. Nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity makes such a certain call based on fragmentary information. Your experts are bunk machines.

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

Thousands disagree.

Belz...

27th July 2007, 05:42 AM

I mean really, what do experts know anyway?

Apparently, you apply that logic only to the experts that AGREE with you. The others are just paid shills, right ?

funk de fino

27th July 2007, 05:43 AM

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

sorry mate it does not, it qualifies as an opinion based on lack of facts and background information, if it was introduced as evidence anywhere it would be laughed at

i am saying nothing about whether they know what they are talking about but if they have seen all the background information i have seen, lack of evidence for CD, and other facts i have seen, the distortions of some claims about this building, and they still continue with the claims then, yes, IMO they are wrong unless they have the proof and the back up to what they say, not just by watching a video

would you be happy to be convicted on the video evidence studied by 3experts when you had no other evidence against you and in fact had supporting evidence in your favour?

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence?

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 05:56 AM

Then they are quacks. Nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity makes such a certain call based on fragmentary information. Your experts are bunk machines.
So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.Name three.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 06:04 AM

You have a good mind, Chris. You're just using it so poorly.
Listening to what the experts say is using the mind poorly.

Calling them quacks and ignoring what they say is a better way to use ones mind.

GlennB

27th July 2007, 07:22 AM

Name three.

Years back Margaret Thatcher was in political difficulties and her party's ratings were plummeting. A TV interviewer said "millions of people are turning against your policy on <whatever>"
She said - in true Thatcher style - "name some of them".

Of course he couldn't, but it didn't mean his statement was wrong.

I think we can get there by deductive logic ... (stress *think* here. It could be inductive, I'm not too sure ;) )

Premises:
More than 25% of scientists are outspoken in expressing their scientific beliefs and observations.
CD experts and building engineers are scientists.
There are many thousands of CD experts and building engineers.
If there were reasonable evidence of CD at WTC7 some thousands of CD experts and building engineers would have spoken out.
They haven't spoken out

Conclusion:
There is not reasonable evidence of CD at WTC7

That is to say, the experts don't need to identify themselves. Their lack of action is significant.

(Others might like to knock that 'logic' into more formal shape :) )

Belz...

27th July 2007, 10:06 AM

So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.

Name three.

Read the NIST report.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 02:04 PM

Years back Margaret Thatcher was in political difficulties and her party's ratings were plummeting. A TV interviewer said "millions of people are turning against your policy on <whatever>"
She said - in true Thatcher style - "name some of them".
There are millions of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job but we're not talking about millions of people,we are talking about three experts who say WTC 7 was a CD.

There are two experts that say WTC 7 was not a CD but they did so before FEMA and NIST gathered the data. More important, they did not address the videos.

slingblade

27th July 2007, 02:24 PM

Listening to what the experts say is using the mind poorly.

It can be, depending. You've been here long enough; you know all about the fallacious appeal to authority. The man is wrong about what he thinks, and what he's said.

Calling them quacks and ignoring what they say is a better way to use ones mind.

In this post, you're talking to me, remember? And I never called that man a quack. I reserve that term for doctors.

You want us to discount the experts on the NIST report, but to listen to your own. Those putting the NIST report together are right here, and they've seen the site first-hand, many times. Your expert, in another country, has seen a couple of bits of video, once.

I know you are smart enough to see the basic flaw that's staring you in the face. What I don't know is if you are brave enough and wise enough to admit it.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 02:24 PM

Thousands disagree.
Thousands of what?

Only two experts have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.
According to you, they are morons because they made their determination without looking at all the evidence.

Read the NIST report.I have read the NIST Apx. L report. There is no mention of CD.

The 'final report' of 4-5-05 says there is no evidence of CD but it is not endorsed by anybody. [except the Bush appointed author]

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

Christopher7

27th July 2007, 02:41 PM

It can be, depending. You've been here long enough; you know all about the fallacious appeal to authority. The man is wrong about what he thinks, and what he's said.
The three men are experts, you are not.

They say that the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

You can say they are wrong and you know better but you are not qualified to make that statement.

You want us to discount the experts on the NIST report, but to listen to your own. Those putting the NIST report together are right here, and they've seen the site first-hand, many times. Your expert, in another country, has seen a couple of bits of video, once.Only two of the experts have said that WTC 7 was not a CD and they did not address the videos.

Only one has seen the site first hand.

They concluded that WTC 7 was not a CD before the data was compiled.

They have made no comment since NIST determined that it "appears possible".

Christopher7

28th July 2007, 01:33 AM

it qualifies as an opinion based on lack of facts and background information, if it was introduced as evidence anywhere it would be laughed atIYO

Expert opinions are used in court all the time.

These experts say the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence?No

These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence.

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

slingblade

28th July 2007, 04:01 AM

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

If you keep missing and dismissing, no one can help you. This is definitely a case where you have to help yourself. I can't really understand why you keep arguing with us. I don't see what, ultimately, it's supposed to accomplish, or what you hope to gain from it.

I mean, I don't care if you continue. Feel free. I just don't see what's in it for you, or what you plan to do.... It's simplistic, I know, but to me, you look like someone who's trying to argue water isn't wet. I can't imagine why, or why here, of all places.

But hey, I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Christopher7

28th July 2007, 02:01 PM

If you keep missing and dismissing, no one can help you. This is definitely a case where you have to help yourself. I can't really understand why you keep arguing with us. I don't see what, ultimately, it's supposed to accomplish, or what you hope to gain from it.
By debating here i learn a lot about the evidence.

The 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the actual damage

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

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 any statements or other evidence to the contrary?
Of course I do.

Gravy never posted the evidence he says he has.

I have learned that there is NO evidence debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
See post 1884
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

NIST defines the initiating event as the beginning of the collapse on pg 36 of Apx. L

That I know. What they state, however, by your own admission, is that there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of that initiating event. We can agree on that.

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.
Indeed. We also seem to agree that fires started by the debris could have SPREAD to the area of the initiating event.

The two experts who have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD say:

"We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely "

"Hamburger noted that the fuel in both jetliners burned off rapidly "

"What they just were not able to survive was the incredibly intense fires that ensued from all of that burning jet fuel."

Hassan Astaneh:
We are not sure, of course, what was in those planes but the amount of fuel that came and was delivered to this building was enough, in my opinion, ........... What happened here was the initial impact did not cause much damage; it just ignited the fire.

This is what they said in 2001, before they 'did the math'

NIST Apx. L pg 38, [42 on pg counter] I4.2

"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. ............ This column ... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.
[emphasis mine]

As the report states, 4 floors would have to collapse all around a core column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to more than 500 C, before it failed.

This would have to happen before the vertical progression could begin.

The statements of three experts who say WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, based on the videos, would be considered evidence in a court of law.

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/pmquote.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/private.php?do=newpm&postid=2771641) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/nominate.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/xnewreply.php?do=newreply&postid=2391175&postnum=2771641)

Christopher7

29th July 2007, 04:38 PM

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

If you keep missing and dismissing

When i ask for specific evidence that fires caused the implosion of WTC 7, i get non answers.

That is because there is no such evidence, only speculation by the people at NIST.

[emphasis mine]
L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios
For the collapse to have started, there must have been a component or group of components that failed first, referred to here as the initiating event, as shown in Fig. L–36.

I1.2 Initiating Components Fail Due to Fire Effects:
The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components.

I2.3 Components on Floors With Burned Out Fires:
If the initiating components failed from fire effects, then locations where fires had burned out by mid afternoon could possibly been affected by the cooling which occurs after a fire.

I3.4 Floor Systems Fail:
The cooling that may have occurred as the fires burned out in an area may have generated thermal contraction forces, which may have induced tensile forces at floor-to-column connections.

I4.2 Unbraced Columns:
If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.

I2.4 Components on Floors With Fire:
If the initiating components failed because of fire effects, .....

I3.5 Floor System Failure:
The fires could have caused the failure of portions of one or more floor system and its framing connections.

I4.3 Unbraced Columns:
If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.

I3.6 Columns, Transfer Girders or Transfer Trusses Fail:
The fires could have failed interior columns, transfer girders, transfer trusses, or their framing connections.

I4.4 Lateral Displacements:
Fire effects may have caused column instability

I4.5 Temperature Gradients:
Fire effects may have caused the failure of columns

I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures:
If initiating event components were sufficiently exposed to fire effects to be uniformly heated to elevated temperatures,

Gravy

29th July 2007, 04:43 PM

Gosh, if only someone would study these things. Oh, well.

twinstead

29th July 2007, 04:53 PM

Chris is grasping at straws.

Christopher7

29th July 2007, 05:13 PM

When i ask for specific evidence that fires caused the implosion of WTC 7, i get non answers.

That is because there is no such evidence, only speculation by the people at NIST.

Gosh, if only someone would study these things. Oh, well.

funk de fino

30th July 2007, 01:55 AM

Christopher7

30th July 2007, 02:33 AM

Chris is grasping at straws.Perhaps it is you who is straw grasping.

Some here say the NIST report is enough for them to believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

There is no actual evidence to support that belief.

Every paragraph in the Collapse Initiation Scenarios section contains the qualifiers "may have", "could have" and/or "if"

It is speculation with no evidence of the intense, long duration fires, in the area of the initiating event.

They had two years to gather the photographic and video evidence.

They interviewed over 100 witnesses.

They had the data on the location and progression of the fires in 2004.

In the areas where the fires burned out of control until they burned out, there is no sign of collapse.

notheist

30th July 2007, 10:03 AM

Watch the long versions of Jowenko, This guy sure does not seem sure in his opinion, but he had already made a commitment to a controlled demolition of WTC7 so he is stuck with trying make himself look good.

I am sure Jowenko thought the clean-up people did a controlled demolition on a damaged building 7 several days after 9/11. But note his shock when he is told it happened that day, Why? Because he knows it could not have been accomplished in that short a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

notheist

30th July 2007, 10:20 AM

Belz...

30th July 2007, 10:34 AM

Thousands of what?

Experts in the field. You know, something that you are not.

Only two experts have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.
According to you, they are morons because they made their determination without looking at all the evidence.

You're putting words in my mouth.

The null-hypothesis is no CD, I don't need them to tell me that there was no CD, but I'd need a whole lot of them to say it WAS one, or at least ONE of them with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it was, not just his snap judgment.

I have read the NIST Apx. L report. There is no mention of CD.

Excellent. Then we can drop this angle immediately.

The 'final report' of 4-5-05 says there is no evidence of CD

Excellent, as well.

but it is not endorsed by anybody. [except the Bush appointed author]

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

Precisely, which is why I never mentioned what they believe. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Christopher7

30th July 2007, 12:37 PM

Watch the long versions of Jowenko, This guy sure does not seem sure in his opinion, but he had already made a commitment to a controlled demolition of WTC7 so he is stuck with trying make himself look good.There was never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a CD. The uncertainty was HOW it could be done in one day.

I am sure Jowenko thought the clean-up people did a controlled demolition on a damaged building 7 several days after 9/11. But note his shock when he is told it happened that day, Why? Because he knows it could not have been accomplished in that short a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjUHe also knew that the US government was lying about it and tried to cover by speculating on how it could be done in one day. When told that they did not put out the fires, he said he could not explain that.

He is one of millions who can see the obvious.

That's why it's called a smoking gun.

His opinion is more important than most because he owns a demolition company.

These experts agree with him:

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

In their expert opinions, WTC 7 was a CD.
At very least, the videos are evidence of a CD.

Christopher7

30th July 2007, 01:08 PM

I1.2 Initiating Components Fail Due to Fire Effects:
The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components.

Christopher, you don't get it do you?

Because the NIST study is real science and not a religious belief like 9/11 truth they use word like "may have" and "could cause".
My point is, there is no evidence of intense fires over 4 floors that would be required to cause that first core column to fail.

They did not 'do the math' on how long it would take office fires to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to more than 500 C [932 F]

You view seems to be if is not 100% sure then it must be a controlled demolition, God of the gaps, Find hole and then try and cram your "Inside Job God" in the hole.No

I am just pointing out that there is no evidence to support the failure of that first core column.

People here have said that there is lots of evidence for the 'official' hypothesis.

Such is not the case.

If push came to shove and you asked me what is the likelihood that the collapse of the WTC were a controlled demolition, I would not say 100% for sure it was not, No from the evidence at hand it would be something like 99% chance it was caused by impact damage and fire.
There was no impact damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

Only a fool would bet on something with such bad odds as a WTC controlled demolition.
Do you really think that Jowenko and the professors are fools?

Christopher7

30th July 2007, 08:41 PM

I'll ask again

would you be happy to be convicted on the video evidence studied by 3 experts when you had no other evidence against you and in fact had supporting evidence in your favour?

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence in your case?
I answered you in post 2929

"No
These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence."

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 03:19 AM

So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.

Thousands of what?

Experts in the field. You know, something that you are not.You glibly proclaim that there are thousands of experts in the field that disagree with Jowenko and the professors.

You don't know what the experts believe.

There are only two that i know of and they stated their position in 2001 before the evidence had been gathered.

To my knowledge, there are no experts who have said Jowenko and the professors are wrong.

The null-hypothesis is no CD, I don't need them to tell me that there was no CD, but I'd need a whole lot of them to say it WAS one, or at least ONE of them with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it was, not just his snap judgment.
Jowenko was able to make a snap judgment because it's obvious that WTC 7 was a CD. He reaffirmed his belief in a phone call months later after looking at the drawings of WTC 7.

The professors did not make a snap judgment. They studied the available videos. They are experts and they consider the videos evidence of CD.

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

BTW, there is no evidence that fires caused that first core column to collapse, so why do you believe that it did?

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

Precisely, which is why I never mentioned what they believe. Stop putting words in my mouth.You said thousands disagree.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

funk de fino

31st July 2007, 03:36 AM

I answered you in post 2929

"No
These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence."

good, so you would not be happy to be convicted on the testimony of three witnesses of video evidence with little or no background information when there was conflicting evidence in your favour?

i thought this was all you had? if you had more you would be doing more than gibbering about it on here then surely?

Belz...

31st July 2007, 05:55 AM

To my knowledge, there are no experts who have said Jowenko and the professors are wrong.

Let me clarify: we don't need them to say they disagree; but we'd need them to say they AGREE in order for their silence to support your theory, Chris.

Jowenko was able to make a snap judgment because it's obvious that WTC 7 was a CD.

Unfortunately for you that is a non sequitur. Snap judgments are suspect no matter who makes them. Jowenko did not have all the evidence at hand and that mutes his call.

The professors did not make a snap judgment. They studied the available videos.

Tell me, Chris: how many high-rise buildings have collapsed in the history of high-rise buildings before 9/11 ?? And how would you expect such a collapse to look like if it happened as described by NIST ?

It's a very important question to which I'd like an answer.

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

1000 x belief = 0.

BTW, there is no evidence that fires caused that first core column to collapse, so why do you believe that it did?

Actually, there IS evidence and we've been discussing it ad nauseam, here.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

And ?

twinstead

31st July 2007, 06:37 AM

You said thousands disagree.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

That report gives the names and qualifications of every contributor. If you think their silence supports your cause, perhaps you could contact some of them and ask them what they think of Jowenko's analysis, and the idea of CD in WTC7 in general.

They are on record as disagreeing with you, IMO, because their names are basically on what makes the official story, well, official. Perhaps if you could get one or two of them to 'risk it all' for truth and justice and admit they really don't believe what they put their names to, then you'd have a story.

Oh, wait. According to you, all scientist and engineers are too afraid to loose their jobs to come out against those who murdered 3000 innocent people.

I guess you're stuck, huh? Now you can pretty make up whatever you want about what they 'really' believe.

notheist

31st July 2007, 07:45 AM

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives"

And of course you can show some of the structures these guys have done in the past. I notice most seem to be professors, well that just prove the old saying "those who can't do, teach"

Here is a clue, you judge a persons expertise by what they have done, Can you show me an engineer who has designed say a 50 story building who says the WTC were a controlled demolition? No.

The guy who invented the process of controlled demolition of large structures says the WTC WERE NOT a controlled demolition, and he hold the record for this sort of thing. The best you can come up with is this "also ran" in the field and less then sure in his opinion on WTC7 but very sure that the towers WERE NOT a controlled demolition.

So we can agree the twin towers were NOT a controlled demolition, Right? After all Jowenko said so, and he is your guy.

twinstead

31st July 2007, 07:51 AM

So we can agree the twin towers were NOT a controlled demolition, Right? After all Jowenko said so, and he is your guy.

Since Chris most definitely thinks the twin towers were CD, I predict the response you will get from this is, "This thread is about WTC7. It's off topic".

That was his response to the last person who mentioned that little tidbit.

notheist

31st July 2007, 08:03 AM

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

FYI that site at one time had Burney Rubble, Robin Hood, Ms. Janet Jackson And Ron Jeremy listed as “Structural Engineers”

Nobodies and many are students and some who call themselves “Engineering Staff” Translated…. I work at an engineering firm, could be the copyboy or mail room guy. And note a full 40 of them are listed but not verified as being experts in anything. How much you want to bet I can get a fake name on that site?

Now look at the names on the NIST report, All of them the top people in the fields, the best of the best. Look at the Sydney Opera House, an engineering marvel, Now where do you think the firm who designed and built that stand on the controlled demolition conspiracy theory? Don't look at ae911truth.org.

Look at the people who promote the Inside Job scam, students and 20 something losers who are looking at a lifetime of low wage jobs in the service industry. Gullible twits who will buy and conspiracy theory so long as it matches their political views.

notheist

31st July 2007, 08:36 AM

I am just pointing out that there is no evidence to support the failure of that first core column.

So by your "reasoning" (I use the term lightly in your case) NIST has no evidence as to why WTC7 fell and since the truthers certainly have noting in the way of real evidence then that leaves only one logical conclusion. World Trade Center 7 did not collapse!

But of course that is silly, it did collapse, so the question becomes how did it happen given the evidence at hand.

So lets see... well it was hit by WTC1 when it fell, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that. And there were fires, big ones, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that too. Lets see... well fires do cause steel structures to fail, happened before this is just on a larger scale. Oh! Then you have the fact firemen reported the sounds of internal structural failure and visual evidence of bulging and leaning of WTC7.

Then you have the nations best structural engineers, controlled demolition experts and hundreds of others look at this and they to a man say it was fire that killed WTC7. Kind of a no-brainer,

But you do have a bunch of "experts" who can not prove their skills with real world accomplishments, defrocked professors, theologians and lets not forget the "Dude! I saw it on YouTube" losers. They say it was an inside job, no evidence, just "Dude! it so looked like one of them implosions"

You want to believe in the truthers, fine with me, Somebodies got to make the coffee at Starbucks, And get use to it because with thinking skills like that you will be doing that kind of stuff for a long time.

notheist

31st July 2007, 09:01 AM

"They did not 'do the math' on how long it would take office fires to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to more than 500 C [932 F]"

If you were really interested in truth you would also consider something I have been thinking about. When you heat something even a little it expands, structural engineers have to take this into account when they build, a 30ft long beam will grow and shrink by inches just from the heating and cooling of the day. slip joints have to be built into the structure to take this movement.

In a fire a big dangers is the expansion of steel which can be much greater then normal, if the expansion goes beyond the "slip" built in you can have rivets pop, welds break and all kinds of nasty things.

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 12:52 PM

good, so you would not be happy to be convicted on the testimony of three witnesses of video evidence with little or no background information when there was conflicting evidence in your favour?The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

What is the conflicting evidence?

twinstead

31st July 2007, 01:03 PM

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

Do you think that perhaps a court of law would subpoena members of the NIST and CD experts who would testify that in their expert opinion it wasn't CD? Remember there's a lot more CD experts on Earth than your little team.

See, you think the silence from all the other experts around the world supports your theory. If we were to go to court, that belief would be tested, don't you think?

And, what exactly do you think the court would think if 100 experts disagreed with your 3 or 4? I would imagine you should be careful of what you wish for.

notheist

31st July 2007, 02:14 PM

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 02:36 PM

Let me clarify: we don't need them to say they disagree; but we'd need them to say they AGREE in order for their silence to support your theory, Chris.
You choose to dismiss the statements of these three experts because there are not thousands of similar statements.

134 architects and engineers have joined Richard Gage AIA at ae911truth.
You can find reason to doubt a few of them so you dismiss all of them.

What is your reason for dismissing Richard Gage?

Unfortunately for you that is a non sequitur. Snap judgments are suspect no matter who makes them. Jowenko did not have all the evidence at hand and that mutes his call.
He did not need other evidence. In his expert opinion, the videos alone were proof of a CD.

He is an expert, you are not. You are not qualified to say he is wrong.

BTW, Ronald Hamburger and Hassan Astaneh did not have all the evidence.

Tell me, Chris: how many high-rise buildings have collapsed in the history of high-rise buildings before 9/11 ?? And how would you expect such a collapse to look like if it happened as described by NIST ?
Every high rise building that has imploded prior to 9/11 was a CD.
According to the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single column caused WTC 7 to implode in about 15 seconds mimicking a CD.

They worked backwards to explain how the implosion could fit the official story but they did not attempt to explain how fires caused that first column to fail.

There is no evidence to support the collapse of four floors around columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

This is WTC 7 at about 4 p.m.

There is no sign of fires on four contiguous floors.

There is no sign of floors collapsing in the burned out areas.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

There could have been fires burning around columns 79, 80 and 81 on four contiguous floors but 'could have been' does not equal evidence.

funk de fino

31st July 2007, 02:42 PM

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

What is the conflicting evidence?

the experts watched videos, what else did they have?

how do you know what i am an expert in, you have not asked me?

i would certainly class myself as an expert in watching videos:D

if i showed policemen a video of you shooting someone with a gun and asked them if it looked like a murder, what would you expect them to say if this is all the information they had?

they then said it looked like a murder using a firearm in their expert opinion

what if i tell them it was a blank round? does the testimony change?

the experts testimony is ok to use in court to convict you if they are without the facts concerning the blank round?

personally i would like them to have a little more up their sleeve if i was the jury, if it was enough you wouldnt be on here mouthing about it would you?

firecoins

31st July 2007, 02:42 PM

There was never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a CD. The uncertainty was HOW it could be done in one day.
.

Thats the sad secret about your theory. Its impossible to rig a skyscraper in a day, in secret, especially since the media was in the building to get shot of WTC 1 & 2. Sort of eliminates the theory. If CD could not be done, than it could not explain WTC 7. You need a new theory.

lapman

31st July 2007, 03:11 PM

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 03:14 PM

Do you think that perhaps a court of law would subpoena members of the NIST and CD experts who would testify that in their expert opinion.Yes

See, you think the silence from all the other experts around the world supports your theory.No

If we were to go to court, that belief would be tested, don't you think?Yes

And, what exactly do you think the court would think if 100 experts disagreed with your 3 or 4? I would imagine you should be careful of what you wish for.The jury would have view the videos and weigh the credibility and reasoning of each expert.

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 03:23 PM

It's been a while since I've been on this. So forgive me if this has already been answered. What is Jowenko's take on the east penthouse collapsing 8.2 seconds prior to the rest of the building or the kink in the eastern part of the building?Whatever he saw in the first video was enough to convince him that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

He reaffirmed that opinion in a phone call a couple months later.

He did not comment on the penthouse or kink.

lapman

31st July 2007, 03:53 PM

Whatever he saw in the first video was enough to convince him that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

He reaffirmed that opinion in a phone call a couple months later.

He did not comment on the penthouse or kink.
Ok, so he's supposed to make a definite conclusion from 9 seconds of muted video. Right. They why does he look so confused when they tell him that the building was on fire?

And we know the phone call was legitimate because?

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 04:35 PM

So lets see... well it was hit by WTC1 when it fell, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that.There was no debris damage near the area of the initiating event.

And there were fires, big ones, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that too.The fires in the east part of WTC 7 progressed thru several floors as they consumed the fuel and burned out.

If you follow the time line of the progression of the fires, you will see that they only burned about 2 hours in any location.

Lets see... well fires do cause steel structures to fail, happened before this is just on a larger scale. There is the 3 story toy factory in Thailand [that didn't meet the minimal Thai codes] and the exhibition hall in Chicago (?) that had very little interior framework.

No high rise building has imploded due to fire.

The only high rise structure to partially fail was the Windsor Tower.

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1622/copyofmadridwindsoriu2.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

The exterior columns in the Windsor towers weighed about 18 pounds per lineal foot. Columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed 730 pounds per lineal foot. [40 times as much]

It would take a bit longer to heat them up.

Oh! Then you have the fact firemen reported the sounds of internal structural failureThey heard 'creaking' and it was probably in the west half where all the debris damage was.

and visual evidence of bulging and leaning of WTC7.
There was no visual evidence of WTC 7 leaning.

The bulge was in the south west corner where the debris damage was.

Then you have the nations best structural engineers, controlled demolition experts and hundreds of others look at this and they to a man say it was fire that killed WTC7.No we don't.

Please name a few and quote what they said.

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 04:40 PM

Ok, so he's supposed to make a definite conclusion from 9 seconds of muted video. Right. They why does he look so confused when they tell him that the building was on fire?
Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.

And we know the phone call was legitimate because?Voice recognition.

firecoins

31st July 2007, 04:51 PM

Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.

Voice recognition.
A professional has to figure out how a skyscraper was rigged in a few hours because it is so difficult he could not do it himself? Hmm Maybe its just impossible to do

lapman

31st July 2007, 04:53 PM

Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.
Um, he had no idea what he was looking at until they told him. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong video. Are you talking about the 3 part series or the seminar presentation?

Voice recognition.So you have the full voice analysis that proves this?

Christopher7

31st July 2007, 10:53 PM

Um, he had no idea what he was looking at until they told him. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong video. Are you talking about the 3 part series or the seminar presentation?

What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

So you have the full voice analysis that proves this?No

firecoins

31st July 2007, 11:14 PM

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

ok, 2 questions
1. who did it?
2. How did they get the explosives in the building?
Can't be CD if these 2 key questions can not be adequatly answered.

twinstead

1st August 2007, 03:53 AM

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

So what you are saying is that Jowenko is the only expert on CD in the world whose opinion matters, and anybody, even other experts just as qualified as Jowenko, who DON'T think it was CD are in denial?

Does that characterize your position properly? To me, it simply sounds like your standard mantra that every piece of evidence that agrees with your theory is right, and every bit of evidence that doesn't is wrong. You also imply that anybody who doesn't think the WTC7 was a CD, even if they are an expert, is in denial.

Yup. You had your mind made up before you even had a single piece of evidence either way. You are an embarrassment to real investigators everywhere.

Belz...

1st August 2007, 05:38 AM

You choose to dismiss the statements of these three experts because there are not thousands of similar statements.

No, I choose to dismiss their statements because they are made with little or no investigation on the event.

134 architects and engineers have joined Richard Gage AIA at ae911truth.
You can find reason to doubt a few of them so you dismiss all of them.

We're talking about 3000 murders. I'm sure they could have an important case in court. SIX YEARS LATER. So why don't they ?

He did not need other evidence. In his expert opinion, the videos alone were proof of a CD.

So, basically you're saying that a doctor who sees a discoloration of your skin on the arm by way of a photograph can tell you what you have and prescribe chemotherapy and you won't question his conclusions ?

He is an expert, you are not. You are not qualified to say he is wrong.

I am qualified to say that all experts need to review the evidence before making such a call. He did not.

Every high rise building that has imploded prior to 9/11 was a CD.

Irrelevant. Why the hell are you truthers so hung up on preceedents ?

According to the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single column caused WTC 7 to implode in about 15 seconds mimicking a CD.

It's possible a matter of design, or perhaps the event was so catastrophic that it overwhelmed an otherwise-sound structure.

They worked backwards to explain how the implosion could fit the official story but they did not attempt to explain how fires caused that first column to fail.

There is no sign of fires on four contiguous floors.

There is no sign of floors collapsing in the burned out areas.

And THAT is why you can't reach a conclusion using single videos or photographs.

Belz...

1st August 2007, 05:41 AM

They heard 'creaking' and it was probably in the west half where all the debris damage was.

What was it you just said ?

'could have been' does not equal evidence. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2819387&postcount=2956)

notheist

1st August 2007, 08:55 AM

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

OK. So now we know the two towers were NOT a controlled demolition. Jowenko was sure of that too.

Jowenko is trying to say WTC7 was imploded because it was damaged by WTC1 and fire. No big evil pre-planing, just using the collapse of the towers as an opportunity to help Silverstine get rid of his building.

But if you are a critical thinker unlike the gullible truther types you can see how ridiculous this is.
1. If the FDNY did pull off the worlds fastest controlled demolition there is no reason for them to lie about it. They would just come forward and say "Yes, we imploded WTC7 due to its weakened state and it was a danger to rescue efforts"
2. There is no reason to destroy the building in the first place it was a write-off just from the damage and fires. Take down the building latter either your insurance will pay for it or it becomes a big tax write-off.
3. You avoid trying to make it look an accidental collapse, you could have all the explosion you wanted, you could even announce the exact time you will do the implosion.

Think a little here your concept makes no sense at all.

funk de fino

1st August 2007, 09:13 AM

your thoughts on post #2957 christopher7?

lapman

1st August 2007, 01:41 PM

What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"
True, but when they pointed out that it was on 9/11, he doesn't believe it a first. He repeats the "same day" question and finally asks, "Are you sure?"
He then states, "I remember that they told they've imploded it."
He also states, "I don't know the structure of the building." They only show him the column layout, not anything close to how the floors were laid out or the ConEd station. So he really is working with very limited information. When asked "Ok, but could it not be by fire?" Danny says no and explains a little about something dealing with the fire. He then states,"But I don't know, it's only guessing for me."
Danny's whole belief that 7 was demolished is based on his belief that Silverstein ordered it.

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]
Really. Link to one video that has part of the roof caving in several seconds prior to the start of the demolition.
NoWhat makes me doubt that is was real is that Danny keeps talking about how Silverstein says he is going to "pull it down." Silverstein never said that. Sounds like a problem with translation. Is there any non-9/11 based video where he talks in English?

Unfit4Command

1st August 2007, 04:53 PM

Hey Chris, I have a question. According to NIST's final report on Building 7, what caused the collapse?

Christopher7

3rd August 2007, 02:16 AM

So what you are saying is that Jowenko is the only expert on CD in the world whose opinion matters,
No

and anybody, even other experts just as qualified as Jowenko, who DON'T think it was CD are in denial?Do you know of any?

Christopher7

3rd August 2007, 02:55 AM

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

ok,

ok

2 questions
1. who did it?
2. How did they get the explosives in the building?
Can't be CD if these 2 key questions can not be adequatly answered.Those are subjects for another thread.

funk de fino

3rd August 2007, 03:08 AM

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

therein lies your problem

on initial glances at the video (especially the edited ones) it may look similiar, however when you have the full story and really look at all the available video evidence and eye witness testimonies with all background information, then read the NIST report,then look and listen to real CD's, then anyone who still thinks it is a CD is in denial

you have nothing

Christopher7

3rd August 2007, 04:00 AM

No, I choose to dismiss their statements because they are made with little or no investigation on the event.
You think you know better than they if the videos are evidence.

We're talking about 3000 murders. I'm sure they could have an important case in court. SIX YEARS LATER. So why don't they ?There's a lot of people working on it. More all the time.

So, basically you're saying that a doctor who sees a discoloration of your skin on the arm by way of a photograph can tell you what you have and prescribe chemotherapy and you won't question his conclusions ?
Why yes, thats just exactly what i've been trying to say. How terribly clever of you to figure it out.

I am qualified to say that all experts need to review the evidence before making such a call. He did not.He did, the videos are the evidence.

Irrelevant. Why the hell are you truthers so hung up on preceedents ?
Relevant!
Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

It's possible a matter of design, or perhaps the event was so catastrophic that it overwhelmed an otherwise-sound structure.The odds of a building being so perfectly designed as to mimic a professional building implosion because 1 out of 24 core columns failed, are somewhere between no-way and fagidaboudit.

Belz...

3rd August 2007, 06:00 AM

You think you know better than they if the videos are evidence.

No. I think YOU think THEY think videos are sufficient evidence. I don't know what THEY think.

There's a lot of people working on it. More all the time.

And yet they're still at the "asking" questions phase ? And yet they can't agree on a single theory ? And yet their numbers are made up of laypeople, to a very few exceptions ?

Why yes, thats just exactly what i've been trying to say. How terribly clever of you to figure it out.

Well, it's a good thing you're not a doctor, and I hope you never need one.

He did, the videos are the evidence.

Then why the hell do we ever collect pieces of airplane crashed, eh ? All we need to is take videos of the crash and post them on youtube.

Relevant!
Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

Really ? AND HOW COULD YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE SINCE SKYSCRAPERS RARELY COLLAPSE AT ALL ?

The odds of a building being so perfectly designed as to mimic a professional building implosion because 1 out of 24 core columns failed, are somewhere between no-way and fagidaboudit.

Argument from incredulity.

You have a pet theory and you'd do anything to cling to it.

twinstead

3rd August 2007, 06:05 AM

You have a pet theory and you'd do anything to cling to it.

That pretty much describes the entire truth movement with any of the myriad different and sometimes competing theories they tend keep as pets.

Belz...

3rd August 2007, 08:01 AM

And the pets breed...

Christopher7

4th August 2007, 03:22 AM

No. I think YOU think THEY think videos are sufficient evidence. I don't know what THEY think.
Really? Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired.

Jowenko: This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives."

They think WTC 7 was a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

Really ? AND HOW COULD YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE SINCE SKYSCRAPERS RARELY COLLAPSE AT ALL ?
Rarely? Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

GlennB

4th August 2007, 03:39 AM

Rarely? Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

Except that Jowenko disagrees with you on that. Which leaves damage and fire as another possibility.

But I suspect we established this way back ....

twinstead

4th August 2007, 10:24 AM

You realize Chris that we are not going to let you weasel out of the fact that your prize expert doesn't believe the WTC1 and 2 were controlled demolition.

We know YOU do. You're going to have to deal with this eventually.

Christopher7

4th August 2007, 06:09 PM

therein lies your problem

on initial glances at the video (especially the edited ones) it may look similiar,
WTC 7 imploded

however when you have the full story The full story

There was no debris damage near the area where the collapse began.

There were office fires on several floors in the area where the collapse began.

The core columns were massive, over 4 tons per floor.

It takes a long time to heat that much steel to 1,000 F

and really look at all the available video evidence They did. They considered what they saw enough to say WTC 7 was a CD but, of course, you know better than these experts.

and eye witness testimonies with all background information,Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse, one did not.
They did not consult a structural engineer like the chiefs at the Meridian Plaza did.
What they thought does not equal evidence

then read the NIST report,I did. They don't explain how fires caused that first column to collapse.

then look and listen to real CD's, The lack of sound on the videos is not a problem for most people including the owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction.

Christopher7

5th August 2007, 12:11 AM

Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

Except that Jowenko disagrees with you on that. Which leaves damage and fire as another possibility.

But I suspect we established this way back ....
WTC 1 & 2 did not implode, they exploded from the top down, throwing debris over 500 feet in all directions.

Implode means "to fall in on itself"

Danny did not recognize WTC 1 & 2 as CD's because there had never been a top down demolition before.

In the video he points this out.

Jowenko: Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
Interviewer: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.

Christopher7

5th August 2007, 07:04 AM

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"
True, but when they pointed out that it was on 9/11, he doesn't believe it a first.
J: This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.
I: But it also happened on September 11th.
J: The same day?
I: The same day.
J: The same day? Are you sure?
I: Yes. There he goes again.
J: I remember that they told me 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.

He knew it was a CD, he just couldn't believe it happened on the same day.

He repeats the "same day" question and finally asks, "Are you sure?"
He then states, "I remember that they told they've imploded it."He knows it's unlikely that WTC 7 could be rigged in a few hours.

He also states, "I don't know the structure of the building." They only show him the column layout, not anything close to how the floors were laid out or the ConEd station. So he really is working with very limited information.At this point, he has already concluded that it was a CD.
He was trying to figure out how it was done in a few hours.
When he saw the column layout he said "That explains quite a lot"
[the ConEd station is irrelevant, the core columns are the key to how WTC 7 was imploded]

When asked "Ok, but could it not be by fire?" Danny says no and explains a little about something dealing with the fire. He then states,"But I don't know, it's only guessing for me."I: "Ok, but could it not be by fire? That it was on fire and that the building... "
J: "No. Well, maybe that some.... that burning parts fly away so far, I don't believe that. But, I don't know, it's guessing for me."

I: Yes, on the pictures we've seen you could see clearly ...
J: "This is the work of man."

Later he says
"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."
[imploded is synonymous with controlled demolition]

Danny's whole belief that 7 was demolished is based on his belief that Silverstein ordered it.No

His belief is based on the videos just like the two professors of structural analysis and construction.
[not to mention 135 architects and engineers, and 40,000,000+ other people]

Link to one video that has part of the roof caving in several seconds prior to the start of the demolition.http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/967/columbiaak4.jpg

This picture illustrates the principle.

Every implosion is different and requires a unique sequence of demolition.

WTC 7 was nearly 600 feet high.

The columns under the penthouse were blown first to create a hole so the east and west walls could fall inward. It took 6 or 7 seconds for this area to clear out. The kink that developed in that area brought the east and west walls inward.

What makes me doubt that is was real is that Danny keeps talking about how Silverstein says he is going to "pull it down." Silverstein never said that. Sounds like a problem with translation. Is there any non-9/11 based video where he talks in English?The reason that "pull it" has gotten so much attention is because it's a demolition term.
Danny knew it to mean "pull it down with explosives".

BTW: The whole "pull it" thing is a red herring. If Silverstein meant "pull it down", they would have "pulled it" later like the others, not while rescue operations were still going on.