10 story hole in WTC 7

[LashL]

Twoofers have no sense of honour, dignity, or selflessness, and they, therefore, do not understand why the rest of world does.

It is a very sad disconnect between twoofers and reality.

[Christopher7]

there does not need to be. All that is needed is a load transfer and a rate of steel expansion elsewhere to push columns many bays away out of plumb for the structure to fail.
Many bays away? Source?

NIST Apx. L pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.

When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.

Meridian Plaza

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

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

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.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. 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).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

[LashL]

What operations?

Firefighting operations. You might want to actually look into what that entails some time. It includes a lot more than you, apparently, think.

[Christopher7]

This is nonsense. Any "expert" who came to court to provide an opinion without having first obtained a whole lot of background information, and without having done a whole lot of detailed analysis based on complete information, and who gave an opinion in this matter on such a flimsy basis as a few seconds of video, would be laughed out of court.IYO

Danny Jowenko says
"This is controlled demolition."

Hugo Bachmann, and Jörg Schneider interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

Who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about?

[SOMERLED]

Twoofers have no sense of honour, dignity, or selflessness, and they, therefore, do not understand why the rest of world does.

It is a very sad disconnect between twoofers and reality.
If you're such a skeptic, how come you're not skeptical about 9/11.
Recent polls,
82 % = believed they have been lied to about 9/11.
68 % = believe 9/11 was an inside job.
90 % = believe the govt killed JFK.
How's that for a bit of reality.

[LashL]

IYO

Danny Jowenko says
"This is controlled demolition."

Hugo Bachmann, and Jörg Schneider interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

Who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about?

I am a trial lawyer. I know an awful lot about "expert" witnesses because it is my job to know.

Like I said above, any "expert" who ever came to court and tried to pass off their opinion on the basis of a few minutes of videotape without having obtained a whole lot of background information and without having done a whole lot of in depth analysis would be laughed out of court.

You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.

I invite you to educate yourself on the point. Somehow, though, I doubt that you will.

[LashL]

If you're such a skeptic, how come you're not skeptical about 9/11.
Recent polls,
82 % = believed they have been lied to about 9/11.
68 % = believe 9/11 was an inside job.
90 % = believe the govt killed JFK.
How's that for a bit of reality.

You're a loon, malcolm, and you have no concept of reality. Here's a hint: online polls do not reflect reality, and your posts are not even remotely close to reality.

[Christopher7]

I am a trial lawyer. I know an awful lot about "expert" witnesses because it is my job to know.
Trial lawyers are not paid to tell the truth. They are paid to win.

You seem to have brought that mindset to this issue.

Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.
He says the videos are evidence of a CD.
Two professors of structural analysis and construction say
the videos are evidence of a CD.

They are qualified to make that call.

A trial lawyer is not.

You can argue that they didn't have enough background information or in depth analysis but that's just an argument of personal incredulity.

These experts say the videos alone are clear evidence of a CD.

A trial lawyer says they are wrong.

Who are we to believe?

[funk de fino]

Trial lawyers are not paid to tell the truth. They are paid to win.

You seem to have brought that mindset to this issue.

Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.
He says the videos are evidence of a CD.
Two professors of structural analysis and construction say
the videos are evidence of a CD.

They are qualified to make that call.

A trial lawyer is not.

You can argue that they didn't have enough background information or in depth analysis but that's just an argument of personal incredulity.

These experts say the videos alone are clear evidence of a CD.

A trial lawyer says they are wrong.

Who are we to believe?

it does not matter, it is who will the jury believe that matters and i am afraid on the evidence you have provided they would side with the non-CD story

what other questions do you think a lawyer would ask jowenko when he was on the stand?

[LashL]

Trial lawyers are not paid to tell the truth. They are paid to win.

You seem to have brought that mindset to this issue.

Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.
He says the videos are evidence of a CD.
Two professors of structural analysis and construction say
the videos are evidence of a CD.

They are qualified to make that call.

A trial lawyer is not.

You can argue that they didn't have enough background information or in depth analysis but that's just an argument of personal incredulity.

These experts say the videos alone are clear evidence of a CD.

A trial lawyer says they are wrong.

Who are we to believe?

You know not of what you speak, as usual.

First, as an officer of the court, I am obligated to be truthful, and I always am. I have not and will not compromise my integrity for any client. Your attempt to insinuate otherwise is only reflective of your own inability to respond meaningfully to my posts. No surprise there.

Second, as a trial lawyer, I would never in a thousand years call an "expert" witness who spouts off an opinion on the basis of a few minutes of video. I would never in a thousand years call an "expert" witness who has not first gone in great depth into the background, facts, and evidence before providing a considered, rational, logical, and professional opinion on the specific questions at issue.

Jowenko has done none of the essential things that I would require for him to be a legitimate expert witness in this case. He looked at a few minutes worth of video (which deliberately did not include some very important parts) and spouted an off the cuff opinion without knowing any of the facts that he needed to know in order to come to a considered conclusion. He destroyed his own credibility, without any help from anyone but a couple of troofers.

No court would ever accept his opinion as helpful or useful, in light of the manner in which he delivered it to a couple of troofers without even asking any relevant questions, without knowing anything about the circumstances, etc. The man would be utterly humiliated if he ever got into a witness stand on this case, because he did not adhere to even the minimal professional standards that are required of properly qualified experts when it comes to appearing in court.

No lawyer worth his or her salt would ever put him forward as a witness regarding the WTC. Not a chance. Even troofers would not call him as a witness in court (assuming the troofers had a decent lawyer) for the reasons set out above. He simply would not help their case because he did not bother to look at the facts and evidence before spouting off an opinion, based on a few minutes of video. He would be so badly torn apart on cross examination that it would be painful to watch.

You seem to think that just because someone with expertise in a particular field expressed an ill-formed opinion that it somehow would be useful in court. That is not so. In court, it matters - greatly - how the "expert" formed his opinion with respect to the specific matter at hand, and it matters - greatly - the basis upon which he formed it. Jowenko has already doomed himself to being condemned for leaping to conclusions without having any of the relevant facts, without knowing anything about the building at issue, without knowing anything about the circumstances at the time, etc., and that means that his opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition will never be taken seriously in a court of law.

You are quite wrong if you think otherwise.

Contrary to your unfounded assertion, this is not an argument from incredulity. It is a matter of professional experience. Ask any legitimate trial laywer you like, and they will tell you the same thing. The "experts" you are proposing would only harm your case, and no trial lawyer worth her/his salt would ever put them forward on the basis of what you have presented to date.

[Christopher7]

it does not matter, it is who will the jury believe that matters and i am afraid on the evidence you have provided they would side with the non-CD storyThe video evidence is not the whole case.

If the jury were shown the videos and these experts were allowed to point out why, in their expert opinion, the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD, their testimony would be taken seriously.

[Christopher7]

The "experts" you are proposing would only harm your case, and no trial lawyer worth her/his salt would ever put them forward on the basis of what you have presented to date.IYO

[funk de fino]

The video evidence is not the whole case.

If the jury were shown the videos and these experts were allowed to point out why, in their expert opinion, the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD, their testimony would be taken seriously.


what other questions would the lawyer put to them?

ask them what other background investigations they did, what videos they seen and who showed them the videos, possible reasons that it may have fallen like that without CD, if the penthouse falling first made any difference in their opinion, how long and how many men it would have taken to rig this CD, why there was no explosions or the such like on the video, if pull is a term used when bringing a building like this down with explosives, what type of explosives would have to have been used and how much of them?

would the lawyer present to the court the videos of the firemen saying the building was going to fall and the fact that all operations were pulled from the site due to the building stability? would he pull in other expert who would rip apart what jowenko is saying based on video evidence?

all they have done is watched an edited video, if they were called to stand up in court and state it was CD they would look at other evidence prior to being called to the stand and come to the conclusion they were mistaken, they would never take the stand in a million years

what other evidence, you dont have any? i have already said, if you did you would not be here would you?

again, you have nothing

[notheist]

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".

So you are saying the term "Pull" is such a common term that even Silverstein who is not part of a controlled demolition crew knew it.

Then you should have no problem what so ever in finding something where the word is used to refer to a explosive controlled demolition BEFORE 9/11.

Funny is it not that people in the controlled demolition industry do not now or never have used "Pull" to refer to anything have to do with explosives?

[notheist]

Christopher7 I have this impression you are completely clueless as to what it takes to implode a building. You have a child impression that you just plant some explosives and run some wire and it all very simple. There is information out there that would inform you but I don't think you want to know, it would be too much of a threat to your world view.

So enlighten with you knowledge of how a controlled demolition is done.

Somehow I don't think we will hear much from you.

[Belz...]

Really? Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired.

No, I think you just forgot what the discussion was about.

They think WTC 7 was a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

Then it comes right back to my question:

If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?

Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

Thank you. You have just shown that you understand nothing about this issue, because you obviously have no clue what the explosives do in a demolition.

[Belz...]

Trial lawyers are not paid to tell the truth. They are paid to win.

I believe lying is an offense.

A trial lawyer says they are wrong.

Ad hominem.

The video evidence is not the whole case.

And yet you just claimed that the video evidence is ALL that the experts need to make this case.

Are you now retracting that statement ?

[Belz...]

IYO

What part of:

You are quite wrong if you think otherwise.

Contrary to your unfounded assertion, this is not an argument from incredulity. It is a matter of professional experience.

...didn't you understand ?

[notheist]

"Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives."

Bridges do not collapse unless destroyed with explosives.

OH Wait... One did just that.

UNLESS!

THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

[Christopher7]

what other questions would the lawyer put to them?There would be many questions and many witnesses.

The point is, the videos are evidence of CD.

all they have done is watched an edited video,They saw the same few videos we have all seen.

if they were called to stand up in court and state it was CD they would look at other evidence prior to being called to the stand and come to the conclusion they were mistaken, they would never take the stand in a million yearsYou have no idea what they would do.

again, you have nothingStatement of denial.

You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.

[FatesWebb]

"Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives."

Bridges do not collapse unless destroyed with explosives.

OH Wait... One did just that.

UNLESS!

THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

actually there is an acoustic weapons plant like 1 mile away from that bridge, which it seems unlikely it is possible.

[twinstead]

You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.

Even if you want to present the videos as some kind of evidence of CD, the fact remains that in a court of law, when ALL the evidence can and will be presented, Jowenko would be eaten alive.

Do you really think the court would have trouble seating any number of CD experts just as qualified as Jowenko who disagree with him? What about all the first responders and firemen at the scene who would testify that in their expert opinions the building was unstable and ready to collapse?

How many experts do you think the opposing council will call to contradict yours, Chris? How many experts do you think you need to counter this? One? Two? A hundred?

Chris you should be careful of what you wish for. Your 'theory' is NOT ready for a courtroom.

[funk de fino]

Statement of denial.

You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.

1. very ironic

2. i call your use of what they "said" as being evidence as being nothing, if they are willing to stand up in court and back up what they said after seeing everything (not just a few videos that were not the full videos) then you may have something that some lawyer may take a chance on

but you have nothing else

the videos are not evidence of CD they are evidence that buildings collapsing can look like CD even when they are not CD

what would happen if jowenko stood up and said it would take a team of 30 men 2 months to set up the CD and that in his opinion it was impossible for this to have been done prior to 911, what would you say?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 I have this impression you are completely clueless as to what it takes to implode a building.
So enlighten with you knowledge of how a controlled demolition is done.

I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family.

They show how they developed the fine art of building implosion.

The principle is dirt simple. As Jowenko said, you just blow the support columns [in the proper places and in the proper sequence] and let gravity do the rest.

If you say that WTC 7 does not look like a CD, then it is you who doesn't have a clue how buildings are imploded.

[HyJinX]

Uh oh...There's that "look like" stuff again.

To some people a danish looks like a donut...but they are two completely different things.

[Christopher7]

They think WTC 7 was a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

No, Then it comes right back to my question:

If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?
You know that these three experts are qualified to make the call so you revert to your silly simile.

[Christopher7]

And yet you just claimed that the video evidence is ALL that the experts need to make this case.
That was 'make the call' not 'make the case'.

Is your reading comprehension disability intentional?

[Christopher7]

Uh oh...There's that "look like" stuff again.

To some people a danish looks like a donut...but they are two completely different things.If a video shows something that looks like a duck, that would be evidence it was a duck.

It did not quack like a duck in the videos.

This does not mean that it did not quack.

But enough of silly similes.

These three experts [and many others] say the videos, without sound, are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

Do you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

[HyJinX]

Yes. I agree that to me, WTC 7 looks like a CD. Then again, I get danish and donuts mixed up all the time.

[HyJinX]

I'm going to try an experiment for the sake of this arguement Christopher. I'm going to take a picture of my wife's wedding ring. The ring is made of platinum, which looks amazingly like silver. I'm going to take that picture down to a jeweler near where I work tomorrow. I'm going to ask him if he thinks, by looking at the picture, if the ring is silver or platinum.

Would you trust his opinion based on this photo?

I'll let you know what he says.

[GlennB]

I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family.

They show how they developed the fine art of building implosion.

The principle is dirt simple. As Jowenko said, you just blow the support columns [in the proper places and in the proper sequence] and let gravity do the rest.

If you say that WTC 7 does not look like a CD, then it is you who doesn't have a clue how buildings are imploded.

No.

The columns are also pre-weakened with torches. Jowenko mentions that several times.
They are also stripped of cladding and fireproofing.
Complex calculations of load are made and the charges/sequence of firing is geared around these calculations.

Now - and this is your big problem -

1) If this was set up before 9/11 then the perpetrators would need to know *in advance* that WTC1 would rain debris on WTC7 and that fires would ensue. Otherwise, there would be no plausible reason for WTC7 to fall. The CD would result in the spontaneous collapse of an undamaged building which would, obviously, not be a workable scheme.

2) i) If it was organised on 9/11 itself - in a damaged and fire-ridden building - the CD team would have to operate around firefighters, police etc etc, in a chaos of smoke and debris. Then they would need - uniquely - to mask the flashes and blasts typical of CD. Under the most difficult circumstances ever experienced by a CD team.

2) ii) If it was organised on 9/11 itself - the CD team would have to be ready to go *in advance*, even though there could be absolutely no guarantee that WTC1 would produce enough damage to "cover" for the CD.

In summary - there is no narrative that makes any sense whatsoever to explain a CD operation on WTC7. None. Whatsoever.

And don't even get started on motive, because there isn't one that makes a grain of sense.

So - it looks like a bit like a duck, but actually it's a duck-billed platypus.

[RedIbis]

Now - and this is your big problem -

1) If this was set up before 9/11 then the perpetrators would need to know *in advance* that WTC1 would rain debris on WTC7 and that fires would ensue. Otherwise, there would be no plausible reason for WTC7 to fall. The CD would result in the spontaneous collapse of an undamaged building which would, obviously, not be a workable scheme.

.

Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.

[GlennB]

Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.

Are you calling the FDNY liars?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7lateafternoon-1.jpg

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg

[beachnut]

Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.
Wrong on all counts. Gee, you should cheat next time and ask some people who saw WTC7 burning out of control (which part of out of control have you missed). I would do more research before I post such a wrong posts. My goodness, are you in grade school, or do you just skip relevant research and go right on to crazy conclusions?

[twinstead]

Indeed. That debris would fall on WTC 7 was a near guarantee, whether or not fires would ensue is less likely. So how hard would it be to set some necessary fires? Now, that's risky because these fires might not spread, won't become an inferno in such a short period of time.

Well guess what? There was no inferno and the collapse of WTC 7 is in fact "not...a workable scheme."

That's the big problem.

That appears to be totally contrary to numerous eye-witnesses at the scene, including fire fighters tasked to make just such observations.

These observations included the fact the building was unstable and could collapse at any time.

The only big problem, IMO, is the strenuous mental gymnastics required to ignore, downplay, or claim as fake that compelling evidence.

[RedIbis]

That appears to be totally contrary to numerous eye-witnesses at the scene, including fire fighters tasked to make just such observations.

These observations included the fact the building was unstable and could collapse at any time.

The only big problem, IMO, is the strenuous mental gymnastics required to ignore, downplay, or claim as fake that compelling evidence.

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC7fire.jpg

[twinstead]

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC7fire.jpg

You gotta love the YouTube generation.

So, all the eye-witness reports go out the window because you look at a picture and say "well, no huge fires there". Tell me then, what were those experts looking at who were there that day monitoring the building on the site? Were they lying? Are they incompetent?

Well, there ya go. All it takes is looking at a picture and you can tell exactly what's going on inside a huge building.

Those quotes don't even make you think for a second that perhaps that image isn't really representative of what was going on in the building? Not even for a second?

[RedIbis]

You gotta love the YouTube generation.

So, all the eye-witness reports go out the window because you look at a picture and say "well, no huge fires there". Tell me then, what were those experts looking at who were there that day monitoring the building on the site? Were they lying? Are they incompetent?

Well, there ya go. All it takes is looking at a picture and you can tell exactly what's going on inside a huge building.

Those quotes don't even make you think for a second that perhaps that image isn't really representative of what was going on in the building? Not even for a second?


The difference here is that I actually went through the quotes. Again, because you're not getting it: the majority of the quotes describe the "word" coming down that the building was going to collapse. The majority of the quotes do not say that the building is engulfed in an inferno.

You are make assumptions that are not backed up with evidence.

[GlennB]

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/WTC7fire.jpg

Ahah. Photos of the fire in its early stages prove that's as far as it ever developed???

mmmmkay

[twinstead]

Okay, RedIbis, who are these people:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

and, who are these:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage

Tell me none of these people actually saw the WTC7 with their own eyes and the damage they claim, and were just 'following the word' coming down.

[Christopher7]

Yes. I agree that to me, WTC 7 looks like a CD. Then again, I get danish and donuts mixed up all the time.
A donut is is easy to recognize, it's the one with the hole in the middle.

The official story is a donut.

WTC 7 was a CD.

CD's are very recognizable.

Building implosions are the fine art of CD's.

Their characteristics are unmistakable.

WTC 7 imploded. There has never been a case of a high rise building imploding that was not a CD.

WTC 7 looks like a CD, therefore, it is possible that it was a CD.

These three experts say the videos are evidence of a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

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

[Christopher7]

there does not need to be. All that is needed is a load transfer and a rate of steel expansion elsewhere to push columns many bays away out of plumb for the structure to fail.


Many bays away? Source?

NIST Apx. L pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.

When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.

Meridian Plaza

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

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

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.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. 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).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

A W Smith has not responded to this post yet.

Nor has anyone else for that matter.

[GlennB]

A donut is is easy to recognize, it's the one with the hole in the middle.
The official story is a donut.
WTC 7 was a CD.
CD's are very recognizable
Building implosions are the fine art of CD's.
Their characteristics are unmistakable.
WTC 7 imploded. There has never been a case of a high rise building imploding that was not a CD.
WTC 7 looks like a CD, therefore, it is possible that it was a CD.
These three experts say the videos are evidence of a CD.
They are well qualified to make that call.
The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.



You sound like a man in the last desperate stages of supporting an untenable theory.
I suspect you're quite close to accepting that you've been talking b#llocks all these months.
It doesn't hurt.
Nobody here will take the mickey.
Been there.

[TerryUK]

You sound like a man in the last desperate stages of supporting an untenable theory.
I suspect you're quite close to accepting that you've been talking b#llocks all these months.
It doesn't hurt.
Nobody here will take the mickey.
Been there.

Brilliant presentation of evidence there - NOT!

As usual from your ilk, when you don't like the facts, you attack the poster.

If you can explain how the failure occured simultaeously over the full horizontal width of the building, please do so...
No, I didn't you could

[Christopher7]

You sound like a man in the last desperate stages of supporting an untenable theory. You sound like a man in denial.

Nobody here will take the mickey.No one here can accept statements of experts that the videos are evidence of a CD.

[twinstead]

Brilliant presentation of evidence there - NOT!

As usual from your ilk, when you don't like the facts, you attack the poster.

If you can explain how the failure occured simultaeously over the full horizontal width of the building, please do so...
No, I didn't you could

If you have any specific objections to the preliminary NIST report, or the eye witness reports of people there (these guys:)

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

perhaps you could bring them up instead of building a 'failure occurred simultaneously over the full horizontal width of the building' strawman.

First, I'm sure you haven't read the NIST report, but at least read Gravy's WTC7 paper. It's not bad.

[twinstead]

No one here can accept statements of experts that the videos are evidence of a CD.

And you can't accept the fact that in a war of 'experts' you are fighting a loosing battle.

[TerryUK]

First, I'm sure you haven't read the NIST report, but at least read Gravy's WTC7 paper. It's not bad.

When you explain how the failure occured simultaneously over the full horizontal width of the building, I will listen to anything else you say...
If you can't do this, what's the point in talking about it?
NIST, as far as I know, have still not managed to explain this satisfactorily.
I understand that their report on WTC7 has been delayed for some reason...

[LashL]

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


No, they are not. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.

[notheist]

"I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family"

So like I said you are clueless.

If you researched it better you would know what detonation cord is and why it is used and not electrical wire. You wouls also know this cord is not easy to hide.

You would know that often large cables are used to direct the fall from inside but you have to knock big holes in the floors to do this.

And of course you would then know that pre-cutting of beams is the big part of a controlled demolition job, gee I wonder how all the pre-cutting of internal structure was done in WTC7 on 9/11. Even Jowenko mentions this pre-cutting in the long version of his interview, you can see how he is desperately trying to figure out how it was done in a building with huge fires. How do sneak a bunch of guys with cutting torched inside that building on that day.

I myself saw the inside of the JL Hudsons building here in Detroit before it was imploded. I was remarkable how much pre-demolition was done. But that is common in a real controlled demolition.

Like is said you obviously know jack about how this is done.

[Christopher7]

If you have any specific objections to the preliminary NIST report, or the eye witness reports of people there (these guys:)

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage)
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc)

perhaps you could bring them up instead of building a 'failure occurred simultaneously over the full horizontal width of the building' strawman.

First, I'm sure you haven't read the NIST report, but at least read Gravy's WTC7 paper. It's not bad.
Gravys' list of quotes is misleading.
He would have you believe that WTC 7 looked like this

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1622/copyofmadridwindsoriu2.jpg

or this

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/600/146pmng3.jpg

when it looked like this

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

This was taken about 4 p.m.

There are pictures of the fires and a time line of the progression of those fires in the NIST report.

The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.

There were fires on a few floors in the east end of the building where the collapse began.

Only a few of the firefighters on Gravys' list thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
The rest heard about it thru the grapevine.

He left out the fire chief who did not think WTC 7 was going to collapse.

[Christopher7]

"I have seen the Discovery Channel special on the Loizeaux family"

If you researched it better you would know what detonation cord is and why it is used and not electrical wire.You are assuming that i did not know that.
You are wrong.
The special goes into detail on detonation cord.
They have detonation cord that burns at different speeds and inline millisecond delays.

You wouls also know this cord is not easy to hide.
It would be easy to hide in the elevator shafts.

It could be done without detonation cord.
You do not know the state of the art so don't say that's not possible.

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

The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example of a high-tech blast initiation system that eliminates the need for detonation chords.

You would know that often large cables are used to direct the fall from inside but you have to knock big holes in the floors to do this.
The cables are optional.

And of course you would then know that pre-cutting of beams is the big part of a controlled demolition job, Pre-cutting is optional.

How do sneak a bunch of guys with cutting torched inside that building on that day.Therein lies the rub.

WTC 7 was rigged before 9/11.

I myself saw the inside of the JL Hudsons building here in Detroit before it was imploded. I was remarkable how much pre-demolition was done. But that is common in a real controlled demolition.
Common but not essential.

The core columns in the elevator shafts and mechanical floors [5 & 6] were accessible to 'maintenance' workers and out of sight to everyone else.

The building could easily have been rigged before 9/11.

There were no fires reported on the first six floors in the east half of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

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

No, they are not. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.It is indeed an honor to be debating with a trial lawyer who knows more about building demolition than the owner of a demolition company.

[LashL]

It is indeed an honor to be debating with a trial lawyer who knows more about building demolition than the owner of a demolition company.


You are, as usual, misconstruing and misstating the facts, and even adding a strawman into the equation, to boot. Pretty lame, Chris.

I have not offered any opinion on building demolition. I have offered my professional opinion about evidence and expert witnesses. You know, those little things that I am, in fact, an expert on.

I am not the least bit surprised that you managed to get it completely wrong.

And I repeat, the videos are not evidence of a CD. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.

ETA: The fact that you have not even asked, or tried to figure out, why they are not evidence of a CD, for legal purposes, is very telling, indeed.

[Wartrac]

Here is the thing about WTC7 that I can't shake.

Why would WTC7 have to go? People keep screaming documents and files etc etc. If you ask me, hand carrying them out would be a lot neater. If you are CIA or NSA etc etc.....who do you report to regarding "what you're taking out of the building". I mean serioulsy, if they wanted to hide documents they wouldn't have to CD the building lol.

"**** what are we going to do with this piece of paper?"

"I know, lets not shred or burn it, let's bring down the entire building around it"

"Wow, good idea, much easier"

Oh wait I forgot, they made it such an unbelievable act to make sure that nobody would think it was just about destroying documents. :rolleyes:

[LashL]

"**** what are we going to do with this piece of paper?"

"I know, lets not shred or burn it, let's bring down the entire building around it"

"Wow, good idea, much easier"

Oh wait I forgot, they made it such an unbelievable act to make sure that nobody would think it was just about destroying documents. :rolleyes:

Yes, because when you really, really, really have to get rid of documents, it is far better to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in demolishing a building and to send the documents fluttering all over the streets of Manhattan than it is to spend $200 for a good shredder, of course. :rolleyes:

Oh, and damn those electronic copies of the same documents that happen to be stored at other locations. Damn, damn, damn. Why, oh why, didn't we think to take out those buildings, too? ;)

[Christopher7]

I have not offered any opinion on building demolition. I have offered my professional opinion about evidence and expert witnesses. You know, those little things that I am, in fact, an expert on.

And I repeat, the videos are not evidence of a CD. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.

ETA: The fact that you have not even asked, or tried to figure out, why they are not evidence of a CD, for legal purposes, is very telling, indeed.
Spoken like a trial lawyer.

"for legal purposes"

Give me a break.

The truth is, the owner of a demolition company and two professors of structural analysis and construction say the videos are clear evidence of a CD.

You can ignore these experts by saying "That isn't enough for legal purposes", if it makes you feel good.

[funk de fino]

When was this HiEx Teleblaster II brought into general use Christopher7?

What would Jowenko say if they asked him why there were no loud explosions from the tower during the CD?

What would happen if jowenko stood up and said it would take a team of 30 men 2 months to set up the CD and that in his opinion it was impossible for this to have been done prior to 911, what would you say?

[GlennB]

When you explain how the failure occured simultaneously over the full horizontal width of the building, I will listen to anything else you say...
If you can't do this, what's the point in talking about it?
NIST, as far as I know, have still not managed to explain this satisfactorily.
I understand that their report on WTC7 has been delayed for some reason...

It didn't fall "simultaneously". At least one very large structure was falling inside the building for several seconds just before global collapse.

[LashL]

Spoken like a trial lawyer.

"for legal purposes"

Give me a break.

The truth is, the owner of a demolition company and two professors of structural analysis and construction say the videos are clear evidence of a CD.

You can ignore these experts by saying "That isn't enough for legal purposes", if it makes you feel good.

Ahem. Once again, you are misconstruing and misstating the facts.

You were the one who claimed that Jowenko's opinion, based on a few minutes of video, would be compelling "expert" evidence in court. In fact, it would nothing of the sort. For the reasons set out previously, the man would be laughed out of court.

It was you who raised the issue of Jowenko testifying in court, not I. Not that it will ever happen. I suspect that the man would sooner slit his wrists than put himself and his reputation on a witness stand over his misguided and embarrassingly unprofessional words regarding WTC7.

You are so wrong on so many levels about nearly everything you post here, but when you try to pretend that it was I who raised the legal issue, that's just downright dishonest. I simply responded to the legal issue that was raised in your post. It is doubly dishonest when you use your initial lie to also create an ad hominem in the process as you have done in your most recent post above, to which I am responding.

You claimed that Jowenko would make a good expert witness for the CT brigade to prove, in court, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. I pointed out to you why and how you were wrong about that. I pointed out to you that you haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to experts offering opinions in court, and I pointed out to you why and how Jowenko would be blown away on the witness stand since he based his "expert" opinion on a few minutes of video.

As you will recall, you claimed that he didn't need any more than that to formulate an "expert" opinion for purposes of testifying in court and you claimed that an expert need not have any background information, etc. for his testimony in court to be accepted.

I told you how wrong you were, and told you that any expert who comes to court without background information and without conducting thorough and in-depth investigation into the issue at hand would not be successful.

This all still stands. You know not of what you speak when it comes to facts, evidence, legal thresholds, expert witnesses, or anything else about the law, legal processes or procedures.

And now you have the audacity to insinuate that my referring to "legal purposes" is some kind of a dodge, when it was you who raised legal purposes in the first place?

That's way beyond lame, Chris, and as transparent as hell. It is apparent to me that you know that you have no meaningful response of substance so, instead, you're just writing crap in hopes that nobody notices your lack of substance.

Guess what? You have failed.

No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.

The fact that you don't even know why this is so, and the fact that you are afraid to ask why it is so, is very telling.

[Christopher7]

When was this HiEx Teleblaster II brought into general use Christopher7?The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example ....

What would Jowenko say if they asked him why there were no loud explosions from the tower during the CD?There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

What would happen if jowenko stood up and said it would take a team of 30 men 2 months to set up the CD and that in his opinion it was impossible for this to have been done prior to 911, what would you say?What if, what if, .... you can't accept what is, so you ask what if.

[LashL]

There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

That is precisely why the man will never, ever, appear in a courtroom as an "expert" witness regarding the events of 9/11. He spoke too soon, without bothering to gather any of the myriad of essential information he would require to come to a legitimate, informed, expert opinion. No wonder he's not talking these days, as much as the twoofers would love him to do so. He would be utterly useless as an expert witness in this case.

As an aside, Jowenko also said that WTC1 and WTC2 were [/I]not[/I] controlled demolitions. But guess what? No lawyer worth her/his salt would ever call him as an expert witness regarding those buildings either. Not even lawyers who wanted to show that the towers were not taken out by CDs. Do you wonder why?

[Christopher7]

You were the one who claimed that Jowenko's opinion, based on a few minutes of video, would be compelling "expert" evidence in court. In fact, it would nothing of the sort. For the reasons set out previously, the man would be laughed out of court.IYO

It was you who raised the issue of Jowenko testifying in court, not I. Not that it will ever happen. I suspect that the man would sooner slit his wrists than put himself and his reputation on a witness stand over his misguided and embarrassingly unprofessional words regarding WTC7.
IYO

I told you how wrong you were, and told you that any expert who comes to court without background information and without conducting thorough and in-depth investigation into the issue at hand would not be successful.
IYO

And now you have the audacity to insinuate that my referring to "legal purposes" is some kind of a dodge, when it was you who raised legal purposes in the first place?
Yes

That's way beyond lame, Chris, and as transparent as hell. It is apparent to me that you know that you have no meaningful response of substance so, instead, you're just writing crap in hopes that nobody notices your lack of substance.
Now isn't that ironic?


No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.
To make a long story short, you are saying that the owner of a demolition company doesn't know a CD when he sees one.

[LashL]

IYO

No. Fact.

IYO

No. Fact.

IYO

No. Fact.

Yes

Eureka. Since it was you who raised the 'legal purposes' aspect of this thread, your ridiculous strawman and ad hom should be retracted. I note that you have not done so yet. Why is that?

Now isn't that ironic?

Not at all.

To make a long story short, you are saying that the owner of a demolition company doesn't know a CD when he sees one.

No, I am saying the same thing that I have said above and which you continue to misinterpret, misconstrue, and which you wilfully refuse to comprehend.

It is this: your man, Jowenko, would not make a good witness since he offered his opinion solely on the basis of a few minutes of video. He would be torn apart on the witness stand as a result, and rightly so, by any competent lawyer.

Again, now that you admit that it was you who raised the legal issue in the first place, don't you think you should apologize for your unfounded insinuations in your prior posts?

And, what do you make of Jowenko's opinion that WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs? Personally, I would never in a thousand years call the man to the witness stand to proffer his opinion about those buildings any more than I would about WTC7.

Oh, and the videos are still only evidence of a building collapsing, and not evidence of a controlled demolition. And you still haven't even asked why that is. Interesting. It almost seems like you just don't want to know the answer.

[funk de fino]

The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example ....

Show me the one available in 2001 then mate

There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

What if he had sound and realised there were no explosions noises? The video gets played in court and all the sound recordings from that day are played and there are no CD explosions present. What would Jowenko most likely say?

What if, what if, .... you can't accept what is, so you ask what if

What would you say if he said it was impossible to rig it up, just answer the question? Would you accept his expert opinion?

[Belz...]

You know that these three experts are qualified to make the call so you revert to your silly simile.

Answer the question, Chris:

If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?

That was 'make the call' not 'make the case'.

Is your reading comprehension disability intentional?

YOU're the one who said that the video evidence was SUFFICIENT for this case. If your "experts" make this call based on the video evidence and you trust their opinion even if it is based on fragmentary evidence, it follows that you and they think that this closes the case.

[Belz...]

If a video shows something that looks like a duck, that would be evidence it was a duck.

It did not quack like a duck in the videos.

This does not mean that it did not quack.

Argument from ignorance.

[Belz...]

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

You're new at this, aren't you ?

[Belz...]

Brilliant presentation of evidence there - NOT!

As usual from your ilk, when you don't like the facts, you attack the poster.

That's because you haven't followed the whole thread, mate.

If you can explain how the failure occured simultaeously over the full horizontal width of the building, please do so...

You mean you haven't been able to find the explanation ? Is Google that complicated ?

[RedIbis]

You're new at this, aren't you ?


Hardly.

[Belz...]

Then you're not very good at showing it.

[GlennB]

The difference here is that I actually went through the quotes. Again, because you're not getting it: the majority of the quotes describe the "word" coming down that the building was going to collapse. The majority of the quotes do not say that the building is engulfed in an inferno.

You are make assumptions that are not backed up with evidence.

My bolding.

The bolded part reveals the lack of logic you bring to this debate. Are you seriously proposing that the inferno / no inferno question can be resolved by pitting differing testimonies against each other - like a vote - and choosing a winner?

Does it not occur to you that testimonies describe what was seen at different times of the day, and reflect the progress of the fire's development ?

But let's just take one quote :

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

He was clearly there, not reporting second-hand information. If you have any evidence to prove that Lieutenant LaRocca is wrong, then please present it.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg

[RedIbis]

My bolding.

The bolded part reveals the lack of logic you bring to this debate. Are you seriously proposing that the inferno / no inferno question can be resolved by pitting differing testimonies against each other - like a vote - and choosing a winner?

No I am not and that is why I post photos of WTC 7. I do not depend on quotes to support my position because they are among the weakest of evidence. People can change their story, misdescribe what they saw, lie, be intimidated into remembering something else, etc. There are numerous provocative quotes on both sides of this issue.

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.


Does it not occur to you that testimonies describe what was seen at different times of the day, and reflect the progress of the fire's development ?



Absolutely, and that is why it's important to notice in the WTC 7 collapse videos, there is no major fire burning. If the bldg was engulfed in an inferno just before the collapse, where are the flames, shooting out of the bldg as the floors collapse?


He was clearly there, not reporting second-hand information. If you have any evidence to prove that Lieutenant LaRocca is wrong, then please present it.



It's a simple exercise. You say that fire was on nearly all floors, show a picture of that, a video.

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7collapse.jpg

[twinstead]

That's the problem with the YouTube generation. If you can't see a video or picture of it, it didn't exist.

Meanwhile, you are calling Lt LaRocca a liar.

Don't you know the ramifications of your claims? You are calling people liars and fools, or worse, complicit.

[twinstead]

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.

Dude. We actually rely on evidence. Quotes are a part of that. All you have is personal incredulity.

Perhaps you could contact some of these 'quotes' (BTW these are real people who were actually there) and ask for some clarification.

Perhaps you can tell them that you have watched a couple videos and saw some pictures and you have concluded that the witnesses are full of crap.

[twinstead]

Here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Here's some evidence of large fires. I could be like you and just pick one of those that looks like a huge fire and declare it PROVES the fire was huge. But no, I actually need corroborating evidence.

That's where the eye-witnesses come into play. You know, the ones you infer are lying.

[funk de fino]

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7collapse.jpg

maybe if we looked from the other side?

and it sure looks like smoke coming out behind it? where is that from?

[slingblade]

America is suffering from a dearth of adages. That is my theory. The theory that is mine, because it is by me. It is my theory, this theory that I ha--

Sorry. I suffer from Pythonitis. At any rate, things are not always as they appear. Looks can be deceiving. Seeing isn't always believing. And if brains were CD, you wouldn't have enough to implode your own nose.

Yes. America needs a resurgence of adages. They are incredibly helpful.

[RedIbis]

maybe if we looked from the other side?

and it sure looks like smoke coming out behind it? where is that from?

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

[Dave Rogers]

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

What do you think was the origin of the enormous volumes of smoke coming out of the south face of the building?

Dave

[twinstead]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

So, you're saying that since no pictures clearly show the side that was impacted by debris and burning (and that's no surprise; it was a tad dangerous on that side, right?) then according to you, all the eye witness accounts be damned, no matter what other evidence points to it, the fire wasn't that bad.

Typical. You have built in a woo woo circuit breaker that won't allow you to assimilate ANY conflicting evidence. You can therefore, in your mind at least, never loose a debate. It's a variation of the 'well, that evidence could have been faked' technique. It's the 'well, show me a picture then. Until then I will never believe it' technique.

Powerful debate mojo...:boggled:

Oh, and you say you looked at the 911myths WTC7 page. Exactly what parts of it don't you agree with?

[GlennB]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

Ah. I get it now. You believe the smoke belching from the whole of the South side of WTC7 was being produced by ..... by ..... er, by what?

Are you aware the wind was from the NW that day?

Are you aware that all the collapse videos were shot from the North side of the building and that the smoke emerging from the S of WTC7 was, therefore, not very apparent in the collapse videos?

And please explain why the smoke plumes here are travelling sideways on a day of light winds :

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7horizontalsmoke.jpg

But, of course, if you - sitting at a PC 6 years later - can't actually see the flames through the smoke then they didn't exist and the FDNY testimony is wrong? Is that what you're saying?

[funk de fino]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

That'll be due to the enormous amount of smoke emanating from those fires then eh?

[Belz...]

No I am not and that is why I post photos of WTC 7. I do not depend on quotes to support my position because they are among the weakest of evidence. People can change their story, misdescribe what they saw, lie, be intimidated into remembering something else, etc. There are numerous provocative quotes on both sides of this issue.

Good, good. Then I assume you think Jowenko's opinion on the matter is equally weak ?

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.

Actually, we have a large body of evidence to go with them.

Absolutely, and that is why it's important to notice in the WTC 7 collapse videos, there is no major fire burning.

Then where does all that smoke come from ?



If the bldg was engulfed in an inferno just before the collapse, where are the flames, shooting out of the bldg as the floors collapse?

You're simply not very good at this.

1) Why would we expect flames to be shooting out ? How large do you expect these flames to be ? The building is 47 stories, remember.

2) Why would you expect to see the flames as the building collapses ? You don't see a floor-by-floor collapse, in this case, and even if you did I don't know why you expect to see hollywood-style flames shooting out for no reason.

It's a simple exercise. You say that fire was on nearly all floors, show a picture of that, a video.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f40b1821b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3826)

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

That's mighty dishonest of you, showing the opposite side of the building and claiming you can't see fire when many pictures have shown that there was lots of fire in 7 WTC.

[Christopher7]

That'll be due to the enormous amount of smoke emanating from those fires then eh?

NIST Apx. L pg 22 – 26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
fire on floor 22 on south side
fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported on the east half of the south side]

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions,
eventually reaching the NE corner

Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg

There are no fires on the east half of the south face

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3983/copyofsfacegraphic3qs7.jpg

[Christopher7]

Show me the one available in 2001 then mate HiEx Teleblaster II

http://hiex.bc.ca/promo.htm

We use a safe, reliable and proven signaling method - the same method the US Corp. of Army Engineers, US Forest Service and numerous bomb squads have chosen to use. This method has been in use at Weyerhaeuser Eve River Operations since 1999.

What if he had sound and realised there were no explosions noises? The video gets played in court and all the sound recordings from that day are played and there are no CD explosions present. What would Jowenko most likely say?This explosion occurred about 10:20 a.m., [estimate based on shadows] about the time Barry Jenkins and Michael Hesh reported an explosion in WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

What would you say if he said it was impossible to rig it up There is no reason to think he would say that.

just answer the question?No, you could come up with irrelevant 'what if' questions all day long.

Would you accept his expert opinion?Asking 'what if' questions is just a way of avoiding 'what is'.

There are also two professors of structural analysis and construction that came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence.

[funk de fino]

NIST Apx. L pg 22 – 26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
fire on floor 22 on south side
fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported on the east half of the south side]

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions,
eventually reaching the NE corner

Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg

There are no fires on the east half of the south face

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3983/copyofsfacegraphic3qs7.jpg


do you just post with your eyes closed?

post the plan of the buiolding and show me where your pictures are depicting

where is all the smoke coming from in the last picture?

and where is all the smoke coming from the in the picture you posted just prior to the collapse?

or are you saying it is not smoke?

[funk de fino]

HiEx Teleblaster II an example in your own words and i cannot see where it says this model has been in use since 1999?


We use a safe, reliable and proven signaling method - the same method the US Corp. of Army Engineers, US Forest Service and numerous bomb squads have chosen to use. This method has been in use at Weyerhaeuser Eve River Operations since 1999.

what would happen to all the electronics on the detonators in the fires in WTC7? also what would happen to the explosives? i also believe this only takes away the lead line which is attached to the control box allowing safer distances, it does not look to me like they can have a remote detonator cap on each piece of explosive and they are all fired at once via Rf signal? how many pieces of explosive do you think were used in the WTC7 case?

This explosion occurred about 10:20 a.m., [estimate based on shadows] about the time Barry Jenkins and Michael Hesh reported an explosion in WTC 7.

estimate based on shadows????

so the building fell down when? how many hours later? do you think jowenko would agree with you on that aspect of a CD?

where are the CD explosions in any sound recording from that day? from either the twins or WTC7

There is no reason to think he would say that.

there is every reason, do you know how long it would take to set up this? ask any CD expert, it does not have to be jowenko, in fact ask HiEX they should be able to tell you roughly, i bet you dont though?

No, you could come up with irrelevant 'what if' questions all day long.

Asking 'what if' questions is just a way of avoiding 'what is'.

run away sunshine, jowenko is saying the twins were not a CD so what do you say to that? this is not a what if

There are also two professors of structural analysis and construction that came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence.

yep, they base their opinions on edited video, next witness please

[Christopher7]

post the plan of the buiolding and show me where your pictures are depicting You don't know the east and north sides of WTC 7 when you see them?
The post even says what they are.
You need a diagram?

where is all the smoke coming from in the last picture?The wast half of the south side where all the debris damage was.

and where is all the smoke coming from the in the picture you posted just prior to the collapse?None of the pictures i posted was just prior to the collapse.

According to NIST, the only fire in the area of the initiating event at the time of collapse was on floor 8.

[jaydeehess]

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Chris, these fires are on the east half of the north side and all fires in WTC 7 started on the south side. You have shown then that fire ravaged floors 7 through 12 on the east side of the building. The main core supports are more to the south of the building's center but still certainly it is quite possible that fire damage occured to them due to these fires. Smoke emanated from pretty much every floor of the south side which had a large percentage of its windows broken by the collapses of WTC 1&2.

You debunk yourself.

[funk de fino]

You don't know the east and north sides of WTC 7 when you see them?

No i just want to be sure what you are posting
The post even says what they are.

Confirmation again
You need a diagram?

yes, why not?

The wast half of the south side where all the debris damage was.

The south side of WTC7 is hwere all that smoke is coming from? Why do you insist on showing the fires on the other sides then?

None of the pictures i posted was just prior to the collapse.

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?


You showed a picture then said the above. Where is all the smoke coming from in this picture at this point just before collapse?

According to NIST, the only fire in the area of the initiating event at the time of collapse was on floor 8.

I never mentioned initiating event, trying to sidetrack again

There is smoke billowing out from nearly all floors on the south side, if there are hardly any fires then where is it coming from?

[Christopher7]

an example in your own words and i cannot see where it says this model has been in use since 1999?The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.

what would happen to all the electronics on the detonators in the fires in WTC7? also what would happen to the explosives?From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

There are no reports of fire below floor 6 at any time.

The only fire reported on floor 6 was near the south west corner.

Stacy Loizeaux:
Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six.

so the building fell down when? how many hours later? do you think jowenko would agree with you on that aspect of a CD?I don't know.
The point is, there was a very large explosion.

where are the CD explosions in any sound recording from that day? from either the twins or WTC7The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911.

do you know how long it would take to set up this? ask any CD expert, it does not have to be jowenko, I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.

jowenko is saying the twins were not a CD so what do you say to that? 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.


yep, they base their opinions on edited video,The same videos we have all seen

next witness pleaseYep, they're only experts, what do they know?

[Christopher7]

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Chris, these fires are on the east half of the north side and all fires in WTC 7 started on the south side. You have shown then that fire ravaged floors 7 through 12 on the east side of the building.
Welcome back jaydeehess

There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, burning at different times, in the east end of WTC 7

Floor 12 was gutted and the fire burned out before 4:45.
Floor 11 burned from the south east corner toward the north between 2 and 3 p.m. but did not appear on the north side
until around 4:45.
Floor 7 started on the west side* and burned to the center of the north face where it appears to have burned out around 4 p.m.
[when the photo you posted was taken]

*At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.
[near the middle]
Some time later, fires on floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving
from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.
The fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
.... the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.

The main core supports are more to the south of the building's center but still certainly it is quite possible that fire damage occured to them due to these fires.The implosion began near the east end of the building, columns 79, 80 and 81.

These columns weighed over 4 tons per floor.

NIST Apx. L pg 38 [42 on pg counter]
I4.2 Unbraced Columns:
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure.
The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced
column length, K. This column, which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, would be [I]approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.

When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.

Meridian Plaza

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2...ridian5lo2.png (http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2800/meridian5lo2.png)

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

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.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html)
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. 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).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

[jaydeehess]

Once again then Chris you utterly fail to imagine the sum total of all damages to the structure. The floor system may well have been compromised by debris damage. The columns themselves may well have been compromised by debris damage and evidence of this is the ejected elevator car. Something caused an elevator car to leave its shaft. If the lift cables were severed they had to be severed by something that entered the shaft which in turn would have to be something rather substantial.

So that gives initial conditions that are far from ideal. Now you have fires some of which burn out and all of which would be considered major fires by themselves on any other day. When vertical steel is heated and expands under load it buckles. When it then cools and contracts it results in a downward creep which can easily snap connections to horizontal members. Now you have a floor system that is not intact and a severed connection between column and floor system.
More fires spread on proximate floors putting pressure on the same columns but on different levels.

Steel columns can and have failed under fire damage alone. The oft cited Windsor building is illustrative of this. Yet WTC 7 was not a fully intact structure when the fires started as was the Windsor.

You claim that there is absolutly no way that the senario of debris damage and fire damage to WTC 7 could have resulted in the collapse and I say that you simply cannot make such a definitive statement. The evidence is staring you in the face that this was entirely possible.

[GlennB]

....
I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.
...


Why would everybody "know their task" - i.e. be ready to go for a hit+run CD of WTC7 - in advance of 9/11 ?

If "they" expected the building to be hit by WTC1 debris, then how could "they" possibly predict that the damage and initial fires would be slight enough to allow the CD work to go ahead?

I can only repeat what has been said many times - there is no possible narrative that makes any sense.

[funk de fino]

The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.

by whom?

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

There are no reports of fire below floor 6 at any time.

The only fire reported on floor 6 was near the south west corner.

Stacy Loizeaux:
Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six.


so for all CD there is only explosives below the 6th floor? never on any floor higher?

I don't know.
The point is, there was a very large explosion.

one explosion? heard by who? would one explosion be enough to bring down the building but be able to leave it a few hours before deciding to fall?


The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911.

how many of WTC7? and are you sure it is the goverment that is witholding them? also source please?


I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.

a few weeks? interesting? source please for jowenko saying it could be done in one day


Danny did not recognize WTC 1 & 2 as CD's because there had never been a top down demolition before.

so they are not CD then, good i am glad you have come off that fence

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.


The same videos we have all seen

Yep, they're only experts, what do they know?

more than anyone else watching an incomplete and edited video with no further background info, but still not enough to use as evidence

[jaydeehess]

Why would everybody "know their task" - i.e. be ready to go for a hit+run CD of WTC7 - in advance of 9/11 ?

If "they" expected the building to be hit by WTC1 debris, then how could "they" possibly predict that the damage and initial fires would be slight enough to allow the CD work to go ahead?

I can only repeat what has been said many times - there is no possible narrative that makes any sense.

,,, and there you have it. The evidence supports the very real possibility that the collapse was the result of debris damage coupled with the fire damage, and on the flip side there is scant evidence of a CD and , as Glenn puts it, no narrative regarding a CD that makes any sense.

So is this thread over, complete, finished? It was many weeks ago as far as I was concerned and, upon revisiting the thread, I see no reason to change my mind.

[funk de fino]

Answer post # 3091 now Christopher including your "just before" quote you posted

[Belz...]

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.


We've been through this before, Chris. Several times, in fact.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

[Christopher7]

Once again then Chris you utterly fail to imagine the sum total of all damages to the structure. The floor system may well have been compromised by debris damage.
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event [columns 79, 80 & 81]

The columns themselves may well have been compromised by debris damage and evidence of this is the ejected elevator car.The elevators were not near columns 79, 80 & 81.

Something caused an elevator car to leave its shaft.An explosion

If the lift cables were severed they had to be severed by something that entered the shaft which in turn would have to be something rather substantial.There is no evidence of anything but an explosion.

Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hesh ...." "Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search=

Michael Hesh "another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
[start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]

So that gives initial conditions that are far from ideal. Now you have fires some of which burn out and all of which would be considered major fires by themselves on any other day. When vertical steel is heated and expands under load it buckles.No, it does not. Quite the contrary.

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

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).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

When it then cools and contracts it results in a downward creep which can easily snap connections to horizontal members.Source?

Now you have a floor system that is not intact and a severed connection between column and floor system.The only case where this happened in a high rise building was the Windsor. It was poorly designed and cannot be compared to WTC 7.

The gap between the original cladding and floor slabs was not firestopped as well. In fact, these weak links in the fire protection of the building was being rectified in the refurbishment project at the time of the fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

More fires spread on proximate floors putting pressure on the same columns but on different levels.OK

Steel columns can and have failed under fire damage alone.
The oft cited Windsor building is illustrative of this. Yet WTC 7 was not a fully intact structure when the fires started as was the Windsor.The perimeter columns in the Windsor Tower were lightweight box beams weighing about 18 pounds per lineal foot and cannot be compared to columns 79, 80 & 81 which weighed 730 pounds per lineal foot [40 times as massive]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details


You claim that there is absolutly no way that the senario of debris damage and fire damage to WTC 7 could have resulted in the collapse and I say that you simply cannot make such a definitive statement. The evidence is staring you in the face that this was entirely possible.Again, there was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36 p[40 on pg counter]
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

pg 38 [42 on pg counter]
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure.
This column, which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, 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.

At no time were there fires on 4 contiguous floors in the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Why would everybody "know their task" - i.e. be ready to go for a hit+run CD of WTC7 - in advance of 9/11 ?

If "they" expected the building to be hit by WTC1 debris, then how could "they" possibly predict that the damage and initial fires would be slight enough to allow the CD work to go ahead?

I can only repeat what has been said many times - there is no possible narrative that makes any sense.Deniers mantra:

I can't see how they did it, therefore, it could not be done.

[Jonnyclueless]

As opposed to "I want it to have happened so bad I will only assume they did even if it can't be proven".

Don't worry, I am still here chuckling as I read.

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh, but Chris is right. Just because we can't figure out how the easter bunny did it does not mean the Easter bunny is not responsible for the collapse. Only deniers would claim that the easter bunny couldn't have done it. Right?

[Christopher7]

The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.
by whom?You missed the point again.
It does not matter who used this method.
The point is, this method has been in use since 1999

so for all CD there is only explosives below the 6th floor? never on any floor higher?Have you done any research at all? Sometime they place explosives on other floors.

We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way.
Stacey Loizeaux

one explosion? heard by who? Look at the video and see if you can figure it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

would one explosion be enough to bring down the building but be able to leave it a few hours before deciding to fall?No


The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911.
how many of WTC7? and are you sure it is the goverment that is witholding them? also source please? NIST FOIA told me they had 25 photos and 2 video clips with sound, of the east half of the south side of WTC 7.
They said that was an estimate. I did not record the call.

Did you know that NIST is a government agency?
It is headed by a Bush appointee.
It is part of the Commerce Dept., also headed by a Bush appointee.

a few weeks? interesting? source please for jowenko saying it could be done in one dayEvidently, you never bother to check out the links i provide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I



Danny did not recognize WTC 1 & 2 as CD's because there had never been a top down demolition before.
so they are not CD then, good i am glad you have come off that fence
What part of "did not recognize" don't you understand?


more than anyone else watching an incomplete and edited video with no further background info, but still not enough to use as evidenceHe saw the same videos we have all seen.
He is an expert, you are not.
He is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD based on what he saw.
You are not qualified to say he does not know what he is talking about.
It's just arrogance and denial that makes you do so.

Answer post # 3091 now Christopher
Yes sir

You need a diagram?
yes, why not?

You can't possibly be that stupid. Stop yanking my chain.

The south side of WTC7 is hwere all that smoke is coming from? Why do you insist on showing the fires on the other sides then?Because that's where the area of the initiating event is.

including your "just before" quote you postedThat was RedIbis post 3073

[cloudshipsrule]

Damn it, Chris.

What makes you a better expert on the collapse of WTC7 than the actual experts who studied evidence which you have no access to?

[CHF]

Chris, have you figured out what kind of bombs were used on WTC7?

Remember...quite ones.

[Christopher7]

Damn it, Chris.

What makes you a better expert on the collapse of WTC7 than the actual experts who studied evidence which you have no access to?The FEMA and NIST reports were written so that anyone of reasonable intelligence could read and understand them.

I have seen the evidence and data they have presented.

It does not support the official hypothesis.

They have photographs and videos that we have not been allowed to see.

If there was anything there to support their case, they would have presented it in 'preliminary' report.

They concluded that the 'DD/F caused the implosion of WTC 7' hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible".

They had 2 years to assess the debris damage and the progression of the fires.

It is extremely unlikely they missed anything major.

They will not find any evidence of what happened in those 80 boxes of documents.


I don't dispute what the experts said. They were honest. They put enough truth in the report to point out the problems as well as the possibilities of the official story. Finally, they said, it "appears possible".

A bit of a stretch IMO, but reasonable.

[GlennB]

He saw the same videos we have all seen.
He is an expert, you are not.
He is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD based on what he saw.


Which video(s) was he shown?

[Revolutionary91]

If the skeptics believe that the smoke on the whole south face of wtc7 is from fire in that building then do they also believe this picture shows the whole north tower on fire?

http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/AmanZafar_wtc51_50cut_gamma.jpg

[GlennB]

If the skeptics believe that the smoke on the whole south face of wtc7 is from fire in that building then do they also believe this picture shows the whole north tower on fire?


Now you're being juvenile.
That's dust and smoke from the (recent) collapse of WTC2.
It was transient, unlike the smoke from WTC7.

p.s. you need to look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89640)

[Revolutionary91]

Now you're being juvenile.
That's dust and smoke from the (recent) collapse of WTC2.
It was transient, unlike the smoke from WTC7.

p.s. you need to look at this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89640)


No, im making a serious point. If the smoke and dust can so easily make it look like the north toweer is completely on fire then the same thing can happen to 7. In fact that picture shows the south side of the north tower and it is the south side of 7 that has all the smoke.

They look exactly the same and anyone viewing that picture could be forgiven for thinking every floor of the north tower was on fire.

[jaydeehess]

Typical out of context posting Rv91

You are very aware that that picture was taken while the dust of the collapse of WTC 2 had not yet settled. I would venture a gues that it was taken about 10 minutes after the collapse. That makes it dust in the vortex downwind of WTC 1 that you are referring to. What then is the source of what you believe is happening in the pictures of WTC 7, well after the collapses of 1&2?

Christopher, you should know full well that the "explosion" that "trapped" the two on the 8th floor was in fact the dust coming up the stairwell as a result of the collapse of WTC 2. These men were unaware that #2 had collapsed, they had fast moving dust coming up at them moments after hearing and feeling the intense vibrations caused by a 110 storey building collapsing and drew a quite natural conclusion that it was an explosion in the building they were in. A conclusion that was in error.

The only other "explosion" you refer to is the one that two guys heard as #7 commenced collapsing and it is also very obvious that what they heard was the initial, interior failure that brought about the collapse.

The building was badly damaged as fires began and the fires were major fires that went unchecked and the building succumbed to the totality of the damages in the late afternoon of the same day.

You are re-hashing everything over and over again. Nothing you have points definitively to CD, in fact everything you have is easily refuted or has an obvious and more likely alternative explanation, and it bears repeating that there is no senario for implementing a CD of WTC 7 that makes any sense.

[jaydeehess]

No, im making a serious point. If the smoke and dust can so easily make it look like the north toweer is completely on fire then the same thing can happen to 7. In fact that picture shows the south side of the north tower and it is the south side of 7 that has all the smoke.

They look exactly the same and anyone viewing that picture could be forgiven for thinking every floor of the north tower was on fire.

A large percentage of the windows of WTC 7 south side were broken and thus it would be expected that smoke from interior fires would escape the building on the south side.
I don't know that there was fire on every floor and that is not what is meant by "fully involved" anyway. That means that fire OR heavy smoke is present throughout the building.

[Revolutionary91]

Typical out of context posting Rv91

You are very aware that that picture was taken while the dust of the collapse of WTC 2 had not yet settled. I would venture a gues that it was taken about 10 minutes after the collapse. That makes it dust in the vortex downwind of WTC 1 that you are referring to. What then is the source of what you believe is happening in the pictures of WTC 7, well after the collapses of 1&2?

Christopher, you should know full well that the "explosion" that "trapped" the two on the 8th floor was in fact the dust coming up the stairwell as a result of the collapse of WTC 2. These men were unaware that #2 had collapsed, they had fast moving dust coming up at them moments after hearing and feeling the intense vibrations caused by a 110 storey building collapsing and drew a quite natural conclusion that it was an explosion in the building they were in. A conclusion that was in error.

The only other "explosion" you refer to is the one that two guys heard as #7 commenced collapsing and it is also very obvious that what they heard was the initial, interior failure that brought about the collapse.

The building was badly damaged as fires began and the fires were major fires that went unchecked and the building succumbed to the totality of the damages in the late afternoon of the same day.

You are re-hashing everything over and over again. Nothing you have points definitively to CD, in fact everything you have is easily refuted or has an obvious and more likely alternative explanation, and it bears repeating that there is no senario for implementing a CD of WTC 7 that makes any sense.

The smoke we see on the southside of wtc7 is actually from wtc5 and 6.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2585/wtc6hose3bf5.jpg

[funk de fino]

The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.

there is a point, by whom?

You missed the point again.
It does not matter who used this method.
The point is, this method has been in use since 1999
see above


Have you done any research at all? Sometime they place explosives on other floors.

so your original point was?

Look at the video and see if you can figure it out.

figure out how the penthouse fell first? you tell me how, you know better than me


No

well then what brought it down? not this explosion?

The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911. NIST FOIA told me they had 25 photos and 2 video clips with sound, of the east half of the south side of WTC 7.They said that was an estimate. I did not record the call.

so you were trying to mislead here with your inflated figures? the government cannot withold it unless it is to be used for a criminal proceeding or affects national security, the video belongs to the people who shot it, if they want to withold it there is nothing we can do?

Did you know that NIST is a government agency?
It is headed by a Bush appointee.
It is part of the Commerce Dept., also headed by a Bush appointee.

yes, so and so

will this affect the work done by the poepl involved or are they all bush appointees

Evidently, you never bother to check out the links i provide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

i did, i cannot see where he says this could be done in a day in that video?

if it could be done in a day, when was it done? all the cutting with torches, taping cutter charges to the beams etc etc that jowenko speaks of



Danny did not recognize WTC 1 & 2 as CD's because there had never been a top down demolition before.
What part of "did not recognize" don't you understand?

he is the expert and he has said from watching the video it does not look like a CD, you cant have it both ways pal

He saw the same videos we have all seen.
He is an expert, you are not.
He is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD based on what he saw.
You are not qualified to say he does not know what he is talking about.
It's just arrogance and denial that makes you do so.

see above reply

Yes sir

You need a diagram?


You can't possibly be that stupid. Stop yanking my chain.

post a diagram, what is the problem here?

Because that's where the area of the initiating event is.

not because you are trying to be misleading by stating the fires were not that bad?

That was RedIbis post 3073

now look at this and learn

you are correct on this, i have made a mistake and i apologize for that, not too difficult and that is what seperates me from people like you

your fellow truther was mistaken then?

[funk de fino]

The smoke we see on the southside of wtc7 is actually from wtc5 and 6.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2585/wtc6hose3bf5.jpg

This is a picture posted by christopher7 on this thread where he says these are fires, are you saying he is wrong?

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg

[jaydeehess]

The smoke we see on the southside of wtc7 is actually from wtc5 and 6.

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2585/wtc6hose3bf5.jpg

In the photo you post I see no smoke from 5 or 6 being drawn towards the face of #7 yet the face of #7 is very much obscured by smoke. The smoke from 5&6 is going straight up and looks to be unaffected by the turbulent air flow around 7

In the photo posted by funk de fino we see #5(IIRC) in front of and to the left of #7. No smoke is visible rising from that part of #5, no smoke from #5 obscures the west side of #7 and yet we see smoke rising from the lowest visible portion of #7 along its face.

Are you denying major fires in #7? Do we have to post the pictures of flames coming out the windows or are they also reflections of fires in 5 & 6?

[Belz...]

Deniers mantra:

I can't see how they did it, therefore, it could not be done.

Actually, it's "if it can't possibly happen, then it didn't."

No, im making a serious point. If the smoke and dust can so easily make it look like the north toweer is completely on fire then the same thing can happen to 7. In fact that picture shows the south side of the north tower and it is the south side of 7 that has all the smoke.

Rev, this had been already dealt with and Jay provided a link. Smoke can be seen pouring FROM the hole in 7 WTC. If you had done ANY research on this subject you'd know this.

[Christopher7]

Christopher, you should know full well that the "explosion" that "trapped" the two on the 8th floor was in fact the dust coming up the stairwell as a result of the collapse of WTC 2.Should i now? This is the first i've heard of it.
Smashing speculation.
Except, ....... stairwells are closed.

These men were unaware that #2 had collapsed, they had fast moving dust coming up at them moments after hearing and feeling the intense vibrations caused by a 110 storey building collapsingReally? When did they say they heard and felt intense vibrations?
In the videos i've seen, neither one of them said that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 [WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search=

and drew a quite natural conclusion that it was an explosion in the building they were in. A conclusion that was in error.
Whenever a witness says they heard an explosion, you guys say they didn't.
If nothing else, you're consistent.

The only other "explosion" you refer to is the one that two guys heard as #7 commenced collapsing and it is also very obvious that what they heard was the initial, interior failure that brought about the collapse.The initial failure?
Would that be several floors collapsing around a core column or the massive core column snapping like a twig, followed by two other columns failing silently. No, wait a minute, The first column failed and then two more, and then the vertical collapse took about 5 or 6 seconds. and then [minus 1 sec for time delay] there was a clap of thunder, a shock wave ripped thru the building and a second later the bottom caved out, and the building followed.
So the clap of thunder coincides, time wise, with the failure of the other 21 columns, not the initial failure.

The building was badly damaged as fires began and the fires were major fires that went unchecked and the building succumbed to the totality of the damages in the late afternoon of the same day.
Ah yes, the totality of the damages.

But there was no debris damage near columns 79, 80 and 81, you know, the ones under the east penthouse.

You are re-hashing everything over and over again.No, the stuff about vertical columns not being adversely effected by extreme fires is new.

Nothing you have points definitively to CD,Well now, that's a matter opinion.

Me and Danny and Hugo and Jorg think the videos definitively point to CD.
Then there's Richard Gage and 134 other Architect and Engineers.
[They are not all experts but they all have degrees in Architecture and Engineering]

in fact everything you have is easily refuted or has an obvious and more likely alternative explanation, Easy to talk in vague generalities.
I have refuted your refutes and i refuse to recant.

and it bears repeating that there is no senario for implementing a CD of WTC 7 that makes any sense.How 'bout this one:

"They" had 'maintenance' men affix wireless demolition charges to the core columns in the elevator shafts and mechanical floors where no one would see them. [except the 'maintenance' men who installed them]

They used Thermate on columns 79, 80 and 81 because they were so massive. [over 4 tons per floor]
Thermate, as you know, only needs a relatively small explosion to get it started and the sound would be muffled inside a building.

Then they blew all the rest of the core columns together making a sound like a clap of thunder.
This would send a shudder thru the building.
AS the core of the building collapsed, the perimeter columns would not be able to carry the load and they would cave out at the bottom.
The rest of the building would follow.

[funk de fino]

Enid Blyton?

when do you mention Moonface?

[jaydeehess]

Should i now? This is the first i've heard of it.
Smashing speculation.
Except, ....... stairwells are closed.

Really? When did they say they heard and felt intense vibrations?
In the videos i've seen, neither one of them said that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search=

Whenever a witness says they heard an explosion, you guys say they didn't.
If nothing else, you're consistent.



Am I missing something here. I admit to not being in this thread for some time now so maybe I missed it. The video claims that this guy was in the North TOWER, not WTC 7.

I was assuming that this was the same guys who were discussed many pages back who had decided to move down from the office in WTC 7 only to be forced out of the stairwell by dust and smoke by the collapse of one of the towers.

Or perhaps the video is wrong and he is speaking about being in WTC 7 and this is the same guy that was discussed.

As for vibrations, no he says "explosion" and his evidence of an explosion would be loud noise/vibration plus the smoke/dust. He also says the 'explosion' blew them back onto the 8th floor. Odd then that such an explosion would not have roughed him up quite a bit, torn his cloths, cut his face. Apparently he is using some hyperbole in stating he was "blown" back. I wonder if "explosion" is also hyperbole?

initial failure?
Would that be several floors collapsing around a core column or the massive core column snapping like a twig, followed by two other columns failing silently. No, wait a minute, The first column failed and then two more, and then the vertical collapse took about 5 or 6 seconds. and then [minus 1 sec for time delay] there was a clap of thunder, a shock wave ripped thru the building and a second later the bottom caved out, and the building followed.
So the clap of thunder coincides, time wise, with the failure of the other 21 columns, not the initial failure.

Ok, coincides with the beginning of the collapse of the penthouse support, the single largest failure to that point in time in that building.
Better?

Ah yes, the totality of the damages.

But there was no debris damage near columns 79, 80 and 81, you know, the ones under the east penthouse.

The stresses on the building due to the loss of perimeter columns would indeed change the way the building members were stressed THROUGHOUT the entire structure. If I knock down one wall of your home how long will the rest stand Chris? Why would the far wall fail given some later extra stress since there is no damage proximate to it Chris?

No, the stuff about vertical columns not being adversely effected by extreme fires is new.

Except you have been shown that the Cardington tests showed damage to vertical columns AND there still seems to be a requirement to put fire insulation on vertical columns, why is that?

Well now, that's a matter opinion.

Me and Danny and Hugo and Jorg think the videos definitively point to CD.
Then there's Richard Gage and 134 other Architect and Engineers.
[They are not all experts but they all have degrees in Architecture and Engineering]

,, and I and NIST and many others better qualified than I do not see a CD.

Easy to talk in vague generalities.
I have refuted your refutes and i refuse to recant.

It was a summary.
Color me suprised that you refuse to see it any other way than CD.

How 'bout this one:

"They" had 'maintenance' men affix wireless demolition charges to the core columns in the elevator shafts and mechanical floors where no one would see them. [except the 'maintenance' men who installed them]

They used Thermate on columns 79, 80 and 81 because they were so massive. [over 4 tons per floor]
Thermate, as you know, only needs a relatively small explosion to get it started and the sound would be muffled inside a building.

Then they blew all the rest of the core columns together making a sound like a clap of thunder.
This would send a shudder thru the building.
AS the core of the building collapsed, the perimeter columns would not be able to carry the load and they would cave out at the bottom.
The rest of the building would follow.



Easy to talk in vague generalities.
When Chris, did all of this surrepticious planting of differing devices take place? Who did the deed? How was it later detonated? Did the FDNY know it was going to be CD'd? Did Silverstein? Why was this done, what need would be met by demolishing a building that may have been beyond repair (do attempt to be specific - no"oh there was an office of the ABCD Federal Government in the building" or "they might have orchestrated the destruction of the towers from WTC 7")?

The seismic activity attributed to WTC 7 shows constant shaking many seconds prior to the Penthouse movement illustrating that the building was coming apart internally well prior to the penthouse structure sinking.

How about:
a column(s) fails to the west of 79, 80 and 81 due to the combination of initial debris damage and continuing fire damage causing the local flooring to fail until it progresses east to those columns at which time the lateral stress on one or more of them causes them to shift drawing that column structure down. That column was supporting more load than other , proximate, columns due to the equipment in the penthoues, the penthouse collapses sending heavy, dense machinery down through the building gathering speed until it hits the heavy braces at (IIRC) the 1st to 5th floor which fail with a resounding noise, the whole floor shifts and the internal columns under the cantilever trusses fail, the cantilever trusses then tilt failing the entire section of north wall they attach to and the building suffers its complete collapse.

[jaydeehess]

So, I checked and yes the two guys are the same that were discussed before who were coming down from the 23rd floor of WTC 7(the one video then is shown to be produced by utter idiots since they place them in the north tower)

These guys had no idea that the tower had collapsed when they were in the stairs. they were part of the NYC emergency coordination office on the 23rd floor and it had been decieded to evacuate. they rightly chose not to use the elevators and instead went via the stairs. You claim the stairs were closed now? How in the hell did you expect the office to be evacuated if not by stairs and not by the inadvisable use of the elevators? Perhaps they should have broken out the parachutes.

Geez Chris, you get worse everytime I come back to this thread.

[Norseman]

Evacuation and emergency response operations in WTC 7 is actually covered in NIST NCSTAR 1-8 The Emergency Response Operations (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) chapter 5.9 (page 108 - 111).

The story of Barry Jennings is included, no bombs anywhere, just the towers collapsing.

[Christopher7]

Am I missing something here. I admit to not being in this thread for some time now so maybe I missed it. The video claims that this guy was in the North TOWER, not WTC 7.
The video is incorrect.
It was assumed that the guy in this video was in the North Tower.
That's because someone had originally edited the clip, leaving off the the "Me and Mr. Hesh...." part, and it has been used in several videos.
Whoever put this video together, left it on, but did not make the connection.

Also, The timing means that Barry and Michael are the guys that were rescued by the firefighters who reported "No heavy debris in the lobby".

I was assuming that this was the same guys who were discussed many pages back who had decided to move down from the office in WTC 7 only to be forced out of the stairwell by dust and smoke by the collapse of one of the towers.Where did you get the "forced out of the stairwell by dust and smoke" ?

Stairwells have self closing doors to prevent that very thing.

The "New Footage" video has been around for a while. In it, Michael Hesh said "Another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"

Or perhaps the video is wrong and he is speaking about being in WTC 7 and this is the same guy that was discussed.Right

As for vibrations, no he says "explosion" and his evidence of an explosion would be loud noise/vibration plus the smoke/dust. Would be? You are assuming that.

He also says the 'explosion' blew them back onto the 8th floor. Odd then that such an explosion would not have roughed him up quite a bit, torn his cloths, cut his face. Apparently he is using some hyperbole in stating he was "blown" back. I wonder if "explosion" is also hyperbole?
Good point.
Also, stairwells have self closing doors.

Both men said there was an explosion. It's not a hyperbole.

Ok, coincides with the beginning of the collapse of the penthouse support, the single largest failure to that point in time in that building.
Better?No
The clap of thunder occurred about 2 seconds before the bottom caved out. [north wall begins to fall]

1 second for time delay, and 1 second, for
" we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder ….turned around ..... [B]it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building .... about a second later the bottom floor caved out "

According to NIST, the east penthouse began collapsing 7 seconds before the screenwall and the west penthouse.
About 1/2 second later, the entire north face begins to fall.
[bottom floor caved out]
The north wall began to collapse about 2 seconds after the clap of thunder.
The east penthouse began to fall and about 5 seconds before the clap of thunder

[Christopher7]

Evacuation and emergency response operations in WTC 7 is actually covered in NIST NCSTAR 1-8 The Emergency Response Operations (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) chapter 5.9 (page 108 - 111).

The story of Barry Jennings is included, no bombs anywhere, just the towers collapsing.Very important point


Both men said there was an explosion.

The NIST report leaves that out.

[jaydeehess]

The video is incorrect.
It was assumed that the guy in this video was in the North Tower.
That's because someone had originally edited the clip, leaving off the the "Me and Mr. Hesh...." part, and it has been used in several videos.
Whoever put this video together, left it on, but did not make the connection.

Ok, injudicious editing and then later just plain sloppy research. That hardly ever happens so I was a little confused about the point. Glad it is all cleared up now.

Also, The timing means that Barry and Michael are the guys that were rescued by the firefighters who reported "No heavy debris in the lobby".

Which is also likely as viewed from one end of the building, but you refuse to entertain that possibility.


Where did you get the "forced out of the stairwell by dust and smoke" ?

Stairwells have self closing doors to prevent that very thing.

Well it is supposed to of course. Perhaps you are old enough to remember a time when stairwell doors closed and locked behind you upon entering the stairwell from an upper floor. this was a security measure in some buildings to prevent unauthorised people from getting around via the stairs. Fire officials complained about the practise. Why? Because anyone entering the stairwell encountering smoke was trapped in the stairwells and this ended up killing people because many stairwells still got a lot of smoke during fires.

In this case we have the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world next door and severe damage to the building, basically scouring much of the south face,and you are trying to state that the fire doors on all floors would have had to work perfectly and keep out all dust from the event of the WTC 1collapse.

The "New Footage" video has been around for a while. In it, Michael Hesh said "Another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"

The building was rocked by the impact of debris, the air filled with dust and probably some smoke from the collapse and fires were started all over the vicinity of WTC 7 meaning that smoke would be no big surprise would it?
With no other information to work with other than what they were experiencing ,yeah they and many other people would describe the event as an explosion.

Would be? You are assuming that.

Yes, I am and we also know that CT's insist that all eyewitness statements be taken literally and at face value at every turn.


Good point.
Thank you, for a second I thought you were going to try and tell me that they had been physically thrown through the door onto the 8th floor. At least this is clear to you that such did not occur.
Also, stairwells have self closing doors.
Noted and addressed above.

Both men said there was an explosion. It's not a hyperbole.
No reason to assume it wasn't or at the very least a mistake made in the extreme nature of the situation they were in.

The clap of thunder occurred about 2 seconds before the bottom caved out. [north wall begins to fall]


1 second for time delay, and 1 second, for
" [B]we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder ….turned around ..... [B]it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building .... about a second later the bottom floor caved out "

According to NIST, the east penthouse began collapsing 7 seconds before the screenwall and the west penthouse.
About 1/2 second later, the entire north face begins to fall.
[bottom floor caved out]
The north wall began to collapse about 2 seconds after the clap of thunder.
The east penthouse began to fall and about 5 seconds before the clap of thunder


Oh, my bad, yes a column fails with a loud crack or boom(it is not likely to be a chime or a hiss) and the consequence is a shortening of the column structure under the penthouse(perhaps evidenced from the side of the building as a "shockwave ripping " through the building, the penthouse sinks and crashes through the building and the north wall fails. The video evidence of the penthouse sinking and then the north wall collapseing gives enough time for heavy debris to have fallen 40 to the level of the cantilever trusses and their attendant inner columns. aside fron the initial failure, the rest is going to be a rather distinct roar.

The north wall failed several seconds after the penthouse sinking, I am not at all convinced that the timing of events expressed by the witnesses is particularily accurate but you, well, there is that eyewitness statements being taken at literal face value again.

No, still no real requirement for CD as far as the physical collapse goes and certainly no senario as to how, why, when or who carried out the supposed Cd that makes any sense whatsoever.

[jaydeehess]

Very important point


Both men said there was an explosion.

The NIST report leaves that out.

Yeah, and no one at al said anything about bombs ,,,, except Norseman, in his above post.

Neither Jenkins or Hesh said bombs went off , they characterized what they experienced as an explosion, a relatively generic term, and Norseman just recharacterized it as being caused by a bomb, a relatively specific term.

Perhaps Norseman really doesn't mean a "bomb" but he said it, and that is the way we humans work. We tend to put our own slant on both our experiences and those reported to us by others. Truly objective review must take this into account and one must ask if there are alternate valid ways to look at them.

[slingblade]

Very important point


Both men said there was an explosion.

The NIST report leaves that out.

OFCOL. "Explosion" doesn't exclusively mean bombs. Even little kids get this. I have used the word "explosion" to describe sounds that I knew positively had nothing to do with literal bomb-like explosives.

It's like my taking your "clap of thunder" quote and pointing out to you over and over and over that the skies were clear that day so there could have been no thunder, and thus your "witness" was a paid-off NWO shill.

Gods, I have got to get more and better hobbies. And so do you, Chris.

[A W Smith]

A W Smith has not responded to this post yet.

Nor has anyone else for that matter.

Your comparing Meridian Plaza to wtc7? I wasnt aware Meridiian Plaza had a substation beneath it with complex load transfer trusses.

[beachnut]

Many bays away? Source?

NIST Apx. L pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.

When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.

Meridian Plaza

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

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

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.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. 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).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.Tell me again, where I can find Meridian Plaza? What happen to Meridian Plaza that did not loose the strength?

[Norseman]

Very important point


Both men said there was an explosion.

The NIST report leaves that out.

No Christopher7, the NIST report does not leave out the fact that both men said there was an explosion. The report correctly relates what the two men described as an explosion with the collapse of WTC 1 when they arrived at the 6th floor in WTC 7.

Looking at footnote 380 on page 109 and footnote 381 on page 110 in the report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) I find it very likely that the account in the report is based on an interview with both men. I would expect that during the interview it was clarified what they meant with an explosion.

So far in this thread you have not provided a single evidence to prove that explosives/bombs were involved in the collapse of WTC 7 that stand up to scrutiny.

jaydeehees, I used the word bomb very consciously, because it is my impression that Christopher7 clearly equals explosion with explosives/bombs in this case.

[Christopher7]

Which is also likely as viewed from one end of the building, but you refuse to entertain that possibility.Wrong
The lobby was open end to end. The firefighters could see that there was no heavy debris in the lobby areas from either end of the lobby.

Where did you get the "forced out of the stairwell by dust and smoke" ?
Stairwells have self closing doors to prevent that very thing. Well it is supposed to of course.
..... anyone entering the stairwell encountering smoke was trapped in the stairwells and this ended up killing people because many stairwells still got a lot of smoke during fires.
True, but there were no fires at time Michael and Barry heard an explosion.


The normal position for stairwell doors is closed.

An explosion would create smoke, dust and debris.

Explosion is the more likely of the two explanations.

the fire doors on all floors would have had to work perfectly and keep out all dust from the event of the WTC 1 collapse. Not perfectly.

As for vibrations, no he says "explosion" and his evidence of an explosion would be loud noise/vibration plus the smoke/dust.
Would be? You are assuming that.
Yes, I am and we also know that CT's insist that all eyewitness statements be taken literally and at face value at every turn.
I take all eyewitness statements at face value unless there reason to doubt them. [other statements or evidence to the contrary]
This does not mean they constitute proof, but they should be considered as evidence of what happened.
Collaboration by other witnesses gives them more credibility.

Both men said there was an explosion. It's not a hyperbole.
No reason to assume it wasn't or at the very least a mistake made in the extreme nature of the situation they were in.
Meet ya half way

No reason to assume it wasn't an explosion or a mistake made in the extreme nature of the situation they were in.

[GlennB]

He (Jowenko) saw the same videos we have all seen.



(bump for Christopher7)

Which video(s) was he shown?

[Christopher7]

No Christopher7, the NIST report does not leave out the fact that both men said there was an explosion. The report correctly relates what the two men described as an explosion with the collapse of WTC 1 when they arrived at the 6th floor in WTC 7.

9-11-01
Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hesh ...." "Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

He probably meant the 8th floor landing. [or, for some reason, he opened the door to the 8th floor]
He described a blast that was more than smoke coming up the stairwell.
The blast, at very least, threw him backwards.

Michael Hesh "another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor.

spring 2004NISTNCSTAR1-8
As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help

On 9/11/01 they both said they got to the 8th floor and there was an explosion.

Three and a half years later, NIST says the 6th floor and does not mention the explosion or address the fact that there was a blast wave that went with that explosion.

Looking at footnote 380 on page 109 and footnote 381 on page 110 in the report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) I find it very likely that the account in the report is based on an interview with both men. I would expect that during the interview it was clarified what they meant with an explosion.Clarified by whom? Sounds like they were told it was the collapse of WTC 1.
We don't know what they said.
I would like to see the transcript of that interview.


BTW: there was an explosion about that time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

[Christopher7]

The north wall failed several seconds after the penthouse sinking,7 1/2 seconds.

I am not at all convinced that the timing of events expressed by the witnesses is particularily accurateHe said "clap of thunder ...... about a second later the bottom caved out." [add 1 sec. for time delay]
The penthouse had been collapsing for 7 1/2 seconds when the bottom caved out or about 5 seconds before the clap of thunder.
He wasn't that far off.

The collapse was a continuous series of columns failing and floors falling.
At no point in this process would there be a single 'clap of thunder'.

No, still no real requirement for CD as far as the physical collapse goesIt is evidence of a CD.
It was not a single column breaking.
It was an explosion.
By itself, it is not proof but it qualifies as evidence.

and certainly no senario as to how, why, when or who carried out the supposed Cd that makes any sense whatsoever.Duh

[Christopher7]

(bump for Christopher7)

Which video(s) was he shown?You can figure that out for yourself.

What ever that first one was, it convinced him WTC 7 was a CD.

[GlennB]

You can figure that out for yourself.

What ever that first one was, it convinced him WTC 7 was a CD.

Nah - don't wriggle so. You clearly stated he was shown the same videos as the rest of us, so you must know.

I've spoken with many 9/11 CTists who had never seen the video that shows the fall of the E Penthouse. One or two even expressed deep surprise at seeing something that shook their "it's so obvious" standpoint.

So - tell us. Which video(s) was he shown?

[twinstead]

It's also not surprising to me that the penthouse collapse part of the total collapse is left out of every video of the event on conspiracy websites.

[slingblade]

7 1/2 seconds.

He said "clap of thunder ...... about a second later the bottom caved out." [add 1 sec. for time delay]
The penthouse had been collapsing for 7 1/2 seconds when the bottom caved out or about 5 seconds before the clap of thunder.
He wasn't that far off.

The collapse was a continuous series of columns failing and floors falling.
At no point in this process would there be a single 'clap of thunder'.


You asked for this. Remember that, later.

Those witnesses are lying! The skies were clear that day, so there could have been no thunder.

[beachnut]

So far we have solid case for all day fire, leading to collapse. Do not forget the impact damage from the towers. Too bad no one heard some RDX, or found the secret thermite cutters that would have been giant devices against the columns, not easy to hide. I can see the Secret Service now. What is that tripod thing? Oh, says the "NWO" technician, it is a thermite cutting device, do not worry, we have to mount it on the steel column, that is why were are cutting through the wall, so we can attach it to the steel so it does not move away when it burns. What a moronic idea, CD on 9/11. Do we have anyone who believes this incredibly false CD stuff?

Not a single piece of evidence shows anything but fires and a damaged building that fell on 9/11. Even the explosives stuff is real dumb since the fires would cook off the charges. And all the videos do fail as seen over and over to include the entire collapse that takes a lot longer than freefall. The list is too long.

After careful review of the evidence, it was a damaged building fire failure. But carry on truthers, make it up and see if it floats.

[Christopher7]

Nah - don't wriggle so. You clearly stated he was shown the same videos as the rest of us, so you must know.

I've spoken with many 9/11 CTists who had never seen the video that shows the fall of the E Penthouse. One or two even expressed deep surprise at seeing something that shook their "it's so obvious" standpoint.

So - tell us. Which video(s) was he shown?
This is probably the first video he saw. [no sound]

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

It shows the screenwall and the west penthouse falling just before the north and west walls.

That is enough to establish that:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

When he was shown the column layout he said:

Jowenko: That explains quite a lot.
Interviewer: What does that explain?
J: That you can do it fast.

I: But which columns do you have to blow up to let it collapse as cleanly as we have seen?
J: This heart. [he circles the core columns with his finger]

It does not matter if there were 12 or 24, if you blow them, the building will implode.

The fact that the east penthouse collapsed first only adds certainty that it was a CD.

Clearing out a hole first allows the east and west walls to collapse inward.

Had they collapsed the whole interior at once, the north and south walls would collapse inward but the east and west walls would be forced outward, or the other way around.

The 'kink' that developed brought the east and west walls inward.

[GlennB]

This is probably the first video he saw. [no sound]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

It shows the screenwall and the west penthouse falling just before the north and west walls.


"Probably" ? You said you knew. So, that would be the one that doesn't show the E Penthouse ... OK


They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Simply" ? How exactly?

The fact that the east penthouse collapsed first only adds certainty that it was a CD.
If you say so.

Clearing out a hole first allows the east and west walls to collapse inward.
Wouldn't we need an equivalent "hole" on the West side, thus collapsing the W Penthouse?
Had they collapsed the whole interior at once, the north and south walls would collapse inward but the east and west walls would be forced outward, or the other way around.
Which way round?
The 'kink' that developed brought the east and west walls inward.


You are totally stoned, aren't you?

[Christopher7]

"Probably" ? You said you knew. So, that would be the one that doesn't show the E Penthouse ... OK

"Simply" ? How exactly?

The core columns in the elevator shafts and mechanical floors [5 & 6] were accessible to 'maintenance' workers and out of sight to everyone else.

The building could easily have been rigged before 9/11.

There were no fires reported below the 6th floor.
The only fire on the 6th floor was on the SW side.

Stacy Loizeaux:
We only really need to work on the first two floors, because—you can make the building come down that way.

Wouldn't we need an equivalent 'hole' on the West side, thus collapsing the W Penthouse?
No

The 'hole' and the subsequent 'kink' brought the east wall in more than the west wall.

WTC 7 imploded [fell in on itself]

[Jonnyclueless]

And of course this proves demolition because a collapse by fire would cause a building to fall upwards not down. So there for we can make conjecture about bombs.

[Norseman]

9-11-01
Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hesh ...." "Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

He probably meant the 8th floor landing. [or, for some reason, he opened the door to the 8th floor]
He described a blast that was more than smoke coming up the stairwell.
The blast, at very least, threw him backwards.

Michael Hesh "another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor.

spring 2004NISTNCSTAR1-8
As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help

On 9/11/01 they both said they got to the 8th floor and there was an explosion.

Three and a half years later, NIST says the 6th floor and does not mention the explosion or address the fact that there was a blast wave that went with that explosion.



Do you believe this version of the events that Barry Jennings gives in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

He is very clearly lying in parts of this interview if it is real.

BTW: there was an explosion about that time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
Worthless without original source, context, time and location. A lot of things could have sounded like an explosion that day entirely without explosives involved.

[Christopher7]

Do you believe this version of the events that Barry Jennings gives in this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE

He is very clearly lying in parts of this interview if it is real.
9-11-01
Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hesh ...." "Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."


July 2007
When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.
I was left there hanging.

Houston! We have a conundrum.

Michael Hesh verified the explosion but, if that really is Barry, every thing else he says should be disregarded.

[funk de fino]

So Barry claims he was taken out a hole in the wall by the firemen and the lobby was destroyed. Why did no-one on the outside see these holes or the state of the lobby, there were plenty of witnesses around that would have seen this hole in the building? I thought the explosion was away from everything and did not even break windows? If it made a hole in the wall it must have been pretty huge and it would have been heard and seen on the outside?

Someone got his times mixed up I think, and is mistaken about the second tower not being hit

I did like his smoke on the coffee quote though

[Christopher7]

Tell me again, where I can find Meridian Plaza? What happen to Meridian Plaza that did not loose the strength?The Meridian Plaza was torn down. It did not collapse.

Lessons learned.

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).

[jaydeehess]

Wrong
The lobby was open end to end. The firefighters could see that there was no heavy debris in the lobby areas from either end of the lobby.

The "explosion" , it seems to me is quite obviously the effect the collapse of WTC 1 had on WTC 7. They did not know that #1 had gone down all they knew about was the effects they witnessed in their location.

True, but there were no fires at time Michael and Barry heard an explosion.

There was the extreme amount of relativley fast moving dust, likely some smoke from the fires that had been in the towers and then there are the fires that were ignited in WTC 7 due to the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1.




An explosion would create smoke, dust and debris.

Explosion is the more likely of the two explanations.

In your opinion. I beg to differ.
The clap of thunder it seems obvious, occured before the penthouse started to sink. We know the witnesses could not see the penthouse, correct? Something gives internally, with a loud boom or crack, the column structure under the penthouse sinks causing a rippling effect to be visible up the side of the building, the Penthouse begins to sink, falls through the building for several seconds eventually causing major damage to the cantilever truss/column system which also fails and which is responsible for much of the structural integrity of the north wall so the lower portion of the north wall comes apart as the cantilever trusses lose their support and then the entire building is compromised and collapses.

The normal position for stairwell doors is closed.
,,,,,Not perfectly.

Yes, perfectly. You expect that the doors would withstand the impact of the tower debris and the rather large, dense and fast moving dust cloud such that barely a whiff of dust would enter the stairwell. The only way for that to occur is for the doors to work perfectly.


I take all eyewitness statements at face value unless there reason to doubt them. [other statements or evidence to the contrary]
This does not mean they constitute proof, but they should be considered as evidence of what happened.
Collaboration by other witnesses gives them more credibility.

Tell me again how many other witnesses heard the "clap of thunder" or what exactly backs up the senario as described by the two that did, especially as per the timing of the events they witnessed?



Meet ya half way

No reason to assume it wasn't an explosion or a mistake made in the extreme nature of the situation they were in.

,,, or the very human habit of describing one thing using terms that can be both generic or specific. Make that the very human way of describing situations in ENGLISH. That could be considered a mistake I suppose.

After all people learning English do often get very confused at the way our words can so many differing connotations.

[jaydeehess]

Three and a half years later, NIST says the 6th floor and does not mention the explosion or address the fact that there was a blast wave that went with that explosion.


"Blast wave"? Seems to me that it was a fairly tame "blast wave" as both men suffered little physical damage, even their cloths remained intact.

So quite obviously the "blast wave" experienced by the two men is not what damaged the stairwell. Now if only there were another explanation as to what could damage the stairwell that would not involve high explosives........... something like heavy debris of some sort impacting portions of the structure.

So am I correct now in theat there was both an elevator car ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building and a stairwell that failed at the time of the collapse of #1? Refresh my memory as to which end of the building Jenkins and Hesh were desending the stairwell.

[funk de fino]

Address post # 3147 please Christopher7

[Norseman]

The Meridian Plaza was torn down. It did not collapse.

Lessons learned.

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).

Christopher7, take look at figure 4-17 on top of page 4-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 5 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf). Keep in mind that this was a column in the top of WTC 5. Think what would could happen if it was column in the lower part of WTC 7?

[Christopher7]

The "explosion" , it seems to me is quite obviously the effect the collapse of WTC 1 had on WTC 7. They did not know that #1 had gone down all they knew about was the effects they witnessed in their location.Obviously?
You were not there.
You don't know what they heard or exactly when.

There was the extreme amount of relativley fast moving dust, likely some smoke from the fires that had been in the towers and then there are the fires that were ignited in WTC 7 due to the damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1.Stairwells are closed.
It took a while for those fires to get going.
They said they were trapped on the 8th floor for an hour and a half.

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas.

spring 2004NISTNCSTAR1-8
When they got to the 6th floor, [Michael and Barry said the 8th floor] WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. In addition, a security officer for one of the businesses in the building was also trapped on the 7th floor by smoke in the stairway. As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. Other firefighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlight through the staircase smoke and called out.

The two trapped men on the 8th floor saw the flashlight beam and heard the firefighters callingThrough a closed door?

[Christopher7]

Address post # 3147 please Christopher7
See post #3146

[Christopher7]

The clap of thunder it seems obvious, occured before the penthouse started to sink.Wrong

He said "clap of thunder ...... about a second later the bottom caved out."
[add 1 sec. for sound travel time delay]
The penthouse had been collapsing for 7 1/2 seconds when the bottom caved out or about 5 seconds before the clap of thunder.

The collapse was a continuous series of columns failing and floors falling.
At no point in this process would there be a single 'clap of thunder'.

[funk de fino]

See post #3146

No, it does not, are you saying he is mistaken about being taken out a hole and that the lobby was not destroyed at this time? The firemen who carried him out would have seen the destroyed lobby? This could not have been prior to the collapse of the towers?

This does not make sense with all your other posts?

Please expand on what you are trying to say about Barry's interview that Jones played?

ETA - add "interview"

[Christopher7]

"Blast wave"? Seems to me that it was a fairly tame "blast wave" as both men suffered little physical damage, even their cloths remained intact. Agreed

So quite obviously the "blast wave" experienced by the two men is not what damaged the stairwell. No

Now if only there were another explanation as to what could damage the stairwell that would not involve high explosives........... something like heavy debris of some sort impacting portions of the structure.
The stairwells were about 100 feet from the front of WTC 7.

So am I correct now in theat there was both an elevator car ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building and a stairwell that failed at the time of the collapse of #1?No.

If that was Barry in the interview, he contradicted what he said on 9/11.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."

June 2007
"When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.

I was left there hanging."

Anything he says after that cannot be considered valid.

Refresh my memory as to which end of the building Jenkins and Hesh were desending the stairwell. Probably the west stairway. [as you deduced quite some time ago]

NIST: "Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"
This report was probably made by the firefighters who led the person on floor 7 out of the building.

NIST: "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"
This report was no doubt made by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry and reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, on floor 8.

If they had made it to the 6th floor, as NIST says, they would have been below the explosion and they would not have been trapped.

[funk de fino]

Anything he says after that cannot be considered valid.

Probably the west stairway. [as you deduced quite some time ago]



So you are using selective witness testimony from your own witness? Absolutely incredible!!

He says he was rescued by the firefighters and taken out a hole in the wall, how did that hole get there? He also says the lobby was destroyed how did this happen?

If you disregard any of his staement you have to disregard it all, the choice is yours?

Sorry we dont deal in probablys, what staircase was it?

[twinstead]

So you are using selective witness testimony from your own witness?

It appears Chris has been studying the Lyte Trip Witness Account TechniqueTM.

[Belz...]

We've been through this before, Chris. Several times, in fact.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

Still waiting, Chris.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
"Blast wave"? Seems to me that it was a fairly tame "blast wave" as both men suffered little physical damage, even their cloths remained intact. C7 replies
Agreed


Quote jaydeehess:
So quite obviously the "blast wave" experienced by the two men is not what damaged the stairwell.
C7 replies
No

YES, if the "explosion is what caused the stairwell to fail then it certainly would have to be powerful enough to tear the clothing of the men standing on the landing that gave way. It really quite simple, high explosives and balst wave causing significant damage to steel and concrete and there must be enough power to significantly affect humans standing on that concrete and steel.

Quote jaydeehess:
Now if only there were another explanation as to what could damage the stairwell that would not involve high explosives........... something like heavy debris of some sort impacting portions of the structure.
C7 replies
The stairwells were about 100 feet from the front of WTC 7.

Nevertheless, it cannot have been an "explosion" that damaged the stairs enough that the landing gave way and we know that the SW corner of the building was gouged out. It is no great leap of logic then to assume that the damage to the SW corner caused the damage to the western stairwell(I knew we had deduced it was the west side before but I wanted you to say it Chris)


Quote jaydeehess:
So am I correct now in theat there was both an elevator car ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building and a stairwell that failed at the time of the collapse of #1?
C7 replies
No.

Sure I am Chris, give it up.

We know that Jenkins and Hesh were on the 8th floor and called for help from a window and that it was 1 1/2 hours before they were rescued. In their statements we looked at before we know they exited the upper floor after WTC 2 came down. They however, never mention WTC 1 going down despite having a front row seat. It is therefore quite obvious that WTC 2 came down while they were in the stairwell and could not know at that time that it had collapsed and were relating their experience at the time in the context of what they knew at the time of the incident in the stairwell.

If that was Barry in the interview, he contradicted what he said on 9/11.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."

June 2007
"When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.

I was left there hanging."

Anything he says after that cannot be considered valid.

Picky, picky, the man is describing the most horrific personal experience of his life on the day of the most horrific attacks on the USA in at least a century. "blew us back" need not be taken literally. Do you really expect him to say "caused us to retreat to the relative safety of the 8th floor"?


NIST: "Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"
This report was probably made by the firefighters who led the person on floor 7 out of the building.

NIST: "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"
This report was no doubt made by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry and reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, on floor 8.

If they had made it to the 6th floor, as NIST says, they would have been below the explosion and they would not have been trapped.

That is BS reading of the situation to suit your own needs and only your own needs. Once again it is patently obvious to anyone who does not require explosives in WTC 7 for their pet contention, that the damage to the western stairwell and the "explosive" entry of smoke and/or dust into the stairwell was due to the debris damage to the SW corner and to the south face of WTC 7. Had they been on the 6th floor they would have been equally trapped.

[Christopher7]

So far we have solid case for all day fire, There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

leading to collapse.There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

Do not forget the impact damage from the towers.There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's your evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building.

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, take look at figure 4-17 on top of page 4-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 5 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch4.pdf). Keep in mind that this was a column in the top of WTC 5. Think what would could happen if it was column in the lower part of WTC 7? Good find
However

The columns on the 8th floor of a 9 story building are much smaller than the columns on the first 12 floors of a 47 story building.

Note on pg 18, some of the vertical columns remain when the floors all around them have collapsed.

[Christopher7]

YES, if the "explosion is what caused the stairwell to fail then it certainly would have to be powerful enough to tear the clothing of the men standing on the landing that gave way.
NIST did not mention the landing collapse.

NISTNCSTAR1-8

Pg 110 [164 on pg counter]

As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.

Nevertheless, it cannot have been an "explosion" that damaged the stairs enough that the landing gave way and we know that the SW corner of the building was gouged out. It is no great leap of logic then to assume that the damage to the SW corner caused the damage to the western stairwell(I knew we had deduced it was the west side before but I wanted you to say it Chris)
We are not certain, it's just a reasonable deduction.

As for the damage to the SW corner effecting the stairwell,

that's a 100 foot leap.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png

jaydeehess: So am I correct now in that there was both an elevator car ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building and a stairwell that failed at the time of the collapse of #1?
C7: No.
jaydeehess: Sure I am Chris, give it up.

Why do you think the elevator cars were ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building?

Had they been on the 6th floor they would have been equally trapped.Do you agree with this part?

NIST: "Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"
This report was probably made by the firefighters who led the person on floor 7 out of the building.

NIST: "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"
This report was no doubt made by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry and reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, on floor 8.

[Pardalis]

Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?

[BeAChooser]

That is BS reading of the situation to suit your own needs and only your own needs.

I decided to ignore Christopher7 not long after joining this forum and our first debate. Debating him is a complete waste of time as he will ignore or spin anything you post. Wouldn't it be healthier to just laugh at him as I now do? ROTFLOL! :D

[LashL]

It is evidence of a CD.

No, it is most assuredly not. It is evidence only of a perception of a sound "like a clap of thunder."

By itself, it is not proof but it qualifies as evidence.

You are correct that it is not proof of anything. However, it is still not evidence of anything other than a perception of a sound "like a clap of thunder."

Duh

Indeed. :rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

I decided to ignore Christopher7 not long after joining this forum and our first debate. Debating him is a complete waste of time as he will ignore or spin anything you post. Wouldn't it be healthier to just laugh at him as I now do? ROTFLOL! :D I have been unraveling the spin of Gravy and others.

Post #3162 points out that there is no evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

I have been presenting facts and statements from the government reports people here have claimed as evidence for DD/F.

An honest look at the facts in those reports reveals that there is no evidence of debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Still waiting, Chris.
Debris -> Fires - there is no evidence -> Collapse.

[funk de fino]

C7 - you have not answered ny questions regarding your view on Barry's latest evidence

Are you saying "some" of his testimony is false and as such we can disregard him as a witness?

[Belz...]

Debris -> Fires - there is no evidence -> Collapse.

What's this ? A smoke generator ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f40b1821b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3826)

[GlennB]

.....
As for the damage to the SW corner effecting the stairwell,

that's a 100 foot leap.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png


Possibly, but this might not be :

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

[jaydeehess]

NIST did not mention the landing collapse.

NISTNCSTAR1-8

Pg 110 [164 on pg counter]

As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.

So you will admit that WTC 1 collapsed while they were descending the stairs but just cannot accept that the collapse of #1 is what caused their trouble in the stairwells. That's quite the strong bias you are showing Chris.

We are not certain, it's just a reasonable deduction.
Yes, we agreed on that.

As for the damage to the SW corner effecting the stairwell,

that's a 100 foot leap.

Do you suppose I am trying to state that debris from WTC 1 must have reached the stairwell in order to cause the damage chris? It is not neccessary. The SW corner was gouged out which would cause extreme stress on the floor pans and thus on all proximate columns. The building was significantly shifted and the stairwell attached to the structure suffered as a result.


jaydeehess: So am I correct now in that there was both an elevator car ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building and a stairwell that failed at the time of the collapse of #1?
C7: No.
jaydeehess: Sure I am Chris, give it up.

Why do you think the elevator cars were ejected from the shaft in the eastern portion of the building?

Do you agree with this part?

NIST: "Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"
This report was probably made by the firefighters who led the person on floor 7 out of the building.

NIST: "No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8"
This report was no doubt made by the firefighters who rescued Michael and Barry and reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, on floor 8.

Yes, I believe that we established that the elevator in question was east of the center of the building. At any rate it illustrates a twisting of the core or debris that did in fact reach the core. Either way the car was ejected to the north. Either the core was leaning to the south and thus a car coming down uncontrolled would strike the north side of the shaft, or something entered the shaft from the south and shoved the car to the north. Take your pick After all we do know conclusively that there was heavy damage done to the building by falling debris. We have no conclusive evidence whatsoever of explosives though.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

The damage need not be proximate to the initiating event of the collapse to have contributed to the initiating event. All it need do is put a stress on the area of the initiating event location and fire damage need not be as severe in order to cause collapse.

If there was an explosion that the two men experienced and it damaged the western stairwell and the initiating event occured in the eastern portion of the building thenm this explosion, by your own measure, had nothing to do with the collapse

[Christopher7]

C7 - you have not answered ny questions regarding your view on Barry's latest evidence

Are you saying "some" of his testimony is false and as such we can disregard him as a witness?
On 9/11/01 Michael and Barry said they reached the 8th floor and there was an explosion. This much is reliable.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor." is an overstatement. IMO

June 2007
".... the landing gave way. I was left there hanging." is in conflict with what he said on 9/11/01 and therefore the entire interview should be considered invalid until there is conformation of the statements he made in that interview.

[Christopher7]

What's this ? A smoke generator ?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f40b1821b.jpg

Fires at the other end of the building.

[Christopher7]

Possibly, but this might not be :

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

That is a long gash between columns 5 & 6 [Spak#]

The debris that made that gash was falling pretty much straight down.

Furthermore, it doesn't line up with the stairwell.


BTW, the stairwells were about 65 feet from the front of WTC 7. [my bad]
I'm surprised no one caught that.

[funk de fino]

On 9/11/01 Michael and Barry said they reached the 8th floor and there was an explosion. This much is reliable.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor." is an overstatement. IMO

June 2007
".... the landing gave way. I was left there hanging." is in conflict with what he said on 9/11/01 and therefore the entire interview should be considered invalid until there is conformation of the statements he made in that interview.

Sorry pal, they would get him into court and on what you have just stated his evidence would be disregarded as contradictory, he would be torn to shreds and destroy your story

You are now one witness down

How do you explain the fact he said the First responders pulled him out a hole in the wall

How can this be?

[Christopher7]

So you will admit that WTC 1 collapsed while they were descending the stairs but just cannot accept that the collapse of #1 is what caused their trouble in the stairwells. That's quite the strong bias you are showing Chris.Look who's talking. You refuse to admit that what they described as an explosion might actually be an explosion.

Do you suppose I am trying to state that debris from WTC 1 must have reached the stairwell in order to cause the damage chris? It is not neccessary. The SW corner was gouged out which would cause extreme stress on the floor pans and thus on all proximate columns. The building was significantly shiftedSource?

and the stairwell attached to the structure suffered as a result.No

Yes, I believe that we established that the elevator in question was east of the center of the building. No

At any rate it illustrates a twisting of the coreGet serious

or debris that did in fact reach the core.Supposition without basis.

Either way the car was ejected to the north.It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.

Either the core was leaning to the southRidiculous supposition.

and thus a car coming down uncontrolled would strike the north side of the shaft,Even with your ridiculous supposition, the elevator would hit the south side of the shaft.

or something entered the shaft from the south and shoved the car to the north. What?

You refuse to accept that falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall 80 feet from the front of the building.

You refuse to accept that what they heard could have been an explosion.


An explosion next to column 65 on floor 8 could eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft and damage the west stairwell, filling it with smoke.


http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png

[jaydeehess]

Look who's talking. You refuse to admit that what they described as an explosion might actually be an explosion.

As I said we all know that the SW corner of the building suffered major damage, the corner columns were ripped out. We also know for a fact that the building was leaning as a result of the damages to the south face. The stairwell is on the west side of the building, we know that as well do we not? We also know for a fact that WTC 1 fell while these men were in the stairwell. well Chris if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and flies like a duck I am simply unprepared to make the laep of faith that you would in declaring it a platypus.

Source?

For the fact that when they lined a transit up on the building it was leaning or bulging? Get real Chris. You know it was.

No
duck/platypus

No

Ge I could swear we had. I am not about to go looking through dozens of pages to find it though.

Get serious
duck/platypus

Supposition without basis.
Simply another possibility
On the other hand you have even less basis for assuming any explosive demolitions.

It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.

Well perhaps less likey but not without precedent that day.

Ridiculous supposition.
transit

Even with your ridiculous supposition, the elevator would hit the south side of the shaft.

Oops. perhaps you are correct. Ok bounced out off the south side. It is still one possibity and requires only events that are known to have occured such as the damage to the building.

What?

You refuse to accept that falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall 80 feet from the front of the building.

True, I consider it a possibility.

You refuse to accept that what they heard could have been an explosion.


I simply accept that , in this world and in the English language , that many is the time that loud sounds and rumblings have been described as an explosion and given the FACT that WTC1 fell whiule they were in the stairwells that it is extremely likely that the "explosion" was the effect of the debris damaging the building only a couple dozen feet from where they were.

An explosion next to column 65 on floor 8 could eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft and damage the west stairwell, filling it with smoke.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png

Could, but there is no evidence to support this contention. On the other hand if it were there then according to your take on the way the building would react, it would have NO effect on the initiation of collapse yet appears to be the first "explosion" that occured in the building. No other FF's who entered the building report any evidence of such an explosion either and the ones who came for Jenkins and Hesh were some of the first in the building.

[Belz...]

You refuse to admit that what they described as an explosion might actually be an explosion.

What you refuse to admit is that what they described as an explosion might actualy be something else.

[Christopher7]

As I said we all know that the SW corner of the building suffered major damage, the corner columns were ripped out. We also know for a fact that the building was leaning as a result of the damages to the south face.
A firefighter, two blocks away, thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene said the building was leaning.

FEMA and NIST did not say the building was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.

The stairwell is on the west side of the building, we know that as well do we not? As i said before, we don't know that.
However, the evidence indicates that it was.

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

from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

We also know for a fact that WTC 1 fell while these men were in the stairwell.True

For the fact that when they lined a transit up on the building it was leaning or bulging? Get real Chris. You know it was.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner that ran up several floors.
[they had to put a transit on it to be sure]
He did NOT say WTC 7 was leaning.

Simply another possibility
On the other hand you have even less basis for assuming any explosive demolitions.The elevators in the hallway north of the shaft are evidence of an explosion.

It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.
Well perhaps less likey but not without precedent that day.
Bankers Trust was about 100 feet closer to a falling Trade Tower and the gouge was about 30 feet deep.

Oops. perhaps you are correct. Ok bounced out off the south side. It is still one possibity and requires only events that are known to have occured such as the damage to the building.Bounced?

You refuse to accept that falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall 80 feet from the front of the building.
True, I consider it a possibility.
The key words here are 'falling', 'two' and 'sideways'.

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

You refuse to accept that what they heard could have been an explosion.
I simply accept that , in this world and in the English language , that many is the time that loud sounds and rumblings have been described as an explosion and given the FACT that WTC1 fell whiule they were in the stairwells that it is extremely likely that the "explosion" was the effect of the debris damaging the building only a couple dozen feet from where they were.
It is possible, but unlikely, that what they heard was debris hitting the building.
Several large pieces of debris hit WTC 7. They would have sounded like a series of explosions.

An explosion next to column 65 on floor 8 could eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft and damage the west stairwell, filling it with smoke. Could, but there is no evidence to support this contention.Two elevator cars in the hallway north of the shaft is evidence of an explosion.

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence.

You can site alternate explanations but you cannot rule out that what they heard could have been a explosion.

On the other hand if it were there then according to your take on the way the building would react, it would have NO effect on the initiation of collapse yet appears to be the first "explosion" that occured in the building.Correct

No other FF's who entered the building report any evidence of such an explosion either and the ones who came for Jenkins and Hesh were some of the first in the building.Wrong
The firefighters who rescued Jenkins and Hess* were the last firefighters in the building.
They are no doubt the ones who reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft.


* I got 'Hesh' from the video .... wrong, Barry clearly said Hess, so i looked it up.

[cloudshipsrule]

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

This is one of the most false statements you have made. Tons of debris falling from 1000 feet in the air can pretty much do what it wants to do.

[Christopher7]

This is one of the most false statements you have made. Tons of debris falling from 1000 feet in the air can pretty much do what it wants to do.What it wants?

Falling anything cannot break the laws of physics.
It would take a tremendous amount of lateral force to knock two elevator cars thru a wall.

Can you admit that what Michael and Barry heard could have been an explosion?

Can you admit that what ejected two elevators sideways thru a wall, 80 feet from the front of WTC 7, could have been an explosion?

[twinstead]

What it wants?

Can you admit that what Michael and Barry heard could have been an explosion?


Anything is possible. The problem is, you are the one declaring that what they heard indeed WAS an explosion and should be used as evidence as such, because frankly you have to in order to build your little fantasy.

What we are saying is it could have been anything, therefore useless as evidence of CD.

[Christopher7]

Anything is possible.That's a half answer.
Can you actually admit that what they heard could have been an explosion?

The problem is, you are the one declaring that what they heard indeed WAS an explosion and should be used as evidence as such,Post #3181
It is possible, but unlikely, that what they heard was debris hitting the building.
Evidence: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.
The two elevator cars in the hallway north of the shaft is also evidence [a sign] of an explosion.

A case is built on many pieces of evidence that are not, in and of themselves, proof.

What we are saying is it could have been anything, therefore useless as evidence of CD.You are saying that anything less than proof is not evidence.
Such is not the case.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yet no evidence of explosives have been found. Isn't that interesting?

[Christopher7]

Yet no evidence of explosives have been found. Isn't that interesting?When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

If this is a criminal investigation, the destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.

If this is a scientific investigation, there is no reason to release some photographs and withhold others.

[Drudgewire]

Evidence: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.
It's faulty evidence. Two people saying they heard an explosion is considered good evidence if they're the only two people capable of hearing it. Two people out of thousands hearing it is another matter altogether.

Psychics give SIGNS of the existence of BS every day, hell it's what puts food on their table.

[GlennB]

....

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

.....

I had no ida of that. Is this a FOIA issue? Can you provide a link confirming this?

[twinstead]

When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.


What? When faced with evidence we can't accept, we shift to the obvious lack of evidence?

What the heck does that mean?

What he means is that there is a conspicuous lack of physical evidence. You agree, obviously, because all you have to say is "the physical evidence was destroyed".

What the heck does THAT mean?

Are you saying that no evidence of CD is to be expected after a CD because it destroys all its evidence, or it was somehow 'destroyed' on purpose?

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.Yea. Not that I doubt you, but where do you get this information?

[Norseman]

Bankers Trust was about 100 feet closer to a falling Trade Tower and the gouge was about 30 feet deep.

Originally Posted by C7
It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.



If you look at the figure on page 6-5 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch6.pdf) on the Bankers Trust building you will see that the gouge was more on the order of 46 feet deep.

If you then look at the floor plan for floor 8 - 45 on page L-6 in the NIST progress report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) on WTC 7, you will se that the distance between the elevator banks and the south front is only 36 feet in WTC 7.

It is correct that the Bankers Trust building was 100 feet closer to WTC 2 than WTC 7 was to WTC 1. But the collapse in WTC 1 initiated about 180 feet higher than the collapse in WTC 2. That should compensate for some of the remoteness.

Then we have WFC 3 that was located even further away from WTC 1 than WTC 7. But a large exterior column tree from WTC 1 hit the southeast corner about 25 floors above the ground as you can see on page 7-5 and 7-6 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf).

When I look at the picture of the gouge that GlenB posted in post #3172 in this thread, it is not a great leap of imagination to think that debris also could have entered the shaft of one of the elevator banks. A large piece of exterior column from WTC 1 falling down the elevator shaft could easily knock an elevator car or two sideways like a billiard ball if the car is hit off center.

It is even a possibility that one or more columns in the core of WTC 7 was cut or weakened by debris from WTC 1.

[Christopher7]

I had no ida of that. Is this a FOIA issue? Can you provide a link confirming this?
http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm


How do I make a FOIA request?
Submit your request in writing (http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm#sample) to the NIST FOIA Office at the following address or via e-mail to foia@nist.gov. (foia@nist.gov)
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Catherine S. Fletcher, FOIA & Privacy Act Officer
100 Bureau Drive, STOP 1710
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710
301 975-6056


Call and ask them for photographs of WTC 7

[twinstead]

Chris. All you've shown is that the FOIA exists. We all know that. The question was how do you know those 6000 photos and 6000 video clips exist?

[Norseman]

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.


Christopher7, people use all kinds of words to describe violent events they expirience. They can say it was like an explosion, an earthquake or a crash for instance. I just depends on their frame of reference.

What do you make out of this witness account:
"It looked like the World Trade Center had exploded. I saw rocks and pebbles coming down. As I was running I got pelted in the head by rocks and concrete...." (http://www.antara.co.id/en/arc/2007/7/19/transformer-explosion-rocks-midtown-manhattan/)

Of course, the World Trade Center was only used as a frame of reference by the witness to describe what he experienced.

Here (http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?ContentID=925) you have a witness that was inside WTC 7 when WTC 2 collapsed and close by when WTC 1 collapsed. Start at "Life Safety is No. 1". His use of the word missile to describe the collapse of WTC 1 could easily be misused by CT´ers who believe that WTC 7 was hit by a missile.

All available information indicates that Hesh and Jennings used the word explosion to describe what they experienced when WTC 1 collapsed.

[Christopher7]

It's faulty evidence. Two people saying they heard an explosion is considered good evidence if they're the only two people capable of hearing it. Two people out of thousands hearing it is another matter altogether.Are you calling them liars?

These are statements made on 911 by people who were in WTC 7.

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

This explains why there are not more earwitnesses.

[Jonnyclueless]

When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

If this is a criminal investigation, the destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.

If this is a scientific investigation, there is no reason to release some photographs and withhold others.

Ah yes, the conjecture that I can't accept. I tell you what Chris. Why don't you bring up a lawsuit against NIST and see what a court of law thinks of your such evidence? If it's as strong as you claim it to be, you should have no problem. Am I wrong?

The evidence was destroyed? Can you prove that? Of course not. Again, see how well that argument holds up in a court room where you can't dodge issues and pretend that conjecture is facts.


Show me how many investigations publish all of the info before the investigation is done. Please go ahead and list them all here for us.

What I would like the most is to see you debate your arguments with real engineers and with the engineers working on the NIST investigation. But unfortunately they would not take your claims seriously enough to bother. I imagine when the investigation is complete and they can make a complete presentation they will have a public hearing. Until then you can continue to take pot shots at a report that doesn't yet exist.

[Jonnyclueless]

Are you calling them liars?

These are statements made on 911 by people who were in WTC 7.

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

This explains why there are not more earwitnesses.


A lot of people have reported seeing Elvis. Are they liars? Does Elvis live?

How could there NOT be explosions in a building that is on fire and collapsing? I would be willing to bet there was air as well, and concrete and steel. I bet there were explosiives. No wait, no explosives found, never mind.

[twinstead]

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.


So, that is pretty convenient for both of us, huh? You can claim that the sound of the collapse covered the explosions, and we can claim that it was the collapses that caused the damage you attribute to the explosions.

Exactly how does that make your case any stronger?

[MaGZ]

The "New Footage" video has been around for a while. In it, Michael Hesh said "Another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"



At what time did Hess and Jennings say this explosion happened in WTC 7?

[twinstead]

A lot of people have reported seeing Elvis. Are they liars? Does Elvis live?


Are you suggesting that Elvis isn't alive?????

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, people use all kinds of words to describe violent events they expirience.Whenever the word 'explosions' is mentioned, OTers chant the deniers mantra
"Not everything that sounds like an explosion, is an explosion"

Can you bring yourself to admit that sometimes when people say they heard an explosion, it actually was an explosion?


All available information indicates that Hesh and Jennings used the word explosion to describe what they experienced when WTC 1 collapsed.Not so

The elevators in the hallway north of the shaft are evidence of an explosion.

You can always find an alternative explanation, however unlikely, but that does not negate the possibility that what they heard and what ejected the elevator cars was an explosion.

[Jonnyclueless]

As opposed to the deniers matra of "And explosion is a bomb, an explosion is a bomb"? In other words OTers don't make speculation and conjecture like you do? Interesting.

[Norseman]

Good find
However

The columns on the 8th floor of a 9 story building are much smaller than the columns on the first 12 floors of a 47 story building.

Note on pg 18, some of the vertical columns remain when the floors all around them have collapsed.

But the columns on the first 12 floors of a 47 story building have to carry the weight of the 35 floors above. That should even things out. And it is likely that the columns on the 8th floor of a 9 story building are of the same size as the lower columns out of simplicity, and therefore over dimensioned for the task.

The point was to show that steel structures are weakened and can collapse due to fire. This fact has been pointed out again and again with numerous examples in this forum and elsewhere. It is the principle that counts and there is no exception from this fact for any steel constructions in the world, including WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. There are of course ways to mitigate the effect of fire on steel, but sometimes all the care the engineers took is not enough, as we saw in the extreme events of September 11th 2001.

But when this is discussed with CT´ers suddenly the steel in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 are behaving according to different rules.

It is like the rules of CalvinBall (http://calvinball.wikidot.com/). CT´ers change the rules all the time when presented with information that refute their more or less far out pet theory, just to keep their theory alive.

[MaGZ]

So Barry claims he was taken out a hole in the wall by the firemen and the lobby was destroyed. Why did no-one on the outside see these holes or the state of the lobby, there were plenty of witnesses around that would have seen this hole in the building? I thought the explosion was away from everything and did not even break windows? If it made a hole in the wall it must have been pretty huge and it would have been heard and seen on the outside?

Someone got his times mixed up I think, and is mistaken about the second tower not being hit

I did like his smoke on the coffee quote though

I think Barry Jennings arrived at the command center on the 23 rd floor just before the second plane hit WTC 2. Everyone was gone in the room because those in the command center knew the second hijacked plane was heading toward the city. They did not know what the plane’s target was so the command post was evacuated.
Jennings arrive and is told to leave the area immediately. While in the stairwell he experienced the explosion in WTC 7 which was just seconds after the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. The explosion Jennings experienced was from the missile that was fired by a fighter which tried to intercept the second plane.

[beachnut]

I think Barry Jennings arrived at the command center on the 23 rd floor just before the second plane hit WTC 2. Everyone was gone in the room because those in the command center knew the second hijacked plane was heading toward the city. They did not know what the plane’s target was so the command post was evacuated.
Jennings arrive and is told to leave the area immediately. While in the stairwell he experienced the explosion in WTC 7 which was just seconds after the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. The explosion Jennings experienced was from the missile that was fired by a fighter which tried to intercept the second plane.
You just make this stuff up from scratch?

[MaGZ]

Are you calling them liars?

These are statements made on 911 by people who were in WTC 7.

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

This explains why there are not more earwitnesses.

If you believe they experienced the explosion in WTC 7 at the time WTC 1 collapsed then they must have gotten to WTC 7 just after the collapse of WTC 2 (30 minutes before the collapse of WTC 1).

The only thing that makes sense is they arrived at WTC 7 just after the crash of the first plane. They experienced the missile strike at WTC 7 at 9:03. Later they were rescued around 10:30 when WTC 1 collapsed.

[Christopher7]

But the columns on the first 12 floors of a 47 story building have to carry the weight of the 35 floors above. That should even things out. And it is likely that the columns on the 8th floor of a 9 story building are of the same size as the lower columns out of simplicity, and therefore over dimensioned for the task.Point taken

However

The columns on the first nine floors of a 47 story building are much heavier that the columns in a nine story building.

Columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed 730 pounds per lineal foot [over 4 tons per floor]
The greater the amount of steel that has to be heated, the longer it will take to heat it up.

The point was to show that steel structures are weakened and can collapse due to fire. This fact has been pointed out again and again with numerous examples in this forum and elsewhere. In all the examples of steel columns failing due to fire, the columns are many times smaller than the columns in question.

The columns in WTC 7 were heavier 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.

The data on how large columns, in high rise buildings, react says:

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


http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. 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). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

[funk de fino]

The explosion Jennings experienced was from the missile that was fired by a fighter which tried to intercept the second plane.

OK pal, what type of missile and how and where did it hit WTC7?

Think carefully now, because I am an ex miltary aircraft tech

[funk de fino]

C7 - If you have now lost Barry as a witness due to his contradicting claims, dose this mean you have now lost Hess as he was only quoted by Barry?

Or is there seperate Hess accounts?

What does this leave you witness wise?

[jaydeehess]

I think Barry Jennings arrived at the command center on the 23 rd floor just before the second plane hit WTC 2. Everyone was gone in the room because those in the command center knew the second hijacked plane was heading toward the city. They did not know what the plane’s target was so the command post was evacuated.
Jennings arrive and is told to leave the area immediately. While in the stairwell he experienced the explosion in WTC 7 which was just seconds after the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. The explosion Jennings experienced was from the missile that was fired by a fighter which tried to intercept the second plane.

As Beachnut says, you seem to make this stuff up from scratch. Jennings and Hess[/s] (Chris says its Hess and who am I to argue?) left the 23rd floor [B]after the collapse of WTC 2 and were rescued after the collaspe of WTC 1. Therefore they were in the stairwell at the time that #1 went down.

Chris now trys to say that the debris hitting WTC7 from #1 would sound like a series of explosions.

Wrong Chris. All of the fast, heavy debris from higher up would hit WTC 7 at about the same time.(why don't you do some math and see why)

Second, we are not talking about debris that bouces off the building, we are speaking about debris large enough and dense enough and fast enough to rip the corner column out of WTC 7 as well as dozens of other structuiral steel pieces along the south face. THAT will make a very loud noise and will cause a hell of a lot of shaking throughout the ENTIRE structure. Fur gawd'sake Chris when a freaking pigeon hits my front window the whole house transmits the vibration, when a bus went by on the street in front of a house I used to live in my record needle would jump around(it was a while ago) and thunder manages to shake my entire house quite well. In a 47 storey building whyen a corner column is rippeed from it the whole building is going to shake and the effects will be worse the closer to that corner one is. the two men in question were likely(according to you) in the west stairwell and therefore within a few dozen feet of that major damage to the building. The stairwells have to be connected to the structure, the structure suffered major compromise at that moment.

The bulge does not mean any lean or stress on the core of stairwell structure????? What do you smoke Chris? What fantasy life do you walk about in Chris?

Just what accounts , physically, for that bulge Chris? What is bulging? What is it connected to that is preventing that bulging portion of the structure from coming down onto the street? In other words what would have to fail to have the bulging portion hit the street?
It is all connected to the core columns Chris. the floor spans are now in catenary action and attached to the core section. This is pulling the core to the south(and west ). It simply and unequivocably must be doing that. It cannot be doing anything else. This is also where the stairwell is Chris. The stairwell that suffered structural damage and also near(according to you) where the elevators were ejected.

Now you wish to mention that we don't actually know if they were in the east or west stairs or if the elevators were in the east or west portion of the building nor do we then know that the FF's who viewed the lobby as they were exiting the building were looking from the east or the west end of the lobby.

You Have no one at all witnessing any explosion from WTC 7 and your explanation is that it was timed to coincide with the collapse of WTC1. How much BS do you have to shovel before you smell it Chris?

As for falling debris causing lateral motion. You are a carpenter Chris and although it probably happens less now that you are experinced, you will recall that a nail not hit squarely will indeed head off laterally with quite a bit of velocity. Secondly, in order to reach WTC 7 the debris had to have a horozontal velocity component. That horizontal velocity would lose some to air resistance but for a dense object that loss would be negligible. The dense debris that hit WTC 7 still had all but a small fraction of the approx 40 MPH horizontal component of its velocity that it had when it left WTC 1 and direction of the velocity was nominally towrads the north Chris.

[MaGZ]

OK pal, what type of missile and how and where did it hit WTC7?

Think carefully now, because I am an ex miltary aircraft tech

At the beginning of this thread are two videos of one missile flying over the WTC plaza and into the Hudson River. At the same time a second missile was fired by one of the fighters from Otis ,missed Flight 175, and hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor at 9:03. This is the explosion Hess and Jennings experienced. Fox News has footage of the missile hitting WTC 7.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

[twinstead]

I have to hand it to you MaGZ. Few people have the courage and tenacity to hold on to a completely ludicrous theory, and in fact actively debate it, for as long as you have.

[Christopher7]

The dense debris that hit WTC 7 still had all but a small fraction of the approx 40 MPH horizontal component of its velocity that it had when it left WTC 1 Really? Source?

Your entire post is a lot of double talk that says nothing.

NIST does not even suggest that debris ejected the elevator cars.

Why do you?

[jaydeehess]

Really? Source?

Your entire post is a lot of double talk that says nothing.

NIST does not even suggest that debris ejected the elevator cars.

Why do you?

I did the math Chris. The debris travelled a certain distance from WTC 1. It could have fallen from a max height of the initial failure floors of WTC 1. gravity is constant. Now I have given you all the information you need to determine the minimum horizontal velocity debris would have to have in order to hit WTC 7.

This BTW Chris, is a problem that any high school physics student could calculate.
NIST makes no conjecture in the preliminary report on what may have caused the elevator cars to be ejected.

[Christopher7]

I did the math Chris.Right

There is a physics professor with two PhD's and 135 architects and engineers who came to a different conclusion.

Did NIST do the math?


NIST makes no conjecture in the preliminary report on what may have caused the elevator cars to be ejected.Correct

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, a 135 (supposed) architects sure sounds impressive.... As opposed to the other millions throughout the world who don't seem to have any problem with NIST (despite them not having released findings yet).

Oh but I wonder if you're gonna argue that them not saying anything doesn't mean they don't agree.

I bet you I can find 100 scientists that think Elvis is still alive. But they would be wrong because the rest of the scientific community not speaking up to say they don't feel Elvis is not alive.

Just as you have argued that the some 225+ engineers who are writing the papers that disagree with you probably don't agree with the very papers and research they are presenting.

My father was a world renowned architect who worked on very large buildings and casinos.. Would you like me to ask him as well? Of course if I did he would just look at me like I am crazy, and wouldn't be bothered to tkae the implication seriously, but I can if you want a specific answer.

[funk de fino]

At the beginning of this thread are two videos of one missile flying over the WTC plaza and into the Hudson River. At the same time a second missile was fired by one of the fighters from Otis ,missed Flight 175, and hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor at 9:03. This is the explosion Hess and Jennings experienced. Fox News has footage of the missile hitting WTC 7.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

I'll have a look but in the meantime, tell me what type of missile this is you are claiming to see?

[funk de fino]

At the beginning of this thread are two videos of one missile flying over the WTC plaza and into the Hudson River. At the same time a second missile was fired by one of the fighters from Otis ,missed Flight 175, and hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor at 9:03. This is the explosion Hess and Jennings experienced. Fox News has footage of the missile hitting WTC 7.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

errrr, no there is not

no missile, one looks like a blob moving across the screen and nothing like a missile and the other looks like something falling very close to the camera

no missile, no explosion

are people really that desparate they have to claim crap like this?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The dense debris that hit WTC 7 still had all but a small fraction of the approx 40 MPH horizontal component of its velocity that it had when it left WTC 1

Originally Posted by Christopher7
Really? Source?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
I did the math Chris.

Right

There is a physics professor with two PhD's and 135 architects and engineers who came to a different conclusion.

Did NIST do the math?


OMG, you don't know how to figure out the horizontal velocity that the debris from WTC 1 would have to have in order to reach WTC 7 do you?

How far is WTC 7 from WTC 1 Chris?
What is the height of the initial collapse in WTC 1?
I can look up these numbers myself but I want to be sure I am using numbers that you feel are correct.

[jaydeehess]

At the beginning of this thread are two videos of one missile flying over the WTC plaza and into the Hudson River. At the same time a second missile was fired by one of the fighters from Otis ,missed Flight 175, and hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor at 9:03. This is the explosion Hess and Jennings experienced. Fox News has footage of the missile hitting WTC 7.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

This is supposedly an air-to-air missile right MaGZ?
Funk has asked you several times the type/model of missile and you have yet to answer him.

FACT is that an air-to-air missile contains relatively little explosive. It is designed to track and catch fighter aircraft which can do mach 2, it is designed to turn in at least the g's that the fighter can. In order to acheive this the mass of the missile must be kept to a minimum.
Secondly, aircraft actually are rather fragile machines and it takes very much less to disable them than for instance, an armoured personel carrier. A few shards of metal up the tailpipe or severing a hydralic pipe and down she goes. Some aircraft are actually hardened for damage such as the A-10 but you will also notice that the A-10 is meant for close support of ground forces and ,slooow.
Thus air-to-air missiles are designed with only a large enough warhead to kill an aircraft.

On the other hand you have this a2a missile hitting WTC 7, entering the building and damaging a steel and concrete structure.
Not bloody likely pal.

[Belz...]

If you believe they experienced the explosion in WTC 7 at the time WTC 1 collapsed then they must have gotten to WTC 7 just after the collapse of WTC 2 (30 minutes before the collapse of WTC 1).

The only thing that makes sense is they arrived at WTC 7 just after the crash of the first plane. They experienced the missile strike at WTC 7 at 9:03. Later they were rescued around 10:30 when WTC 1 collapsed.

That doesn't make any bit of sense, MaGZ. As usual.

[jaydeehess]

My bad, typo. The horizontal velocity component I calculated was 30 MPH not 40 MPH as in my posts above.

Does that agree with your physicist and architect's calculation Chris?

This is calculated by taking a fall from 900 feet to ground. That would take 7.5 seconds. In that 7.5 seconds it also has to reach WTC 7 which I took to be 325 feet from WTC 1.
325/7.5 = 43.3 f/s = 29.54 MPH horizontal component of velocity

The vertical velocity would be 7.5(32) = 240 f/s = 163.6 MPH

[jaydeehess]

Let's play with the numbers a bit.
If the debris that hit WTC 7 fell from not 900 feet but 1000 feet then it would have been moving 28 MPH (nominally northward)

If it fell from 1000 feet and impacted WTC 7 at the 10th floor(approx 120 feet from the ground) then it did so with a horizontal velocity of 43 MPH

If it fell from 900 feet and hit WTC 7 120 feet up then it was travelling at 46.5 MPH.

At any rate we have the dense debris the hit WTC 7 travelling at 28 - 47 MPH horizontally and with a vertical velocity of 150 - 165 MPH.
Note though, that the slower horizontal velocity requires a longer vertical distance and thus a greater vertical component of velocity.

Let's look at the velocity along the line of travel.

1) If it fell from 900 feet and hit at 120 ft agl then it was moving 46.5 MPH horz. and 150 MPH vert. The velocity along the line of travel then is 157 MPH

2) If it fell from 1000 feet and impacted at 120 ft agl then it was moving at 43 MPH horz. and 160 MPH vert for a velocity along the line of travel, when it hit WTC 7, of 165 MPH.

3) For debris that just hit the bottom of WTC 7 (ie. it fell to ground level) then if it fell from 900 feet up tower #1 it had a horz. velocity of 43 MPH and a vert. velocity of 166 MPH for basically the same velocity along the line of travel as in 2)

3) From 1000 feet up WTC 1 to ground level at the face of WTC 7
41 MPH horz.
172 MPH vert
177 MPH along the line of travel.

The time of fall is between 7 and 8 seconds. In other words most of any dense debris that hit WTC 7 would do so within a span of about 1 second.

So the range of velocities along the line of travel of dense debris hitting WTC 7 would be 157 MPH to 177 MPH for debris that hit between the ground level and the 10th floor.

Oh but wait, the debris that took out the SW corner actually hit about 15 stories up meaning that it was travelling even slower and still had enough KE to gouge out one of the strongest columns in the structure (the corner column).

We also know that large debris did indeed travel further than the distance from WTC 7 to WTC 1 as evidenced by the debris that hit WFC 3.

Then there is long gash that is seen in some photos that is east of the SW corner and on the south face.

Seems patently obvious that the debris certainly was capable of causing major structural damage.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Chris, you have not answered the question as to what was occuring to create a 'bulge' in WTC 7 nor what the result of this would be on the core columns on the west end of the building near the stairwell and the elevator shafts in question.

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=jaydeehess;2874447]

The stairwell is on the west side of the building, we know that as well do we not?

[QUOTE]

Barry Jennings was in the east stairwell. Dylan Avery confimed this to me in a private email.

I think it is time to throw some cold water into this discussion. A dose of the TRUTH may do you folks some good.

NIST has misrepresented Barry Jenning's testimony regarding the explosion in the WTC 7 stairwell.

Here is more proof that Barry Jennings is telling the truth in his interview with Dylan Avery:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has misrepresented the testimony of Barry Jennings, who heard and felt an explosion inside of WTC-7 on the morning of 9/11. This is an attempt to cover up arson.

Barry Jennings testified:

“When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way.”

Witness testimony transcribed:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...13&Item id=67

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

The witness was also seen on TV on the day of 9/11, saying; “Big Explosion. It blew us back into the 8th floor.”

Source:

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/20...own-wtc-7.html

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/

Since the fire alarm system in WTC 7 had been turned off at 6:47 A.M. that morning, we don’t know the exact time of the explosion; but the witness specifically stated that the explosion occurred before either Twin Tower collapse, when he said:

“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”

This explosion was not caused by debris from the collapse of either tower because the locations of both stairwells inside of WTC 7 were not in the area of debris damage, according to NIST diagrams.

Both stairwells were along the north edge of the WTC 7 core in the north half of the building, but all the debris damage hit the south face of WTC 7. WTC 7 was 355 feet from the North Tower, at its closest point, with WTC 6 in between.

Also, core columns # 74 and # 75 would have blocked the advance of any debris that might have been headed for the stairwell closest to the area where possible debris damage may have occurred.

Sources:

Location of WTC 7 stairwells (page L-6):

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

Location of WTC 7 debris damage (page L-22):

Fire Alarm turned off:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/a647alarmnoton

Yet NIST omits the word “explosion” and writes that the collapse of WTC 1 caused the events described by Barry Jennings:

“The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.”

Source (page 109 of report):

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

The footnote for this source is #381:WTC 7 Interviews 2041604 and 1041704, spring 2004.

This refers to Barry Jennings above and the other witness is Mike Hess, who was the NYC corporation counsel and a close associate of Rudy Giuliani.

It looks like Mike Hess and NIST have a WTC 7 problem.

This analysis effectively refutes objections raised on the JREF forums.

The JREF people are the most intelligent and best informed critics of the 9/11 Truth movement. Unlike Popular Mechanics, Fox News, History Channel and the Screw Loose Change blog, JREF raises critical issues regarding the truth about really happened on the fateful day of 9/11. No member of the 9/11 Truth movement should accept their own arguments as true, without a careful study of the counter-arguments raised by JREF.

I call on NIST scientists to recognize that the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally and the collapse of the building was an obvious controlled demolition.

Watch WTC 7 fall down:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21899003&hl=en

Map of WTC building locations:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

It should be noted that the 6th floor of the east stairwell is very close to the area where NIST says a CRITICAL FAILURE occurred that brought down WTC 7.

Now we know what started the process of bringing down WTC 7; a huge explosion.

A similar version of this post with details hashed out can be found here:

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=85234&page=6

[jaydeehess]

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/20...own-wtc-7.html

"page not found"

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...13&Item id=67

does not take one to the transcribed statements. How about a clue as to where they are.

[jaydeehess]

“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there. When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”



When did he "look one way" and then look "the other way"? While on the 23rd floor or the 8th? It is not clear in the statement. If he is refering in this paragraph to being on the 23rd floor then he is still refering to that when he says later that the buildings were standing.

What time was the OEM evacuated?

[Galileo]

http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/20...own-wtc-7.html

"page not found"

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?...13&Item id=67

does not take one to the transcribed statements. How about a clue as to where they are.

Hmmm...???

We seem to have corruption from a CIA worm.

Please try this link and scroll down to June 21 and June 19:
http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/

[jaydeehess]

I had thought that we had decided that they were in the east stairwell but recently Christopher 7 placed them in the west end.

west or east the structure took an extreme insult when the SW corner was gouged out a couple of dozen feet deep and for more than a dozen floors and photos that show the other multistorey gouge further east indicate another heavy shock to the structure, each of which would occur within a second or two at most. Such a shock could easily cause damage to non-proximate structural components including the stairwell supports. As I have pointed out, a bird (last one was a crow IIRC) hitting my front window shakes the entire house without breaking the window.

[jaydeehess]

There were people in the lobby of WTC 7 when WTC 2 came down. Their statements say that the glass in the lobby shattered (one man describes having it embedded in his back as they exit through a door to the loading dock) and thick choking dust came in through the broken windows. they do not mention the building being rocked by any explosions prior to the collapse of WTC 2.

yet according the interpretation of Jennings statements WTC 2 was still standing when he got to the 6th floor. Does he ever mention WTC 2 coming down? WTC 1? Surely he and Hess did not simply go back and wait in the hall for 1 1/2 hours nor notice when the two towers did fall. In any case it is quite obvious that the towers were NOT standing when they were rescued and that the destroyed lobby was then not neccessarily the result of any explosion that no one else noticed occurring before either tower collapsed

[Galileo]

When did he "look one way" and then look "the other way"? While on the 23rd floor or the 8th? It is not clear in the statement. If he is refering in this paragraph to being on the 23rd floor then he is still refering to that when he says later that the buildings were standing.

What time was the OEM evacuated?

On the 8th floor.

Barry said;

“As I told you earlier, both buildings were still standing. Because I looked to, I looked one way, looked the other way, there’s nothing there.

When I got to the 6th floor before all this happened, I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion, that’s what forced us back to the 8th floor, both buildings were still standing.”

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Alex Jones, who have all heard the entire 20 minute interview, have confirmed this as well.

You would have to listen through these links, which i have done;

http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007/gwrpt1erT/0619071.mp3

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007/gwrpt1erT/0619072.mp3

[Galileo]

There were people in the lobby of WTC 7 when WTC 2 came down. Their statements say that the glass in the lobby shattered (one man describes having it embedded in his back as they exit through a door to the loading dock) and thick choking dust came in through the broken windows. they do not mention the building being rocked by any explosions prior to the collapse of WTC 2.

yet according the interpretation of Jennings statements WTC 2 was still standing when he got to the 6th floor. Does he ever mention WTC 2 coming down? WTC 1? Surely he and Hess did not simply go back and wait in the hall for 1 1/2 hours nor notice when the two towers did fall. In any case it is quite obvious that the towers were NOT standing when they were rescued and that the destroyed lobby was then not neccessarily the result of any explosion that no one else noticed occurring before either tower collapsed

We don't know how many people heard the pre-collapse WTC 7 explosion. Since NIST has altered what Jenning's said, we have no way of knowing whether other statements were altered as well. When the explosion occurred that Jenning's described, both of the Twin Towers were burning, which was a good decoy. There were also thousands of people running around decribing explosions they heard. We have no way to know how many of them were WTC 7 related. Before this news came out, we all thought JENNING's was in the Twin Towers as well.

[Norseman]

The stairwell is on the west side of the building, we know that as well do we not?



Barry Jennings was in the east stairwell. Dylan Avery confimed this to me in a private email.

I think it is time to throw some cold water into this discussion. A dose of the TRUTH may do you folks some good.

NIST has misrepresented Barry Jenning's testimony regarding the explosion in the WTC 7 stairwell.
...................


Galileo, the only thing I agree with you on here is your conclusion that Barry Jennings was in the east stairway. But this fact you can read out of the NIST progress report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) on WTC 7 if you read it together with chapter 5.9 in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) on emergency response operations.

On page L-17 the NIST progress report you find the following qoute:

Reported close to the time of WTC 1 collapse:

East stair expirenced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out


The events in the west stair were most likely reported by the security guard that was rescued from Floor 7. And the events in the east stair were most likely reported by Barry Jennings and Michael Hesh since they had not been higher than Floor 23 in the building. This is also supported by the picture on page 5-22 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) on WTC 7 that very likely shows the window on Floor 8 that was broken by Barry Jennings and Michael Hesh to call for help. The window is on the north-east corner.

But there is NO WAY an explosion that supposedly destroyed the east stairwell inside WTC 7 before either WTC 2 and WTC 1 collapsed could have been covered up. There were people inside or close to WTC 7 both before and after the collapse of WTC 2. People like Chief Engineer Michael Catalano (http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?ContentID=925) who had served for 12 years at 7 World Trade Center.

[Galileo]

Galileo, the only thing I agree with you on here is your conclusion that Barry Jennings was in the east stairway. But this fact you can read out of the NIST progress report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) on WTC 7 if you read it together with chapter 5.9 in the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf) on emergency response operations.

On page L-17 the NIST progress report you find the following qoute:

The events in the west stair were most likely reported by the security guard that was rescued from Floor 7. And the events in the east stair were most likely reported by Barry Jennings and Michael Hesh since they had not been higher than Floor 23 in the building. This is also supported by the picture on page 5-22 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) on WTC 7 that very likely shows the window on Floor 8 that was broken by Barry Jennings and Michael Hesh to call for help. The window is on the north-east corner.

But there is NO WAY an explosion that supposedly destroyed the east stairwell inside WTC 7 before either WTC 2 and WTC 1 collapsed could have been covered up. There were people inside or close to WTC 7 both before and after the collapse of WTC 2. People like Chief Engineer Michael Catalano (http://www.buildings.com/articles/detail.aspx?ContentID=925) who had served for 12 years at 7 World Trade Center.

Able Norseman, your name harks back to the great days of my fabled ancestor, Rolf the Ganger.

You don't know the exact time the explosion described by Jenning's occurred and are basically calling a 9/11 survivor a liar.

(because the alarm system was turned off and put on TEST status at 6:47, and getting any info out of Secureacom would be like pulling teeth.)

If you have Michael Catalano's timeline from 8:46 to 10:29, please spit it out. You have no idea if he was close enough to hear the explosion.

[jaydeehess]

Knowing the building like the back of his hand, Gregori helped to lead others to safety. In the meantime, police officers had transformed the loading dock of 7 WTC into a triage area and the operations crew helped, providing chairs and medical supplies. Catalano and a few members of his crew had returned to the third-floor lobby to secure the facility when the first tower collapsed. “It got pitch black, we heard a rumbling, it sounded like a missile coming straight through the building right at us,” he explains.



,,,, but no one noticed an explosion that damaged the east stairwell. Do you suppose that Catalano and the others all left WTC 7, the explosion occured, and then they all came back to WTC 7, and then WTC 2 collapsed?
Catalano says they felt WTC 7 shake when WTC 1 got hit. Do you not suppose they would have felt an explosion strong enough to cause structural damage occuring within the building as well?

[jaydeehess]

You don't know the exact time the explosion described by Jenning's occurred and are basically calling a 9/11 survivor a liar.


No, he is mistaken or being mis-interpreted.

[Galileo]

,,,, but no one noticed an explosion that damaged the east stairwell. Do you suppose that Catalano and the others all left WTC 7, the explosion occured, and then they all came back to WTC 7, and then WTC 2 collapsed?
Catalano says they felt WTC 7 shake when WTC 1 got hit. Do you not suppose they would have felt an explosion strong enough to cause structural damage occuring within the building as well?

where in WTC 7 (if he was at all) was Catalano when Barry was rocked by the explosion?

[twinstead]

No, he is mistaken or being mis-interpreted.

Besides, calling survivors, first responders, DNA technicians, and any eye-witness who supports the official story liars is what 911 deniers do so well...

[Galileo]

No, he is mistaken or being mis-interpreted.

he is not being mis-interpreted as I can hear his own words.

Nor is he mistaken as his story was out on day 1, is consistent, is not contradicted by any other evidence, and he is a person of great character.

[jaydeehess]

where in WTC 7 (if he was at all) was Catalano when Barry was rocked by the explosion?

Catelano was on the 44th floor IIRC when the first plane hit.
He was trying to help manage the triage in the loading dock of WTC 7 After # 2 fell.

There is no indication he left the building between those times.

He states he felt the building shake when the plane hit WTC1, 350 feet away. It is rather silly to assume then that he would not have felt an explosion within the very same building, that had enough power to cause structural damage to it.

There is no witness report from anyone who was in the lobby of WTC 7 in which they state that before either tower fell they felt an explosion within WTC 7. In fact if an explosion occured that would greatly damage the stairwell then it can be inferred with near certainty that it would also blow the stairwell doors open at the bottom of the stairs. The doors at the bottom of a fire exit always open outward. No one reports any indication, such as an expelling of dust, from these doors before the towers fell.

Let's dispel one thing brought up in one of your links.The destroyed lobby of WTC 7 reported by the witness cannot in any way be attributed to any explosion within WTC 7 occuring before either tower collapsed. There were people in the lobby, which was in pristine condition at the time, when WTC 2 fell. There were people in the streets near WTC 7 before WTC 2 fell as well. No one reported that the lobby of WTC 7 blew out before the collapse of WTC 2.

[jaydeehess]

he is not being mis-interpreted as I can hear his own words.

Nor is he mistaken as his story was out on day 1, is consistent, is not contradicted by any other evidence, and he is a person of great character.

His account, if your interpretation is correct, is contradicted by the statements of the other people in and near WTC 7 up to the collapse of WTC 2.

Even people of great character can be mistaken or mis-interpreted.

[jaydeehess]

If he was in the building for 1 1/2 hours before reaching the lobby AND he had arrived at the OEM after it had been ordered evacuated at 9:44 then he was in that lobby well after ( after 11 am) both towers had collapsed.

[jaydeehess]

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007...rT/0619071.mp3

http://69.80.230.7/Archives2/Jun2007...rT/0619072.mp3

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved

More CIA bugs maybe

[jaydeehess]

To be sure , we do not know when Jennings and Hess got to the OEM other than it was after 9:44am.

Barry says that both towers were standing when he looked. The very earliest time that could refer to is when they were up at the OEM. It is not clear in the partial interview clips, where he was when he saw both towers standing.

It is possible that the 'explosion' they experienced then is the collapse of WTC 2, not WTC 1.

He says the stairwell was impassable and damaged by the explosion, or at least he says the landing 'gave out'.

They were then on the 8th floor for an hour and a half meaning that no matter when they started down the stairs, they were in WTC 7 during both collapses. Therefore any damage they saw while exiting was after such things as the dozen storey tall, 25 foot deep gouge in the SW corner and all other structural damage visible from the outside, had occured.

[jaydeehess]

BTW, is it even possible to see BOTH towers from a window on the 8th floor. WTC 6 and WTC 1 are in the way. One would have to look UP not left and right to see either tower.

[Christopher7]

BTW

There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's your evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building.

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

[funk de fino]

he is not being mis-interpreted as I can hear his own words.

Nor is he mistaken as his story was out on day 1, is consistent, is not contradicted by any other evidence, and he is a person of great character.

it is contradicted by his own statements in a later inteview he gave

(the link for this is earlier in this thread)

even C7 admits this

timelines people, its all about shoddy timelines

[Belz...]

We seem to have corruption from a CIA worm.

What I think we have is paranoia.

[twinstead]

Galileo you're a hoot. Paranoid people ROCK!

Rock on Gali. Rock on.

[Galileo]

Catelano was on the 44th floor IIRC when the first plane hit.
He was trying to help manage the triage in the loading dock of WTC 7 After # 2 fell.

There is no indication he left the building between those times.

He states he felt the building shake when the plane hit WTC1, 350 feet away. It is rather silly to assume then that he would not have felt an explosion within the very same building, that had enough power to cause structural damage to it.

There is no witness report from anyone who was in the lobby of WTC 7 in which they state that before either tower fell they felt an explosion within WTC 7. In fact if an explosion occured that would greatly damage the stairwell then it can be inferred with near certainty that it would also blow the stairwell doors open at the bottom of the stairs. The doors at the bottom of a fire exit always open outward. No one reports any indication, such as an expelling of dust, from these doors before the towers fell.

Let's dispel one thing brought up in one of your links.The destroyed lobby of WTC 7 reported by the witness cannot in any way be attributed to any explosion within WTC 7 occuring before either tower collapsed. There were people in the lobby, which was in pristine condition at the time, when WTC 2 fell. There were people in the streets near WTC 7 before WTC 2 fell as well. No one reported that the lobby of WTC 7 blew out before the collapse of WTC 2.

This is all 9/11 falser speculation.

How do you know Catelano was by a window where he could see the plane?

Why would a plane hitting the 95th floor of a building rock the 44th floor of a building 355+ feet away?

It was a hectic day, and sometimes witnesses get confused. Catelano felt the explosions described by Barry Jennings or Willie Rodriguez.

[Galileo]

BTW

There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's your evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building.

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

Christopher hit the nail on the head here, there is no relationship between debris hitting the south side of WTC 7 at 10:30, and fires hours later in other places.

Why didn't the NORTH TOWER catch fire when the SOUTH TOWER fell?

Have you 9/11 falsers ever thought out your crazy theories before going public with them?

I doubt it.