10 story hole in WTC 7

[phunk]

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.

Because it shook the ground that both buildings were standing on, and the fireball probably rattled the windows too. I personally know people who felt it on the 42nd floor of a building several blocks away.

[cloudshipsrule]

Have you 9/11 falsers ever thought out your crazy theories before going public with them?


Reality will welcome you back whenever you return from your trip.

[cloudshipsrule]

Why would a plane hitting the 95th floor of a building rock the 44th floor of a building 355+ feet away?

This may come as a 'shock' to you, but skyscrapers are really, really heavy and they actually sit on the ground. These skyscrapers are pretty good at transmitting vibrations, especially when those vibrations are caused THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUND JETLINERS FLYING INTO THEM AT 500 MILES PER HOUR.

Additionally, the ground can actually transmit vibrations from events like, say, earthquakes or trains passing by or even THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUND JETLINERS FLYING INTO SKYSCRAPERS AT 500 MILES PER HOUR.

So it's really only a mystery to the scientifically impaired.

[jaydeehess]

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.

Odd that you would put it that way.

In fact Catelano states that he was in a room with no windows. He and the guys he was with felt the shaking and heard the sound and ran to where they could look outside. There, within minutes of this shaking and sound, they saw the WTC 1 on fire. So IF Jennings and Hess felt the same thing then you are going to have to explain how it was that they were at a recently abandoned OEM BEFORE any plane hit anything.
So, do you think about what you are going to put forth before going public with it?



Rodriquez was in the basement but makes the extrodinary claim that of the two sounds he heard/felt, the first one was an explosion while the second, only seconds later, was the plane hitting the building. Some time after both sounds he saw the destruction in the basement shop meaning that it is by no means certain that the destruction occured before the plane impact as he implies.

[jaydeehess]

Why didn't the NORTH TOWER catch fire when the SOUTH TOWER fell?

Obviously because the NWO already had plans for the total destruction of WTC 1, right?

Some buildings did catch fire, some didn't. Some vehicles caught fire, some did not.

[Belz...]

This is all 9/11 falser speculation.

What the hell's a "falser" ?

Why would a plane hitting the 95th floor of a building rock the 44th floor of a building 355+ feet away?

Because this isn't a video game. Explosions tend to create shock waves.

It was a hectic day, and sometimes witnesses get confused.

Not in trutherversetm. Everything has a reason. Everything.

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.

No relationship ? Everything's there and has been admitted on this thread. Debris started the fires. Fires spread. Fires damage other parts of the structure. Structure fails. Structure collapses.

Exactly which part of this scenario do you have a problem with ?

Why didn't the NORTH TOWER catch fire when the SOUTH TOWER fell?

Why would it ? And how do you know that the lower floors of 1 WTC weren't damaged when 2 WTC came down ?

Have you 9/11 falsers ever thought out your crazy theories before going public with them?

I doubt it.

I'm sure you're right. Only deluded fools, ignoramuses and shills can believe the "official" story. Of course, that means MOST people are shills or fools, and that also places almost all of the relevant experts of the world in that category. It also means that the most impossible conspiracy theory in history is true.

Nah, I'll stick with reality.

[Dave Rogers]

Why didn't the NORTH TOWER catch fire when the SOUTH TOWER fell?

Can I see your evidence that it didn't?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

And how do you know that the lower floors of 1 WTC weren't damaged when 2 WTC came down ?

There are in fact many references out there to the condition of the lobby of WTC 1 after WTC 2 came down, and it was not good. Most people in WTC 1 were in the stairwells when WTC 2 collapsed, very few were in office floors, the power was out as well. there was therefore few people to witness any fire that may have occured as a result of the collapse of WTC 2 and with the power out there was one less fashion by which fires could start. Power was still on in WTC 7 when WTC 2 came down. Main power was off in #7 by the time WTC 1 came down (IIRC) but with the generators in the building there is a decent chance that power was on on some floors at least.

Then there is the dust. That dust would tend to cover anything smoldering on lower floors of any building affected by the collapse of the towers. This would mean that fires would generally be on floors a little higher up and indeed right after the collapses the fires in buildings were mostly several floors up. Vehicles are another story in that they contain one of the most dangerous flammable liquids in common usage, gasoline, which is a definite acellerant.

[Belz...]

Thanks, Jay. Just pointing out, for those confused, that you were responding to me.

[jaydeehess]

Thanks, Jay. Just pointing out, for those confused, that you were responding to me.

oops, yes. Did not use the actual quote function and forgot to include your name.

I might also add that the time between collapses of #1 and #2 was such that any fires that might have stared in WTC 1 would simply not have much time to increase unlike WTC 7 in which it had 7 hours.

[Galileo]

What the hell's a "falser" ?



Because this isn't a video game. Explosions tend to create shock waves.



Not in trutherversetm. Everything has a reason. Everything.



No relationship ? Everything's there and has been admitted on this thread. Debris started the fires. Fires spread. Fires damage other parts of the structure. Structure fails. Structure collapses.

Exactly which part of this scenario do you have a problem with ?



Why would it ? And how do you know that the lower floors of 1 WTC weren't damaged when 2 WTC came down ?



I'm sure you're right. Only deluded fools, ignoramuses and shills can believe the "official" story. Of course, that means MOST people are shills or fools, and that also places almost all of the relevant experts of the world in that category. It also means that the most impossible conspiracy theory in history is true.

Nah, I'll stick with reality.

A 9/11 falser is the opposite of a 9/11 Truther, and a 9/11 Truther seeks the truth.

I'm glad I didn't get involved in this thread back on page 1, this is the most dreadful debate I've seen since I had to sit through endless debates about Aristotle back in the 1600s.

There really is no point in this discussion.

Just as there are several witness who saw FL77 hit the Pentagon, there are several million witnesses who saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 (either in person, on live TV, or on the Internet).

I saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on CBS. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings both witnessed the controlled demolition of WTC 7 as well.

The Tooth Fairy does not exist. And neither do buildings that fall just like controlled demolitions that aren't controlled demolitions. They don't exist. Ask a scientist.

If buildings fall just controlled demolitions, and millions of people see the building fall just like contolled demolitions, then you have a controlled demolition.

It doesn't matter if a few kooks & Art Bell fans on some website say otherwise, and conjecture things that do not exist. There are people on the net that have a desire for order, and if the government lied to them, that would be disorder.

For the rest of us, we will continue to live in reality while those with vivid imaginations carry on!

[Jonnyclueless]

A 9/11 falser is the opposite of a 9/11 Truther, and a 9/11 Truther seeks the truth.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell that to the experts.

[Jonnyclueless]

If buildings fall just controlled demolitions, and millions of people see the building fall just like contolled demolitions, then you have a controlled demolition.


OMG! Too funny!!!

[twinstead]

If buildings fall just controlled demolitions, and millions of people see the building fall just like contolled demolitions, then you have a controlled demolition.Stundie material if there ever was one.

Galileo are you for real? I think you're a government plant to make members of the truth movement look like idiots.

One word: COINTELPRO

ETA: Statements like this have to make even the other truthers cringe

[twinstead]

LOL sorry, but Galileo you just slay me!

I have one: Millions of people saw the pink unicorns playing in the World Cup, therefore pink unicorns were playing in the World Cup.

Is that how it works? Anybody else?

[Christopher7]

Please discuss the Trade Towers on another thread.

This thread is about the evidence of debris damage and fire causing the collapse of WTC 7.

As it turns out there isn't any.

So you all avoid acknowledge this by changing the subject.




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. [columns weighed over 4 tons per floor]

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

If the elevators were ejected into the hallway north of the shaft near the east stairwell, columns 70 and 71 on the 8th floor would be the columns most likely to have been damaged.
An explosion big enough to eject two elevator cars near column 74 would have destroyed the east stairwell.

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3082/wtc7fl8edit3yg8.png


From 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

The only fire reported on floor 6 was:
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

No mention of debris or debris damage


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]

Please discuss the Trade Towers on another thread.

This thread is about the evidence of debris damage and fire causing the collapse of WTC 7.

As it turns out there isn't any.

So you all avoid acknowledge this by changing the subject.



Who changed the subject?

Why have you gone quiet on Barry Jennings testimony?

If anyone is avoiding stuff, it is you on this subject?

[MG1962]

A 9/11 falser is the opposite of a 9/11 Truther, and a 9/11 Truther seeks the truth.

I'm glad I didn't get involved in this thread back on page 1, this is the most dreadful debate I've seen since I had to sit through endless debates about Aristotle back in the 1600s.

There really is no point in this discussion.

Just as there are several witness who saw FL77 hit the Pentagon, there are several million witnesses who saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 (either in person, on live TV, or on the Internet).

I saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on CBS. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings both witnessed the controlled demolition of WTC 7 as well.

The Tooth Fairy does not exist. And neither do buildings that fall just like controlled demolitions that aren't controlled demolitions. They don't exist. Ask a scientist.

If buildings fall just controlled demolitions, and millions of people see the building fall just like contolled demolitions, then you have a controlled demolition.

It doesn't matter if a few kooks & Art Bell fans on some website say otherwise, and conjecture things that do not exist. There are people on the net that have a desire for order, and if the government lied to them, that would be disorder.

For the rest of us, we will continue to live in reality while those with vivid imaginations carry on!


Meanwhile in Rooty Hill, New South Wales, Australia - Life goes on, much as it has for the last 100 years

[Belz...]

A 9/11 falser is the opposite of a 9/11 Truther, and a 9/11 Truther seeks the truth.

No, truthers "know" the truth to start with. So they don't think they need to seek it. They just continue to "know" it, and invent a whole lot of reasons why they shouldn't have to research the subject.

I'm glad I didn't get involved in this thread back on page 1, this is the most dreadful debate I've seen since I had to sit through endless debates about Aristotle back in the 1600s.

Yes, it's almost as bad as Christophera's "realistice" thread. What's unfortunate is Chris7's inability to admit that the debris damage caused the fires which in turn caused the collapsed, or at least that this is a plausible scenario.

Just as there are several witness who saw FL77 hit the Pentagon, there are several million witnesses who saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 (either in person, on live TV, or on the Internet).

I saw the controlled demolition of WTC 7 on CBS. Dan Rather and Peter Jennings both witnessed the controlled demolition of WTC 7 as well.

Galileo, what you witnesses was the COLLAPSE of 7 WTC. You can't just decide it was a CD and then claim to have seen it. You didn't see or hear any explosions on CBS did you ?

The Tooth Fairy does not exist. And neither do buildings that fall just like controlled demolitions that aren't controlled demolitions.

A question, Galileo, though I'm sure you're going to ignore it just like every truther has ignored it the other times I've asked it: how many skyscrapers did you see collapse that were not controlled demolitiont ? If your answer is "none", how could you possibly know how it looks, and if it doesn't look pretty much like a CD ?

Furthermore, how can you have a CD without explosive charges ? And how can you plant said charges in a flaming, damaged building and still ensure a successful operation ?

Ask a scientist.

You should follow your own advice.

If buildings fall just controlled demolitions, and millions of people see the building fall just like contolled demolitions, then you have a controlled demolition.

Truth is not a matter of democracy, Galileo. If you'd have asked the people's opinion back in the 1300s, the Earth would have been declared flat. In fact, it was.

There are people on the net that have a desire for order, and if the government lied to them, that would be disorder.

I agree. If.

For the rest of us, we will continue to live in reality while those with vivid imaginations carry on!

That's actually not far from the truth, in the sense that the truther's lack of imagination usually results in the crux of his case: the argument from incredulity.

[jaydeehess]

Belz writes:
That's actually not far from the truth, in the sense that the truther's lack of imagination usually results in the crux of his case: the argument from incredulity.

Oh , I'd have to give at least some truthers credit for vivid imagination.

Those such as Lyte who can take 3 guys saying a plane was in a general area and ONE person who says it rose up at least at one point and then create an entire senario from that despite no actual evidence of that happening,
OR with no actual direct evidence (explosions , flashes etc.) people can construct a senario in which WTC 7, a building severely damaged by falling dense debris and on fire for half a day, being brought down by explosives.

I, and most here I'd wager, believe that the term "truther" as commonly used, is ironic at best and a corruption of the word "truth" more likely.
In fact as Belz points out the "truther" is more interested in stretching facts and opions to be able to shoehorn them into his prejudiced opion of what happened rather than a objective search for the real truth.
Problem is a "truther" cannot stand to have anything unanswered and therefore must invent senarios to 'explain' every detail even if the senarios created start to contradict each other.

[Belz...]

In fact as Belz points out the "truther" is more interested in stretching facts and opions to be able to shoehorn them into his prejudiced opion of what happened rather than a objective search for the real truth.

It IS a religious thing for them. And you know what they say,

"Religion is the opion of the people"

[Christopher7]

Who changed the subject?

Why have you gone quiet on Barry Jennings testimony?

If anyone is avoiding stuff, it is you on this subject?
I have made my position clear in previous posts.


Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."


Did you read the rest of the post?
Did you comprehend that there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis?

[funk de fino]

I have made my position clear in previous posts.


Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."


Did you read the rest of the post?
Did you comprehend that there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis?

OK so his testimonies are contradictory and as such have to be disregarded. I believe that Loose Change are to use his latest statements? I will wait till then till I make proper judgement on whether he is mistaken.

He does say he was pulled out a hole in the wall by the FR though and that the lobby was trashed, how is this? When was he pulled out? Before the collapse of one of the twins or after? Was the lobby trashed by the twin or the explosion he experienced?

As for the rest of the post, I believe the damage from the twin and the fires brought the building down. I do not know this but it is a logical belief based on what I have seen so far until I can read the official report. Nothing else supports CD IMO.

[jaydeehess]

The Tooth Fairy does not exist.

Well at least two of the definate indicators of the tooth fairy's existance are there for all to see.
1) Children do lose teeth
2) When wrapped in paper and placed under their pillow at night the tooth is replaced with money by morning.
The tooth fairy is very secretive though so it is of course of no great significance that no one has ever witnessed the tooth fairy actually removing the tooth from under the pillow and replacing it with money.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, I listened to the man relate what happened. It is pretty obvious that he stumbled over his own words a bit due to the adrenaline of the day. He started to say that he made it down to the 8th floor then corrected himself and said they made it to the 6th floor but had to go up and onto the 8th floor. In his excitement he got ahead of himself and said 8th first.

"Blew us back to the 8th floor" is very likely exaggeration or hyperbole, again, the man is very excited at this time.

"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor."
This indicates that they were not literally blown back as does the fact that his clothing is in pretty good shape, as is he. The fact that he is in good shape also indicates that what he describes as an "explosion" was not in fact what one would characterize as something powerful enough to destroy a fire exit stairway.

Given his level of excitement and the obvious other exaggeration/hyperbole he uses in this clip one simply has to question his words that suggest that the stairwell was physically damaged due to an explosion.

NIST says they made it to the 8th floor, Jennings says clearly, the 6th floor. It only makes a great difference if one is attempting to show that explosives were on the 8th floor. A slight mistake in NIST then is inconsequential to NIST but you truly desire the floor number to be the 8th, so it is of great consequence to your contentions. However, Barry does state 6th floor. Too bad for you Chris.

You also went to great pains to have this ocurring on the west end of the building and now, as before, there are others saying that no, it was at the east end of the building. That is bad for your contention as well since if indeed there was damage to the stairwell and/or the elevator shaft at the east end then that is suggestive that there was core damage by the debris. Too bad again for you Chris.

What he is very unlikely to be mistaken about is that the OEM was empty when they got there. The OEM was ordered evacuated at 9:44. It would take a few minutes for everyone to leave. They were not running for their lives, there was no obvious immediate threat. It was simply deemed prudent to remove themselves from the area surrounding the WTC towers, the site not only of two large, heavily damaged and burning buildings, but also the site of two terrorist attacks that morning.

Let's say that Hess and Jennings showed up there at 9:45 and looked out to see both towers still standing then started down the stairs soon after that(time to look around, say "WTF no one's here", get a call from someone else who says for them to leave). They have less than 20 minutes from that time to the fall of WTC 2. Less than 20 minutes to walk (he never says they ran) but only 20 minutes if they were at the OEM within seconds of the last person in the OEM leaving, AND if everyone in the OEM immediatly and quickly left the office, so it is probable that they had quite a bit less than 20 minutes.

This means that given the information we have or can deduce logically, that Jennings and Hess were in the stairwell when WTC 2 fell. We know for definate fact that WTC 7 was heavily involved with the dust cloud and that the building did suffer at least superficial damage due to the debris from WTC 2.

Half an hour later WTC 1 fell. No matter how you set the timeline, Hess and Jennings were in WTC 7 when WTC 1 fell. they were after all there from sometime after 9:44 and for at least an hour and a half after that.

Possible but somewhat less so is that Jennings was mistaken when he said both towers were still standing when they looked out before going down the stairs. In this case they could easily have been in the stairwell when WTC 1 fell rather than 25 minutes earlier when WTC 2 fell.

If everyone ran out of the OEM, and if H&J ran down the stairs, and H&J ran back up to the 8th floor, and they ran into an office to break a window and call for help, and get someone's attention immediately, they just might have been able to do all of this before WTC 2 fell. It is highly unlikely that it played out so hyper-frantically though and it would mean that WTC 2 fell at about the same time that H&J were at the window.

[jaydeehess]

It IS a religious thing for them. And you know what they say,

"Religion is the opion of the people"

Perhaps I am a socialist and didn't know it and this came out in a Freudian slip.:D

[Christopher7]

OK so his testimonies are contradictory and as such have to be disregarded.
No, on 911 both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor and there was an explosion".
These statements should be considered valid.

He does say he was pulled out a hole in the wall by the FR though and that the lobby was trashed, how is this? When was he pulled out? Before the collapse of one of the twins or after? Was the lobby trashed by the twin or the explosion he experienced?Because of the conflict of statements, everything he said in the 2007 statements should not considered valid without confirmation from another source. IMO

As for the rest of the post, I believe the damage from the twin and the fires brought the building down. I do not know this but it is a logical belief based on what I have seen so far until I can read the official report. Nothing else supports CD IMO.Apx. L is an official report.

It does not say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

There is no evidence to support the official hypothesis.

They had two years to gather the evidence.

The progression of the fires is well documented.

They have photos of the south west side of WTC 7.

If there was significant damage to that area, they would have said so.

What have you seen so far that makes you believe WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F?

[Jonnyclueless]

Enjoy preying on the fact that the report has not been released. Milk it while you can.

[Christopher7]

Chris, I listened to the man relate what happened. It is pretty obvious that he stumbled over his own words a bit due to the adrenaline of the day. He started to say that he made it down to the 8th floor then corrected himself and said they made it to the 6th floor but had to go up and onto the 8th floor. In his excitement he got ahead of himself and said 8th first.You are ignoring the statement by Michael Hess. The two statements are mutually supporting. Michael was not as rattled as Barry, and there is no reason to doubt his statement.

"Blew us back to the 8th floor" is very likely exaggeration or hyperbole, again, the man is very excited at this time.Agreed

"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor."This is in conflict with the statements both men made on 911.
Everything in that interview should be taken with a grain of salt until there is confirmation from another source. IMO

NIST says they made it to the 8th floor, Jennings says clearly, the 6th floor. It only makes a great difference if one is attempting to show that explosives were on the 8th floor. A slight mistake in NIST then is inconsequential to NIST but you truly desire the floor number to be the 8th,Wrong

On 911, they both said the 8th floor.

The elevators were in the hallway on the 8th floor.

You also went to great pains to have this ocurring on the west end of the building and now, as before, there are others saying that no, it was at the east end of the building. Great pains? Wrong

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.
You were the one who deduced that it was the west stairwell.
I agreed that it was a reasonable deduction based on these statements:

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.

Now you are saying it was the east stairwell.

The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW!

[twinstead]

The truth is, YOU DON'T KNOW!

That makes two of you. The difference is that you are certain about something you cannot know, and use that dubious certainty as evidence of CD of WTC7

[Christopher7]

That makes two of you. The difference is that you are certain about something you cannot know, and use that dubious certainty as evidence of CD of WTC7Wrong

We are not certain which stairwell it was.

The lack of evidence for DD/F is not evidence of CD.

[twinstead]

Come on Chris. You believe with all your heart that CD brought down WTC7. ANY anomaly or anomalous testimony you find, real or imagined, can and will be used by you to 'prove' your point.

Don't pretend I haven't read pretty much every post you've ever made in this thread.

[Christopher7]

No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


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 the 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.

[twinstead]

And again, instead of bringing any new insight into the debate, you simply reiterate your position one more time, ad infinitum, in hope THIS time it actually makes it relevant.

Until you actually bring to the table some tangible evidence of CD, your little fantasy is just your layman's opinion. What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence of CD.

That would indeed be helpful.

[Christopher7]

Come on Chris. You believe with all your heart that CD brought down WTC7. ANY anomaly or anomalous testimony you find, real or imagined, can and will be used by you to 'prove' your point.
I have quoted statements from the government reports you claim support DD/F.
There is nothing in those reports to support the official hypothesis.

[Christopher7]

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence of CD.
This thread is about the evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence that DD/F caused the collapse.

[Gravy]

No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


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 the 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.Someone should look into this.

[twinstead]

I have quoted statements from the government reports you claim support DD/F.
There is nothing in those reports to support the official hypothesis.

NO. Don't pull that crap. What you need is to not spin the official reports to match your theory, what you need is EVIDENCE OF YOUR THEORY.

You can't claim the official story foul, then insert your unfounded theory as default. The only thing you can even half honestly claim is that you have found some inconsistencies in the 'official story'.

Your attempt at turning the official story against itself is transparent.

Real investigators know that inconsistencies exist in every complex event, no matter how well-explained.

What we need now, and have asked since page one of this thread, is for some compelling evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7.

A reasonable explanation as to why the hell they would do it isn't necessary, but worth extra credit.

[twinstead]

This thread is about the evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence that DD/F caused the collapse.

It's all about burden of proof, my dear. You are accusing people of some major crimes.

I could care less about what this 'thread is about'

[Christopher7]

Someone should look into this.You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

[twinstead]

You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

A little hint: you can't just say that to make it true. It actually has to be true to...well...be true.

[Christopher7]

NO. Don't pull that crap. What you need is to not spin the official reports to match your theory, I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event


You can't claim the official story foul, then insert your unfounded theory as default.You keep saying that.
I have never made that claim.

The only thing you can even half honestly claim is that you have found some inconsistencies in the 'official story'.
Wrong
There is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.
If you know of any, post it.

What we need now, and have asked since page one of this thread, is for some compelling evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7.

A reasonable explanation as to why the hell they would do it isn't necessary, but worth extra credit.You have NO evidence to support the official hypothesis so you try to subject shift.

Evidence for CD is a separate subject and can be debated here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2784655#post2784655

[twinstead]

I could care less what thread we are on; you are wrong, and your theory is wrong. That means you are accusing innocent people of a crime.

Chris I don't HAVE to present evidence of the official story; it is out there for everybody to see. Evey wrinkle of the 'official story' is available for anybody in the world to scrutinize.

So. I am not arguing FOR the official story. You are arguing AGAINST it.

Finding anomalies in the official story doesn't cut it. SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

[Christopher7]

I could care less what thread we are on; you are wrong, and your theory is wrong. That means you are accusing innocent people of a crime.IYO

Chris I don't HAVE to present evidence of the official story; it is out there for everybody to see. Evey wrinkle of the 'official story' is available for anybody in the world to scrutinize.That is precisely what i have been doing.
I have found NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

Have you found any?

So. I am not arguing FOR the official story.Many here are.

You are arguing AGAINST it.Correct


Finding anomalies in the official story doesn't cut it. I found no evidence to support the official story.

SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2902751#post2902751

[MaGZ]

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.

I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building. A recent History Cannel documentary on 9/11 has an individual stating the fires started in WTC 7 around 9:30 that morning. This was before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Yes, it was an air to air missile.

[MaGZ]

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.

If I remember correctly Jennings and Hess tried to access a service elevator but was unable to do so. Then building security personnel showed them a stairwell. Perhaps the stairwell Jennings and Hess used was not the publically accessible stairwells. Perhaps it was a stairwell close to the service elevator.

[MaGZ]

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

It is interesting to note that the individual had to exit the building from the loading dock and not the lobby. Before the collapse of WTC 2 the lobby of WTC 7 was being used as a triage to help the injured from the missile explosion that occurred at 9:03.

[MaGZ]

,,,, 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?

NDBoston, a forum member here and one who evacuated WTC 7 that day, said he felt debris hit WTC 7 when the second plane hit WTC 2. What NDBoston really felt was the missile hitting WTC 7 a few seconds after the plane hit WTC 2.

[MaGZ]

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.

Jennings arrived at OEM just before the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. He found the offices had just been evacuate with hot coffee still smoking on the desks. Those at OEM knew another plane was heading to NYC but did not know which building it was destined to hit. Jennings made a few calls and was told the get out immediately. Jennings experienced the missile explosion later in a stairwell. After the return of the people on the 23rd floor, the OEM was officially evacuated at 9:44 (before either Tower had collapsed) because of the fires that were started by the missile explosion.

[MaGZ]

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'.


You are saying the collapse of WTC 2 damaged the internal structured of WTC 7. No one believes this.

[MaGZ]

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.

The collapse of the North Tower started fires only in WTC 6 which was below it. The top portion of WTC 1 above the crash impact tipped over into the center of WTC 6, making the big center hole in the building and setting WTC 6 on fire.

WTC 7 received some damage to the SW corner of the building when WTC 1 collapsed but it did not start any fires. The missile that hit WTC 7 at 9:03 started the fires in that building.

[MaGZ]

Odd that you would put it that way.

In fact Catelano states that he was in a room with no windows. He and the guys he was with felt the shaking and heard the sound and ran to where they could look outside. There, within minutes of this shaking and sound, they saw the WTC 1 on fire. So IF Jennings and Hess felt the same thing then you are going to have to explain how it was that they were at a recently abandoned OEM BEFORE any plane hit anything.
So, do you think about what you are going to put forth before going public with it?


So are you now saying Jennings and Hess were in WTC 7 when the first plane hit?

[MaGZ]

Why would it ? And how do you know that the lower floors of 1 WTC weren't damaged when 2 WTC came down ?

The Naudets’ film 9/11 shows WTC 1 was not damaged significantly by the collapse of WTC 2. One of the Naudet brothers was in the lobby of WTC 1 with the firefighters when WTC 2 came down. This is all in the film.

[MaGZ]

Can I see your evidence that it didn't?

Dave

Dave Rodgers,

You and others have nothing but "faith" that the collapse of WTC 1 started the fires in WTC 7.

[MaGZ]

There are in fact many references out there to the condition of the lobby of WTC 1 after WTC 2 came down, and it was not good. Most people in WTC 1 were in the stairwells when WTC 2 collapsed, very few were in office floors, the power was out as well. there was therefore few people to witness any fire that may have occured as a result of the collapse of WTC 2 and with the power out there was one less fashion by which fires could start. Power was still on in WTC 7 when WTC 2 came down. Main power was off in #7 by the time WTC 1 came down (IIRC) but with the generators in the building there is a decent chance that power was on on some floors at least.

Then there is the dust. That dust would tend to cover anything smoldering on lower floors of any building affected by the collapse of the towers. This would mean that fires would generally be on floors a little higher up and indeed right after the collapses the fires in buildings were mostly several floors up. Vehicles are another story in that they contain one of the most dangerous flammable liquids in common usage, gasoline, which is a definite acellerant.

"Most people in WTC 1 were in the stairwells when WTC 2 collapsed..." this is not true.

Most people had evacuated WTC 1 when WTC 2 came down. The firefightes had them to evacuate WTC 1 via WTC 3: the Marriot Hotel. Mostly firefighters remained in the stairwells of WTC 1 when WTC 2 fell. Take a look at the Naudet video and you will see that before the collapse of WTC 2 most people had evacuate WTC 1 at the upper concourse lever. The crowds of people were thinner in WTC 1 when WTC 2 came down.

[NDBoston]

NDBoston, a forum member here and one who evacuated WTC 7 that day, said he felt debris hit WTC 7 when the second plane hit WTC 2. What NDBoston really felt was the missile hitting WTC 7 a few seconds after the plane hit WTC 2.

I'm speechless here. You're insane.

[MaGZ]

OK so his testimonies are contradictory and as such have to be disregarded. I believe that Loose Change are to use his latest statements? I will wait till then till I make proper judgement on whether he is mistaken.

He does say he was pulled out a hole in the wall by the FR though and that the lobby was trashed, how is this? When was he pulled out? Before the collapse of one of the twins or after? Was the lobby trashed by the twin or the explosion he experienced?

As for the rest of the post, I believe the damage from the twin and the fires brought the building down. I do not know this but it is a logical belief based on what I have seen so far until I can read the official report. Nothing else supports CD IMO.

In looking at Jennings statement I think we can say he was in a stairwell close to the service elevator–a stairwell that was normally closed to the public. Notice there are no mention of other people in the stairwell. The stairwell and service elevator were likely located on the south side of the building near the loading dock area. When Jennings says he looked out the window and saw both towers standing he was talking about a window in the stairwell. The public access stairwells in WTC are in the center of the building. Also I think his reference to the lobby that looked like it was "destroyed by King Kong" was perhaps an elevator concourse on an upper floor of the building. He was trapped in the stairwell for one and a half hours and was rescued through a hole made by firefighters on the south side of WTC 7.

[MaGZ]

Chris, I listened to the man relate what happened. It is pretty obvious that he stumbled over his own words a bit due to the adrenaline of the day. He started to say that he made it down to the 8th floor then corrected himself and said they made it to the 6th floor but had to go up and onto the 8th floor. In his excitement he got ahead of himself and said 8th first.

"Blew us back to the 8th floor" is very likely exaggeration or hyperbole, again, the man is very excited at this time.

"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor."
This indicates that they were not literally blown back as does the fact that his clothing is in pretty good shape, as is he. The fact that he is in good shape also indicates that what he describes as an "explosion" was not in fact what one would characterize as something powerful enough to destroy a fire exit stairway.

Given his level of excitement and the obvious other exaggeration/hyperbole he uses in this clip one simply has to question his words that suggest that the stairwell was physically damaged due to an explosion.


If Jennings had to "hang on" to survive from falling in the stairwell, then we can say the stairwell was physically damaged due to the missile explosion.

[MaGZ]

I'm speechless here. You're insane.

On your third or fourth post to this forum you said you felt WTC 7 hit by debris from the crash of Fight 175 into WTC 2 at 9:03.

Care to elaborate?

[NDBoston]

On your third or fourth post to this forum you said you felt WTC 7 hit by debris from the crash of Fight 175 into WTC 2 at 9:03.

Care to elaborate?

You then took those comments and turned that into a missle hitting the building.

I've discussed in great detail on my experiences. You want this conspiracy to be true and you will spin any story to make it true.

I felt debris hit the building. Not a missle, you moron. There were thousands of people who have the same experiences as I do too.

There wasn't a missle. There wasn't black ops wiring my building for years before. There wasn't union workers wiring the building when it was constructed.

There's only you and a small amount of people who have mental issues who should get professional help.

[MaGZ]

You then took those comments and turned that into a missle hitting the building.

I've discussed in great detail on my experiences. You want this conspiracy to be true and you will spin any story to make it true.

I felt debris hit the building. Not a missle, you moron. There were thousands of people who have the same experiences as I do too.

There wasn't a missle. There wasn't black ops wiring my building for years before. There wasn't union workers wiring the building when it was constructed.

There's only you and a small amount of people who have mental issues who should get professional help.

I’ll ignore the personal attacks since I have you now on this forum. You can start by answering some of the questions you have been avoiding. It would be good if you would keep the conversation civil.

First, how can you say you felt debris from the crash of Flight 175 onto WTC 7? The remains of Flight 175 went in a northeast direction when it exited WTC 2 not in a northerly direction where WTC 7 was located.

I will let you work on this question first. I will have more to follow.

[NDBoston]

I’ll ignore the personal attacks since I have you now on this forum. You can start by answering some of the questions you have been avoiding. It would be good if you would keep the conversation civil.

First, how can you say you felt debris from the crash of Flight 175 onto WTC 7? The remains of Flight 175 went in a northeast direction when it exited WTC 2 not in a northerly direction where WTC 7 was located?

I will let you work on this question first. I will have more to follow.

There won't be more questions to follow. You took my words and turned them into a missle hitting WTC7.

It's clear you don't believe what I experienced and I believe you're mentally ill.

Have a nice day.

[MaGZ]

There won't be more questions to follow. You took my words and turned them into a missle hitting WTC7.

It's clear you don't believe what I experienced and I believe you're mentally ill.

Have a nice day.

I do believe you felt something hit WTC 7 at 9:03 when the second plane crashed into WTC2. The impact was so startling to you that your preceded to exit the building. However, what you felt was not debris hitting WTC 7 but the missile explosion.

A few more questions you will eventually have to answer:

Where were you at 9:03?

What floor were you on and how far away were you from the south side of WTC 7?

[Jonnyclueless]

A missile explosion? What missile?

[MaGZ]

NDBoston,

If you look back on it all, I think you will say the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 seemed more forceful to you than the impact of the first plane into WTC 1. Of course what you experienced at the time of the second plane crash was the missile explosion that hit WTC 7.

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, what missile?

[funk de fino]

No, on 911 both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor and there was an explosion".
These statements should be considered valid.

Because of the conflict of statements, everything he said in the 2007 statements should not considered valid without confirmation from another source. IMO


You cannot cherrypick your witness, in court this would be thrown out, they would play both then listen to him and he would be torn to shreds by lawyers

You have nothing or everything with Barry, you cannot selectively use testimony as long as it only supports your theory

get real

as for the rest I will wait for the report, i suggest you do to

[MaGZ]

A missile explosion? What missile?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73933

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh good lord, I thought this was serious. Nevermind...

[funk de fino]

I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building. A recent History Cannel documentary on 9/11 has an individual stating the fires started in WTC 7 around 9:30 that morning. This was before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Yes, it was an air to air missile.

What type of missile Magz? SRAAM or MRAAM or AMRAAM or hellfire or any other type?

I have asked you before, you must know?

Also the videos of missiles you posted were very far from being missiles

[MaGZ]

What type of missile Magz? SRAAM or MRAAM or AMRAAM or hellfire or any other type?

I have asked you before, you must know?

Also the videos of missiles you posted were very far from being missiles

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired. I can not be any more specific than this. Do you want me to provide the serial number?

If you have some clever point to make about missiles, then make it. Now is the time.

[Jonnyclueless]

And your evidence is what again?

please explain this to some of us who were actually there that day. Were these magical ATA missiles?

[MaGZ]

And your evidence is what again?

please explain this to some of us who were actually there that day. Were these magical ATA missiles?


You were there?

Let's hear your story. Where were you at 9:03?

[Jonnyclueless]

Again, what is your evidence of this missile?

[Christopher7]

MaGZ ran this off the page so i'm reposting

Originally Posted by Christopher7
No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


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 the 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.


Someone should look into this.You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

*****************************

I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

[MaGZ]

Again, what is your evidence of this missile?

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. Over the past months I have posted videos of the missiles and a CNN transcript where witnesses at 9:03 saw the missiles. I have posted videos of the fighter that was over Ground Zero at 9:03. I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane. Bob of the "Bob and Bri" video team confirms a fighter flew over Ground Zero after the crash of the second plane. I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile. I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing. Recently, the History Chanel documentary has someone stating WTC 7 was on fire at 9:30 before the collapse of the Twin Towers. There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.

[Slayhamlet]

I’ll ignore the personal attacks since I have you now on this forum. You can start by answering some of the questions you have been avoiding. It would be good if you would keep the conversation civil.

First, how can you say you felt debris from the crash of Flight 175 onto WTC 7? The remains of Flight 175 went in a northeast direction when it exited WTC 2 not in a northerly direction where WTC 7 was located.

I will let you work on this question first. I will have more to follow.

This is not true. The debris exiting the building did not follow a strict northeasterly path; there was in fact a significant range to the debris ejection. Although the fuselage of Flight 175 did go considerably to the northeast, landing on the roof of WTC5, the landing gear followed a different path far more to the north. This landed on a building only two blocks north of WTC7 and across the street (East Broadway) from it, missing a collision with (or a pass over) WTC7 by only about 200 feet. Thus it is more than conceivable that some of the debris from Flight 175 hit WTC7.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1660346d087ea44b86.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7915)

[Slayhamlet]

NDBoston,

If you look back on it all, I think you will say the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 seemed more forceful to you than the impact of the first plane into WTC 1. Of course what you experienced at the time of the second plane crash was the missile explosion that hit WTC 7.

Yes, of course!
:dl:

[Slayhamlet]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73933

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514

The uninformed rantings of a neo-Nazi and a ridiculously low-res YouTube clip of a frickin' bird are your evidence?

:dl:

[Christopher7]

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.This thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7

Please start a separate thread for your missile theory.

Chris

[Jonnyclueless]

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News. Over the past months I have posted videos of the missiles and a CNN transcript where witnesses at 9:03 saw the missiles. I have posted videos of the fighter that was over Ground Zero at 9:03. I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane. Bob of the "Bob and Bri" video team confirms a fighter flew over Ground Zero after the crash of the second plane. I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile. I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing. Recently, the History Chanel documentary has someone stating WTC 7 was on fire at 9:30 before the collapse of the Twin Towers. There is the statement of Mr. Jennings who experienced the missile explosion in the stairwell. This is the evidence.

From the video I clearly see a CIA trained chicken hawk carrying explosives. Why is your claim as to what's on the video more creible than mine?

And people describing the chicken hawk being like a missile does not prove that it was a missile and not a CIA trained chicken hawk.

Fighter jets going over the WTC does not prove they launched missiles, it proves they got there too late.

WTC 7 being on fire is not proof of missiles. But it does lead to evidence of the CIA trained chicken hawks.

And of course WTC 7 can easily be on fire after two planes hit the WTC 1&2 spewing out a tremendous amount of debris and fuel as everyone can clearly see on the video.

[MaGZ]

From the video I clearly see a CIA trained chicken hawk carrying explosives. Why is your claim as to what's on the video more creible than mine?

And people describing the chicken hawk being like a missile does not prove that it was a missile and not a CIA trained chicken hawk.

Fighter jets going over the WTC does not prove they launched missiles, it proves they got there too late.

WTC 7 being on fire is not proof of missiles. But it does lead to evidence of the CIA trained chicken hawks.

And of course WTC 7 can easily be on fire after two planes hit the WTC 1&2 spewing out a tremendous amount of debris and fuel as everyone can clearly see on the video.

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.

[funk de fino]

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired. I can not be any more specific than this. Do you want me to provide the serial number?

If you have some clever point to make about missiles, then make it. Now is the time.


if its a SRAAM, how do they operate?

heatseaking?

why hit WTC7? not a lot of HE in the warhead? you do know how fast they travel?

try again

your videos stink, they are not missiles

[Christopher7]

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.
A chickenhawk did it

with a missile

in the lobby


Seriously, stop spamming this thread.

[Christopher7]

The following FACTS are from NIST Apx. L
[These facts are not going to change in the 'final' report]


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.

For fire to cause a core column to fail, 3 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 the 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.



Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the evidence does not support the "DD/F caused the collapse" hypothesis?

[Jonnyclueless]

Should I have put you on ignore? I’ll know better next time and will not try to answer any of your questions.

Please stop making a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious discussion. Should I care if you put me on ignore? Not at all. In fact, pleaser put everyone on ignore so we can have a legitimate discussion.

A more appropriate discussion would be asking Chris what he thinks of the video showing a gash going down pretty much the entire side of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Please stop making a mockery of what is supposed to be a serious discussion. Should I care if you put me on ignore? Not at all. In fact, pleaser put everyone on ignore so we can have a legitimate discussion.

A more appropriate discussion would be asking Chris what he thinks of the video showing a gash going down pretty much the entire side of WTC 7.We've covered that, but i will go over it again if you will acknowledge that the facts listed in post 3335 show that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis, or offer evidence to the contrary.

[Belz...]

The lack of evidence for DD/F is not evidence of CD.

:jaw-dropp

[Belz...]

I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building.

Isn't that contradictory, since the fires brought down 7 WTC ?

The Naudets’ film 9/11 shows WTC 1 was not damaged significantly by the collapse of WTC 2.

Nuh-huh.

There are in fact many references out there to the condition of the lobby of WTC 1 after WTC 2 came down, and it was not good.

There wasn't a missle. There wasn't black ops wiring my building for years before. There wasn't union workers wiring the building when it was constructed.

However, what you felt was not debris hitting WTC 7 but the missile explosion.

You have no evidence for this. All you're doing is CLAIMING it. Would you please stop, get out of your house and gather some evidence, please ?

It was and air-to-air missile fired by one of the fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base.

Then the military should have listed off one missile. Care to check that ?

If you are a military expert–which you claim to be–then you have a good idea of the exact type of missile that was fired.

Except, no missile was fired except in your mind.

I have seen the video of the missile hit on WTC 7 that was taken by FOX News.

All we've seen from you is a blurry object that could easily be, and most assuredly is, debris from the plane.

I can point to an air traffic controller who say the fighters were in the area moments after the crash of the second plane.

"In the area", yes. Over Manhattan, no. Firing missiles, no.

I can point to an explosion in the Naudet video that was caused by the missile.

You can claim it, but can you prove it.

I have provided photographs of WTC 7 on fire near the 12th floors while both towers were still standing.

And we've pointed out that it's just sunlight reflecting in the glass, and indeed photographs show that 7 WTC was completely intact at that point.

[Belz...]

IYO

Yes, and your opinion doesn't trump his.

[cloudshipsrule]

That's the 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.



Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the evidence does not support the "DD/F caused the collapse" hypothesis?

Neither you nor NIST know the true extent of damage which occured inside WTC7 due to debris, and you keep down-playing the significance of the fires. It wasn't just a few hours. It was nearly all day. DD/F induced collapse initiation CANNOT be ruled out, AND IS THE MOST PROBABLE cause.

What, you think someone could have planted demolition devices while the building was on fire? What do you think really happened?

[Galileo]

Thats impossible! everyone knows the WTC towers fell into their own footprints!:rolleyes:

That's impossible! Everyone knows that gravity throws multi-ton steel beams upwards at 45 degree angles and horizontally 355 feet through the air!

[twinstead]

That's impossible! Everyone knows that gravity throws multi-ton steel beams upwards at 45 degree angles and horizontally 355 feet through the air!

Whew! Thank God the experts who have studied the collapse have you around to make learned observations like that.

I can see the world's structural engineering community slapping their hands against their head in one big collective "D'OH!".

[Galileo]

The following FACTS are from NIST Apx. L
[These facts are not going to change in the 'final' report]


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.

For fire to cause a core column to fail, 3 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 the 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.



Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the evidence does not support the "DD/F caused the collapse" hypothesis?

Chris;

You have hit the nail on the head here. I went through the same evidence on another thread:

Dylan Avery - Earth-Shattering News Coming Soon (again)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2891538#post2891538

[starting on page 6]

The evidence shows that the office fires did not cause WTC 7 collapse, nor cause WTC 7 to fall in a controlled demolition.

The JREF people are quite smug, and felt beforehand that a controlled demolition was a crazy idea. But the evidence shows that it was. The JREFers are now left to rabid speculation, the same type of speculation that they supposedly shun. But that's all they have, speculation.

The evidence says otherwise.

After looking at all the evidence, WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

[twinstead]

After looking at all the evidence, WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

You know, you can say that over and over and over again, but it changes nothing.

Tell me again what evidence of CD you have? You are speculating just as much as you are accusing us of. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES, either being planted or going off, or any residue, or anything?

[Galileo]

You know, you can say that over and over and over again, but it changes nothing.

Tell me again what evidence of CD you have? You are speculating just as much as you are accusing us of. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES, either being planted or going off, or any residue, or anything?

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from ofiice fires?

[Pardalis]

Why don't you guys wait for the final report?

[Galileo]

Why don't you guys wait for the final report?

I've been waiting for 6 years.

[Pardalis]

I've been waiting for 6 years.

Then you can wait a few months longer.

[NYCEMT86]

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from ofiice fires?


Galileo,

Are you seriously that ignorant?


Okay I am going to give you a homework assignment in 3 parts...

You must look up and describe to me what Heat Transfer is.

Than you must look up and describe to me what Thermal Layering is.

Than describe to me if a direct flame is needed to weaken the columns in the WTC 7 building.

[Norseman]

I've been waiting for 6 years.

What you and Christopher7 do not understand, is that a proper investigation contains far, far more than just looking at some videos and conclude that it was a CD.

In real investigations it can take several years to pinpoint the cause of the accident. And they have to look at all likely causes and chains of events that can explain the accident. And sometimes they are not even able to find the cause of the accident.

A example of this is Flight 585 that crashed in Colorado Springs in 1991. It took 10 years and one more accident (Flight 427) before a updated and final report from NTSB was adopted that pinpointed the cause. The first report was finished in 1992 with undetermined reason. The NTSB reports on Flight 585 and Flight 427 you will find here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/a_Acc2.htm). In the case of Flight 427 NTSB used 5 years on the investigation before the report was finished.

Newspaper articles about the investigation:
The Seattle Times (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/737/part05/)
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/flight427/s_247850.html)

And as you should know, after the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. And they started their work in 2002.

[twinstead]

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from ofiice fires?

The best theory, the theory that the vast majority of experts on Earth believe makes the most sense, of how the building fell is is out there for all to see. Anybody on Earth can scrutinize the report.

The vast majority of eye witnesses support this theory. The vast majority of experts on the ground that day watching the building with their own eyes support this theory. Perhaps the report isn't perfect, but you with all your investigative experience must realize that nothing like this can be perfect. But the general consensus is that it fits the available evidence the best.

That is the 'official story'. You think it is wrong? You think there was a cover up? You think the NIST is lying? Pretty serious claims.

You think CD caused WTC to fall? Then the onus is on YOU to prove it. So far all you folks can do is try to desperately find an anomaly in the NIST report, ANY anomaly, and then try to shove your little fantasy down our throats as the default winning theory.

What you should be doing is finding evidence to support whatever theory you may have.

[Belz...]

That's impossible! Everyone knows that gravity throws multi-ton steel beams upwards at 45 degree angles and horizontally 355 feet through the air!

How is that surprising ?

Do you have any idea what you're talking about ? This isn't kindergarten, Gally. Please research the subject.

The evidence shows that the office fires did not cause WTC 7 collapse

Really ? Then you should call NIST and let them in on your astute conclusions.

nor cause WTC 7 to fall in a controlled demolition.

[...]

After looking at all the evidence, WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Er...

The JREF people are quite smug, and felt beforehand that a controlled demolition was a crazy idea. But the evidence shows that it was.

Really ?

That's quite odd, because 7 WTC's collapse looks and sounds nothing like a controlled demolition. The same goes for the twins. So why in the world would you think it's a CD ?

The JREFers are now left to rabid speculation, the same type of speculation that they supposedly shun. But that's all they have, speculation.

In the CTer's world, one man's evidence is another's fantasy, and one man's speculation is another's reality.

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from ofiice fires?

There were fires. There was steel. It's not like steel heats up in a fire only 14% of the time.

[jaydeehess]

If Jennings had to "hang on" to survive from falling in the stairwell, then we can say the stairwell was physically damaged due to the missile explosion.

gee MaGZ, you said a few posts before this one that all the missile did was cause fires to ignite, not structural damage. NOW, in the quoted post, you say that the lissile had enough power to physically damage a fire exit stairwell such as to make it impassable. -- not possible AFAIK--

[jaydeehess]

Wrong

We are not certain which stairwell it was.

The lack of evidence for DD/F is not evidence of CD.

I hasten to add that lack of evidence of CD is not evidence of CD

[jaydeehess]

quote me
you have this a2a missile hitting WTC 7, entering the building and damaging a steel and concrete structure.
quote MaGZ
I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building.

Note MaGZ that you mischaracterize what I said. I said that you have the missile damaging steel and concrete in the stairwell. I did not state that you have the missile being responsible for the collapse.

A recent History Cannel documentary on 9/11 has an individual stating the fires started in WTC 7 around 9:30 that morning. This was before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Context? Was the person speaking in the Central time zone when they saw this on TV? Are they an hour out and simply mistaken? Certainly there is no record amoung the people responsible for addressing the fires occuring in NYC of fires in WTC 7 until after the tower collapses. Would that mean that the entire NYFD is in-on-it or cowed into silence about aspects contributing to the deaths of thousands?

Yes, it was an air to air missile.

Your opinion, based upon badly rendered youtube videos and some type of desire to slag the USAF or US gov't.

Posted by 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.

quote MaGZ
If I remember correctly Jennings and Hess tried to access a service elevator but was unable to do so. Then building security personnel showed them a stairwell. Perhaps the stairwell Jennings and Hess used was not the publically accessible stairwells. Perhaps it was a stairwell close to the service elevator.

If so then perhaps you'd like to show where this mysterious stairwell is on the building layouts in the NIST docuement. No sense in speculating on the existance of a stairwell without any evidence whatsoever (none, zip, nada, zero) of such a beast.

Posted by 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 .

quote MaGZ
It is interesting to note that the individual had to exit the building from the loading dock and not the lobby. Before the collapse of WTC 2 the lobby of WTC 7 was being used as a triage to help the injured from the missile explosion that occurred at 9:03.


No, the lobby was being used for triage of victims of the WTC 2 collapse.
Jennings and Hess were in the building for over an hour and a half MaGZ and exited AFTER both towers had collapsed.
No matter how you arrange the timeline to suit your pet contentions, even if J&H were at the OEM at 9am they were out of the building sometime after 10:30am


Posted by jaydeehess
,,,, 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?

quote MaGZ
NDBoston, a forum member here and one who evacuated WTC 7 that day, said he felt debris hit WTC 7 when the second plane hit WTC 2. What NDBoston really felt was the missile hitting WTC 7 a few seconds after the plane hit WTC 2.


Gee, or he felt the debris of WTC 2 hitting the building a few seconds after that debris exited WTC 2, or considering the way you maul timelines, he was saying he felt the debris hit WTC 7 when WTC 2 fell. You did not provide a quote from NDBoston nor a link to his post so I take what you state about him with a bucketload of salt. At any rate you have nothing, absolutly nothing, to back this claim other than your own twisted opinion.


Posted by 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.


quote MaGZ
Jennings arrived at OEM just before the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. He found the offices had just been evacuate with hot coffee still smoking on the desks. Those at OEM knew another plane was heading to NYC but did not know which building it was destined to hit. Jennings made a few calls and was told the get out immediately. Jennings experienced the missile explosion later in a stairwell. After the return of the people on the 23rd floor, the OEM was officially evacuated at 9:44 (before either Tower had collapsed) because of the fires that were started by the missile explosion.

According to all involved, the OEM was manned until the evacuation at 9:44. You see a constant need to rewrite the timelines in order to create a senario that backs your contention. Not suprising given your invention of a new stairwell in WTC 7 as well.



Posted by jaydeehess

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'.

quote MaGZ
You are saying the collapse of WTC 2 damaged the internal structured of WTC 7. No one believes this.

I am not even sure the stairwell was physically damaged. If it was then it occured as a result of one of the tower's collapses, perhaps even WTC 2's.. I do believe that the stairs were unusable.

Posted by jaydeehess
Odd that you would put it that way.

In fact Catelano states that he was in a room with no windows. He and the guys he was with felt the shaking and heard the sound and ran to where they could look outside. There, within minutes of this shaking and sound, they saw the WTC 1 on fire. So IF Jennings and Hess felt the same thing then you are going to have to explain how it was that they were at a recently abandoned OEM BEFORE any plane hit anything.
So, do you think about what you are going to put forth before going public with it?

quote MaGZ
So are you now saying Jennings and Hess were in WTC 7 when the first plane hit?

you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
Galelao (SP) stated that Jennings and Hess felt the same thing that Catelano did. I asked him to explain why Jennings and Hess were in the stairwell before anything nasty had occured in Manhattan that morning.
I don't buy that at all.

"Most people in WTC 1 were in the stairwells when WTC 2 collapsed..." (re: jds quote)this is not true.

Most people had evacuated WTC 1 when WTC 2 came down. The firefightes had them to evacuate WTC 1 via WTC 3: the Marriot Hotel. Mostly firefighters remained in the stairwells of WTC 1 when WTC 2 fell. Take a look at the Naudet video and you will see that before the collapse of WTC 2 most people had evacuate WTC 1 at the upper concourse lever. The crowds of people were thinner in WTC 1 when WTC 2 came down.

keee-riest your reading comprehension says something about your grade school education!
OK, to spell it out in intricate detail then, MaGZ.
Most people still within WTC 1 at the time of the collapse of WTC 2 were in the stairwells , including all fire, police.

MY POINT was (IIRC given the inanity of your response) that people in the stairwells did not witness the collapse of WTC 2 visually.

[Jonnyclueless]

We've covered that, but i will go over it again if you will acknowledge that the facts listed in post 3335 show that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis, or offer evidence to the contrary.

I can't acknowledge something that isn't true, just as you will ignore things that clearly are true. How about listing the post # that shows the huge gash shown on video is not really a huge gash? I suppose it's eyewitness testimony saying there was no damage that cna be seen by anyone looking at the video/pictures?

[jaydeehess]

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from ofiice fires?

The indisputable fact of fires in the building. Several fires, on several floors , each of which would be considered major fires in and of themselves on any other day.

That may not be enough for you, however I would I assume you adhere to a speculation about planted explosives that has even less evidence of being true. Thus any reluctance on your part to accept the fires as evidence of fire induced collapse is somewhat odd at best, and pure hypocrisy at the other end of the spectrum.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by MaGZ
NDBoston,

If you look back on it all, I think you will say the impact of the second plane into WTC 2 seemed more forceful to you than the impact of the first plane into WTC 1.

Given that the second impact occured lower down and at a higher velocity than the first imapct , your speculation on that minute detail may well be correct.

[phunk]

That's impossible! Everyone knows that gravity throws multi-ton steel beams upwards at 45 degree angles and horizontally 355 feet through the air!

I for one would like to see a video or some proof of a beam being thrown upwards.

[funk de fino]

quote MaGZ
It is interesting to note that the individual had to exit the building from the loading dock and not the lobby. Before the collapse of WTC 2 the lobby of WTC 7 was being used as a triage to help the injured from the missile explosion that occurred at 9:03.


In his latest interview Jennings states that he was taken out a "hole in the wall" of WTC7 by the first responders. At this time the lobby was destroyed and he did not say there was anyone else there.

This was after the tower had collapsed and the WTC7 was hit with debri, if not then the first responders would have seen the damage from the missile/explosion and we know that this has not been reported

[jaydeehess]

I for one would like to see a video or some proof of a beam being thrown upwards.

ditto, and stills with curving dust trails do not count.

[Christopher7]

I can't acknowledge something that isn't true,Then offer some evidence to the contrary.

just as you will ignore things that clearly are true.Like what?

How about listing the post # that shows the huge gash shown on video is not really a huge gash? I suppose it's eyewitness testimony saying there was no damage that cna be seen by anyone looking at the video/pictures?The long gash is nowhere near the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

What physical evidence do you have that core columns in WTC 7 were heated from office fires?

Why don't you guys wait for the final report?The time and progression of the fires are well documented.

There is no need to wait for the final report on that issue.

[jaydeehess]

There is no need to wait for the final report on that issue.

:rolleyes:


Of course, no need to wait for a final report, Chris already KNOWS what happened.

It has been pointed out to you several times now that the column failure that led to the Penthouse collapsing may well have followed another series of events which was internal and hidden from view, OR that the failure of that column(s) could have been the result of the fires near them plus damage to the building that was not proximate to the columns.

The column failure that resulted in the penthouse sinking into the building is noted as the initiating event. That is simply the visible event.

A more thorough study may see that the load on the columns that failed was greater than on nearby columns but nearby columns suffered greater heat damage and suffered creep that put more load on the columns that eventually failed.

The Cardington tests showed many times that beam/coulmn connections often failed in the cooling phase after the fire was done. This also may have played a role in increasing the load or the lateral stress on the columns that failed.

The lower core would have experienced a western and southern pulling force due to the loss of exterior columns once again putting a lateral stress on all core columns. I know you reject this as having any effect. However I do not believe that you have ever tried to answer my question about the effect on a house you built if a corner was removed and several exterior studs removed or damaged along one side. You know that the structure would be unstable

[jaydeehess]

Fact is Chris, and I and others have pointed this out dozens of times, there was severe damage done to the WTC 7 structure followed by fires on several floors all of which would have been considered major fires and this includes fires in the region of the "initiating event".

What there is not would be any evidence of the use of explosives other than the characterization of sounds emanating from a building under extreme stress or even in the process of collapsing, as "explosions".

[Christopher7]

:rolleyes:
Of course, no need to wait for a final report, Chris already KNOWS what happened.We all know what happened.
When faced with the reality that there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis, you chant, "Wait for the final report".

Do you really think the timing and progression of the fires will change in the final report?

Do you think they will discover debris damage to the area of the initiating event 5 years after the event?

They had 2 years to gather the data. They have pictures of the east half of the south face. If they had evidence of damage to that area, they would have published the pictures.
Don't you find it curious that they published pictures of every side except the south east side?

It has been pointed out to you several times now that the column failure that led to the Penthouse collapsing may well have followed another series of events which was internal and hidden from view,
May have in your dreams.

May have does not = evidence.

OR that the failure of that column(s) could have been the result of the fires near them plus damage to the building that was not proximate to the columns.As i have pointed out, the fires were not sufficient to cause the failure of a column weighing over 4 tons per floor, and capable of carrying its load, unbraced for 4 floors when uniformly heated to 500 C.
The fires did not burn in any one place for more than a couple hours because the fuel supply was exhausted and the fires moved on.

Apx. L pg 36 [40 on pg counter]
Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

There is nothing to support your belief that damage, not proximate to the area where the collapse began, had a significant effect on that area.

The column failure that resulted in the penthouse sinking into the building is noted as the initiating event. That is simply the visible event.
If the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 were not the initiating event, other columns would have to fail and not progress vertically.

A more thorough study may see that the load on the columns that failed was greater than on nearby columns but nearby columns suffered greater heat damage and suffered creep that put more load on the columns that eventually failed.

The Cardington tests showed many times that beam/coulmn connections often failed in the cooling phase after the fire was done. This also may have played a role in increasing the load or the lateral stress on the columns that failed.

The lower core would have experienced a western and southern pulling force due to the loss of exterior columns once again putting a lateral stress on all core columns.Key point.
The hypothesis depends on columns 79, 80 and 81 buckling to the east.
Stresses pulling to the west and south would work against this.

I know you reject this as having any effect. However I do not believe that you have ever tried to answer my question about the effect on a house you built if a corner was removed and several exterior studs removed or damaged along one side. You know that the structure would be unstableThank you for asking. I do this sort of thing frequently.
I am currently rebuilding a garage from the inside. [termite damage]
I screwed a 2x8 across the ^ area at one end. [making it a truss]
I screwed bats to the horizontal ship lap siding to keep it from falling.
I removed the studs and plates from one half and replaced them.
Then i did the other half.

If you knew anything about how structures work, you would know that the removal of a few supports would not cause a partial, much less a global collapse, nor would it make the building unstable.
A building is effectively one piece. Shear strength is an essential component in any structure, especially in the lower floors of a 47 story building.
This shear strength would prevent 1 column from pulling 7 columns sideways.
Further, it would prevent 3 columns from pulling 21 columns sideways.

WTC 7 was over built to allow for the removal of floors in tenants so desired.

The NIST hypothesis assumes that WTC 7 was a house of cards and the failure of a single column could lead to a global collapse in about 15 seconds.

The hypothesis is a house of cards.

[jaydeehess]

We all know what happened.
When faced with the reality that there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis, you chant, "Wait for the final report".

Actually Chris, there is a reason for a final report. What might you think that would be given your insistence that all one needs is the interim report?

Do you really think the timing and progression of the fires will change in the final report?

Change would be an overstatement. More detailed would be more along the lines of what I might expect.

Do you think they will discover debris damage to the area of the initiating event 5 years after the event?

No, I think they may have discovered that 4 1/2 years ago and used the interim time to better understand the effect it had on the structure.

They had 2 years to gather the data. They have pictures of the east half of the south face. If they had evidence of damage to that area, they would have published the pictures.

Perhaps , perhaps not.

Don't you find it curious that they published pictures of every side except the south east side?

Nope. There are a lot of pictures of the Pope too but oddly none of them show him bathing AFAIK.

May have in your dreams.

It was but one example

May have does not = evidence.

As opposed to your compelling "looks like" and "sounds like" evidence.
Fact remains Chris, there was debris damage and there were fires. The details of those would go to showing how they contributed to the collapse. Some of those details may never be known though.
On the other hand you not only have no compelling evidence that explosives were used, you also have absolutly no details about where, when, who and how much was used.

As I have pointed out, the fires were not sufficient to cause the failure of a column weighing over 4 tons per floor, and capable of carrying its load, unbraced for 4 floors when uniformly heated to 500 C.

That would be a column in pristine condition and surrounded by a building in original condition.

The fires did not burn in any one place for more than a couple hours because the fuel supply was exhausted and the fires moved on.

Did I not mention the effect of beam to column connections, yes in fact I did.

Apx. L pg 36 [40 on pg counter]
Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

That redistribution of load means that something else took the load AND the lateral stress.
Besides that, this paragraph simply states that the initiating event was not a progression of perimeter column failures. It says nothing about internal columns.

There is nothing to support your belief that damage, not proximate to the area where the collapse began, had a significant effect on that area.

The loads were r e d i s t r i b u t e d Chris, they did not disappear and they were very significant.

If the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81 were not the initiating event, other columns would have to fail and not progress vertically.

Yeeessss do go on.

Key point.
The hypothesis depends on columns 79, 80 and 81 buckling to the east.
Stresses pulling to the west and south would work against this.

Now , stack the column sections up and bolt them to the floors. Now on one floor have the connection to the floor on the east side of a column disappear but the connection on the west side remain and pull the west side of the floor to the west. The bottom of the column goes west, the connection to the next higher floor remains in place, if the column buckles it will do so with the knee pointing east.

Thank you for asking. I do this sort of thing frequently.
I am currently rebuilding a garage from the inside. [termite damage]
I screwed a 2x8 across the ^ area at one end. [making it a truss]
I screwed bats to the horizontal ship lap siding to keep it from falling.
I removed the studs and plates from one half and replaced them.
Then i did the other half.

If you knew anything about how structures work, you would know that the removal of a few supports would not cause a partial, much less a global collapse, nor would it make the building unstable.

You just described a situation where you added material in order to keep the structure stable in the short term. How does that compare to what occured in WTC 7? In WTC 7 supports were removed, nothing was added AND THEN fire weakened more supports.

A building is effectively one piece.

In an ideal situation. However assuming the ideal will not suffice for a damaged building, nor one under attack by several fires.

Shear strength is an essential component in any structure, especially in the lower floors of a 47 story building.
This shear strength would prevent 1 column from pulling 7 columns sideways.
Further, it would prevent 3 columns from pulling 21 columns sideways.

Yes unless further damage was being done over a larger area such as by fires.


WTC 7 was over built to allow for the removal of floors in tenants so desired.

Which assumed that such modifications would be carried out in a measured action, not in a chaotic ripping out of steel. In the next garage you need to repair, try putting a chain on all the studs you want to replace, attach the chain to your truck and then drive off real fast. Still think the garage will survive that Chris? What would be the difference Chris?

The NIST hypothesis assumes that WTC 7 was a house of cards and the failure of a single column could lead to a global collapse in about 15 seconds.

Really? I thought it took something on the order of 7 hours to damage the building enough for it to progress to the point of rapid failures.

The hypothesis is a house of cards.

Frankly it looks a lot sturdier than anything you have brought forth.

[twinstead]

Frankly, this whole spiel that Chris has of trying to find fault in the official report instead of providing compelling evidence for an alternate theory that fits ALL the eye witness reports, ALL the physical evidence, and ALL the observations better than the official report is tiring.

85 pages? One would think that rational alternate theory would be presented by now.

[Belz...]

We all know what happened.

Sure, Chris. Sure.

[jaydeehess]

oops, forgot a line in my above post.

in addition to:

Quote: WTC 7 was over built to allow for the removal of floors in tenants so desired.

Which assumed that such modifications would be carried out in a measured action, not in a chaotic ripping out of steel. In the next garage you need to repair, try putting a chain on all the studs you want to replace, attach the chain to your truck and then drive off real fast. Still think the garage will survive that Chris? What would be the difference Chris?

I would add that you are not allowed to add any shoring up or other extra load transfer members before driving off with the studs that need to come out.

[Christopher7]

Actually Chris, there is a reason for a final report.There is a reason it has been delayed again.

What might you think that would be given your insistence that all one needs is the interim report?
Wrong
We also have the FEMA Tr 049; 403 C, D, 4 and 5; NIST Apx. L, Project 6, NCSTAR 1-1A, 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 1-81, 1-3B as well as Testimony Sept. 8 and Lessons Learned.

Change would be an overstatement. More detailed would be more along the lines of what I might expect.
Perhaps

Do you think they will discover debris damage to the area of the initiating event 5 years after the event?
No, I think they may have discovered that 4 1/2 years ago and used the interim time to better understand the effect it had on the structure.
Please

If they had evidence of damage to the area of the initiating event, they would have included it in their analysis.

Don't you find it curious that they published pictures of every side except the south east side?

Nope. There are a lot of pictures of the Pope too but oddly none of them show him bathing AFAIK.Now there's a stupid response.

As opposed to your compelling "looks like" and "sounds like" evidence. Fact remains Chris, there was debris damage and there were fires. The details of those would go to showing how they contributed to the collapse. Some of those details may never be known though.
On the other hand you not only have no compelling evidence that explosives were used, you also have absolutly no details about where, when, who and how much was used.and the subject shift.

The pictures of the east half of the south face are the most important of all because that is the area where the debris damage could have effected the initiating event.

And you don't find it strange that they published pictures of every side and angle except the most important part.

None are so blind .......

That would be a column in pristine condition and surrounded by a building in original condition.There was no debris damage to or near columns 79, 80 & 81.

Did I not mention the effect of beam to column connections, yes in fact I did.The beams did not connect to the columns.
The beams were 9' o.c. and connected to the girders [which were necessarily much larger].
The girders connected the columns.

That redistribution of load means that something else took the load AND the lateral stress.
Besides that, this paragraph simply states that the initiating event was not a progression of perimeter column failures. It says nothing about internal columns.
The loads were r e d i s t r i b u t e d Chris, they did not disappear and they were very significant.Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

around: surrounds, on all sides

The damage stress is greatest to the surrounding framework, and to a decreasing degree, members further away.

Now , stack the column sections up and bolt them to the floors. Now on one floor have the connection to the floor on the east side of a column disappear but the connection on the west side remain and pull the west side of the floor to the west. The bottom of the column goes west, the connection to the next higher floor remains in place, if the column buckles it will do so with the knee pointing east.
The columns were 20 - 30 feet long.
That means several floors would have to fail.
To buckle a column, one splice has to give way to the west and two others tear loose from the east.

You just described a situation where you added material in order to keep the structure stable in the short term. How does that compare to what occured in WTC 7? In WTC 7 supports were removed, nothing was addedGood point

However

Because of the angle bracing in the side walls, no significant stress was transfered to the other end of the building.

Had i not added the additional member, the roof would have sagged a little at that end, but the sidewalls and the roof would be stable from the first ceiling joist and collar tie, to the other end.
No significant stress would be transfered to the other end.

AND THEN fire weakened more supports. 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.

[maccy]

Chris, what are planning to do with your insights?

Will you contact some structural engineers, somewhere in the world, with a view to maybe writing a paper about this?

Or how about an investigative journalist? Or a science reporter?

Or are you talking to the people at NIST?

You seem very determined to keep saying "I'm right" for months on end in the face of adversity on this thread. But how is that going to change the world?

If, as you seem to think, we are all hopelessly in denial about this, why are you still bothering with us? Surely there are more influential people to persuade?

[twinstead]

If, as you seem to think, we are all hopelessly in denial about this, why are you still bothering with us? Surely there are more influential people to persuade?

Well, in many ways we're a captive audience if we wish to keep posting. Any reputable structural engineer, demolitions expert, news organization, or investigative/law enforcement organization, ANYWHERE ON EARTH, would show him the door.

He knows that. I'm sure to him it's part of the conspiracy.

[firecoins]

Well, in many ways we're a captive audience if we wish to keep posting. Any reputable structural engineer, demolitions expert, news organization, or investigative/law enforcement organization, ANYWHERE ON EARTH, would show him the door.

He knows that. I'm sure to him it's part of the conspiracy.
Its part of the conspiracy of reality that goes on everyday.

I can not believe this thread is this long.

[NYCEMT86]

Bingo I found something that provides a lot of information on why this building didn't collapse.


The degree of structural damage produced during the fire at One Meridian Plaza suggests that the requirements for structural fire resistance should be reexamined. Floor assemblies deflected as much as three feet in some places. The fire burning on multiple floors may have produced simultaneous exposure of both sides of these assemblies, which consisted of concrete slabs on corrugated decks, supported by structural steel beam and girder construction, sprayed with cementitious fireproofing materials. The standard fire test for floor and ceiling assemblies involves exposure from a single side only.

similar maybe...same construction? No


I have a homework assignment for Christopher...


Find out how reliable a solid girder is in a fire and report these findings to me...

Find out how reliable a steel truss member is in a fire and report these findings to me...

Tell me, what is more likely to fail during an intense fire and why?


Thank you.

[Christopher7]

Chris, what are planning to do with your insights?

Will you contact some structural engineers, somewhere in the world, with a view to maybe writing a paper about this?I sent a copy of my summaries to Richard Gage and Lenny Charles
I will email Stephen Jones and others this weekend.

You seem very determined to keep saying "I'm right" for months on end in the face of adversity on this thread. But how is that going to change the world?Your characterization "I'm right" is wrong.
I have been presenting FACTS and statements from the many official reports listed in post 3372.

If, as you seem to think, we are all hopelessly in denial about this, why are you still bothering with us? Surely there are more influential people to persuade?Not everyone here is in total denial.
A few, like Belz and jaydeehess, are willing to acknowledge that the 10 story gouge, as described on pg 18, is a misinterpretation of other damage.

Also
By debating here i have found that there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis.

I invite you to offer evidence to refute the following:


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the [I]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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 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.

A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F,
and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned for a few hours, on a few floors, at different times,
in the area where the collapse began.

[Christopher7]

Bingo I found something that provides a lot of information on why this building didn't collapse.
similar maybe...same construction? No

I have a homework assignment for Christopher...

Find out how reliable a solid girder is in a fire and report these findings to me...

Find out how reliable a steel truss member is in a fire and report these findings to me...

Tell me, what is more likely to fail during an intense fire and why?

Thank you.The paragraph that follows the one you posted is more to the point at hand.
Could the fires in WTC 7 heat the 4 ton per floor columns to the point of failure?

The evidence suggests not.

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.

[NYCEMT86]

The paragraph that follows the one you posted is more to the point at hand.
Could the fires in WTC 7 heat the 4 ton per floor columns to the point of failure?

The evidence suggests not.


What evidence says there weren't fires?


"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department


"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers


"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good." - Captain Chris Boyle


"No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety." - Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


Or are they lying?


What if the fires were just smoldering?

"Smoldering is a relatively slow combustion process that occurs between oxygen in the air and a solid fuel. No flame is present, however the presence of very hot materials is on the surface of which combustion is proceeding. The surface undergoes glowing and charring. The glowing is indicative of a temperature in excess of 1000°C (1832°F). A smoldering or glowing condition can occur at any point in the fire with the controlling factor being ventilation." - NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations 3rd Edition


Now what would if they were diffusion flames?


A Diffusion Flame is defined as a combustion process in which the fuel gas and oxygen are transported into the reaction zone due to concentration differences.

The vast majority of un-wanted and un-controlled fires are diffusion flames.

During a flaming fire, conditions may exist that decrease the oxygen level below 16%. This causes the combustion process to slow, the flames subside and the temperature begins to decrease.


With no set temperature as it would differ on the material burning...


Approximate Power Usage/Peak Heat Release Rate

Burning cigarette: 5W

Standard “A” Light Bulbs: 15 to 200 W

Burning match: 80 W

Coffee maker, hair dryer, toaster: 500 to 1500 W or 0.5 to 1.5 kW

Burning Coffee Maker: 40 kW

Small Trash Can, Trash Bag Fires: 50 to 300 kW

Burning Upholstered Chair: 80 kW to 2.5 MW

Burning Upholstered Sofa: 3,000 kW or 3 MW

Burning Christmas Tree: 1.6 MW to 5.2 MW

Base Design Fire: 5.3 MW


Even with a two hour rating on the fire insulation, that building held up substantially. It also accounts for the fire growth in the building as witnessed by firefighters. If the fires evolved from smoldering to diffusion flames, there would a higher heat release. Most temperatures referenced are based on STP


Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) is a standard set of conditions for experimental measurements, to enable comparisons to be made between sets of data. Internationally, the current STP defined by the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) is an absolute pressure of 100.00 kPa (1 bar) and a temperature of 273.15 K


So it is clear that any combustible can exceed the STP findings.



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. [/COLOR]


Standard Girder and Beam construction is very different from the tube construction that the WTC 7 was designed on.


The Empire State Building is the best example of a Girder and Beam construction.


The space between the columns and the Girders are shorter as compared to the tube frame, where it very open between the exterior walls to the core.


Now what does the NFPA say about Open Truss and Solid Girder Construction?

According to NFPA 921:

Fire fighters may be injured and killed when fire-damaged roof and floor truss systems collapse, sometimes without warning.

Understand that fire ratings may not be truly representative of real-time fire conditions and that truss systems' performance may be affected by fire severity.

More than 60% of the roof systems in the United States are built using a truss system. By design, wooden truss systems contain a significant fuel load and are often hidden from sight. Fires in truss systems can burn for long periods before detection and can spread quickly across or through the trusses. Steel trusses are also prone to failure under fire conditions and may fail in less time than a wooden truss under the same conditions.

The number of fire fighter fatalities related to structural collapse could be significantly reduced through proper education and information concerning truss construction. Fire fighters should be discouraged from risking their lives solely for property protection activities.

Unfortunately, fires are not predictable: conditions often deteriorate quickly, and fire-damaged building components, including trusses, can collapse with little warning. Engineering calculations provide data for an approximate time of failure under specified fire conditions; however, under uncontrolled fire conditions, the time to truss failure is unpredictable.

All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200º F in 6 to 8 minutes [Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains only 25% of its original strength at 1,200º F and retains only half its original strength at approximately 900 ºF. Building design calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.

Steel is noncombustible and does not contribute fuel to a fire. This property may cause a false sense of security and overshadow the fact that steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over its length from 72° to 972° F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The same beam uniformly heated to 800° F would expand by 3.2 inches; if heated to 1,200° F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl 1991; Cotes 1997].

Source (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#3)


Table D1:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal of | % of original strength | % yield strength
the steel (F) | retained by the steel | lost by steel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 | 100 | 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
400 | 87.5 | 12.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 | 72.5 | 27.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
800 | 57.5 | 42.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 | 42.5 | 57.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,200 | 25 | 75

Source Tapley (1990).

[Christopher7]

What evidence says there weren't fires?
Absurd question

Did you read post 3377?

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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

Some time later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

The fires burned for less than 2 hours in any location as they progressed.

*************************************

The quotes you listed don't specify when and where the fires were.

It had very heavy fire on many floors Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
several fires in it Chief Cruthers
with fire on several floors. Captain Chris Boyle

it took a while for that fire to develop.
It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

**************************************

What if the fires were just smoldering?

Now what would if they were diffusion flames?'What if' does not = evidence.


Now what does the NFPA say about Open Truss and Solid Girder Construction?WTC 7 did not have trusses

[Christopher7]

Sure, Chris. Sure.Do you dispute the time and progression of the fires in WTC 7 as listed in post 3380 ?

[Gravy]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.

[Jonnyclueless]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.

You mean that building that burned for 7 hours? It's a mystery...

[Christopher7]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.That's what i have been doing.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
I have read a few quotes from the NIST report and as i remember they couldn't say for sure what caused wtc7 to collapse.
I have dial-up (50kbps) and downloading the whole report is not practical. Is it possible to find just the part about wtc7?

Originally Posted by Gravy
As a contractor, you should know the value of reading plans. This now the fourth time you've been asked to read the NIST interim report on WTC 7. It's 5 megs.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)

Let us know when you do.


I have read the report and discovered that

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis


I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event


Do you dispute this time line and progression of the fires in WTC 7 ?

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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

Some time later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

The fires burned for less than 2 hours in any location as they progressed.

[leftysergeant]

The long gash is nowhere near the area of the initiating event.

It looks like the gash we are discussing here was directly below the kink in the roof, which is directly under the area where falling debris damaged the parapet on the roof, and the mechanical tower toward the same end of the building sank out of sight there first, so what on earth do you mean by the idea that it was not near the initiating event?

[Disenchanted]

I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

What? Outside of your imagination, you haven't debunked anything.

A particularly astonishing claim is that WTC 7 landed or mostly landed in its footprint. If it landed in its own foot print then why did a little debris from it fall on a building across the street? If it landed in its own foot print that would not have happened.

Also astonishing is saying that you have shown the debris damage wasn't a significant factor. You have not offered any credible evidence for this.

[twinstead]

I have read the report and discovered that

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesisYou can't just SAY that in order for it to be true. Many people who know what they are talking about more than you disagree.

The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one, even though you even think you've debunked that 'spin'. You're going to have to do better than making sweeping declarations and then put your fingers in your ears when others point out why they aren't true.

You owe it to all the lurker converts you must be getting from reading this thread. You know, the ones swelling the ranks of the truth movement as we speak.

[jaydeehess]

Long weekend, little time so just a quick response.

There is a reason it has been delayed again.

yeah, they are hoping the "truth movement " will dry up and go away.:rolleyes:



Now there's a stupid response.

Try to inmagine my thoughts on the question


Quote:
As opposed to your compelling "looks like" and "sounds like" evidence. Fact remains Chris, there was debris damage and there were fires. The details of those would go to showing how they contributed to the collapse. Some of those details may never be known though.On the other hand you not only have no compelling evidence that explosives were used, you also have absolutly no details about where, when, who and how much was used.
and the subject shift.
I hardly think so


[/I]And you don't find it strange that they published pictures of every side and angle except the most important part.

None are so blind .......

No I don't, and Biblical quotes will not sway me.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd like to see Chris respond to the video footage showing the huge gash going down the whole building. But what's the point, he will just keep denying everything he doesn't want to accept. And all this to hide the fact that he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims for the cause.

[Christopher7]

It looks like the gash we are discussing here was directly below the kink in the roof, which is directly under the area where falling debris damaged the parapet on the roof, and the mechanical tower toward the same end of the building sank out of sight there first, so what on earth do you mean by the idea that it was not near the initiating event?
The long gash was west of center.

The east penthouse collapsed first.

[Christopher7]

What? Outside of your imagination, you haven't debunked anything.

A particularly astonishing claim is that WTC 7 landed or mostly landed in its footprint.
NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

If it landed in its own foot print then why did a little debris from it fall on a building across the street?
If it landed in its own foot print that would not have happened.WTC 7 was 576 feet tall.
There was too much of it to fit in the original footprint.
The north facade buckled out and hit the building across the street.

Also astonishing is saying that you have shown the debris damage wasn't a significant factor. You have not offered any credible evidence for this. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2598347#post2598347

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


NIST Apx. L pg 36

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

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

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

pg 37

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

PG 41

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

pg 42

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

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

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

[Drudgewire]

I'd like to see Chris respond to the video footage showing the huge gash going down the whole building.
The guy from CHUD proved that was caused by terrorist arrows. :D

[Christopher7]

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis

You can't just SAY that in order for it to be true.I have listed the facts of what happened.

Many people who know what they are talking about more than you disagree.
The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one,You can't just SAY that in order for it to be true.

even though you even think you've debunked that 'spin'. You're going to have to do better than making sweeping declarations and then put your fingers in your ears when others point out why they aren't true.No one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.


I have answered all challenges to these statements, with facts from the many govt. reports listed in post 3372.

I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

If you have something of substance to offer, post it.


You owe it to all the lurker converts you must be getting from reading this thread. You know, the ones swelling the ranks of the truth movement as we speak.True

[Pardalis]

Chris, why don't you wait for...

Nah, nevermind.

[twinstead]

No one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.


This is utter BS.


I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

No, you have not.



If you have something of substance to offer, post it.
Right back at you. As long as you labor to post your evidence in a relatively obscure discussion forum on the internet you are not doing your movement any favors.

Bring your evidence to any law enforcement agency or media outlet anywhere on Earth and start the ball rolling. Do it now.

Call my bluff, because I don't think you have a case. Could you support your case in a court of law?

BTW, you aren't getting ANY converts. That was sarcasm. But I'm sure you realize that.

[Christopher7]

This is utter BS.So far, no one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.
That's because the FACTS are from the NIST report Gravy insisted i read.

Right back at you. As long as you labor to post your evidence in a relatively obscure discussion forum on the internet you are not doing your movement any favors.I have learned a great deal debating here.
The summaries of the evidence have been edited and refined to take into account the legitimate criticism of jaydeehess, Belz, cloudshiprule and others.

You and Gravy have nothing of substance to offer this debate, just a lot of sarcastic remarks, insults and unsupported claims like "The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one".

Bring your evidence to any law enforcement agency or media outlet anywhere on Earth and start the ball rolling. Do it now.
Thank you for the suggestion. I'm on it.

Call my bluff, because I don't think you have a case. Could you support your case in a court of law?This thread is about the lack of evidence to support the official hypothesis.
Could you support your case in a court of law?

BTW, you aren't getting ANY converts. That was sarcasm. But I'm sure you realize that.You haven't got a clue what the lurkers are thinking.
You haven't got a clue what the world scientific community is thinking.
All you have is arrogance and sarcasm.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes people have indeed offered evidence. But you simply disagree and do nothing but offer your own speculation. What you are doing Christopher is preying on the fact that no one can or ever will be able to know the exact details and the exact specifics. So each time there is an area or making educated guesses, which is inevitable, you assume they are wrong or impossible.

The whole reason you started this thread is because you know that your own believes have not a single drop of credibility or evidence to back them up, so your only way or presenting your theories is by taking advantage of the inevitable holes in what so far it the most plausible one. And you do this by cherry picking information and throwing out what you don't want to see.

And the most important part is that you take advantage of the NIST report not yet being released. But we can certainly say that YOU definitely have no clue as to what the scientific community is thinking because none of that community agrees with you. You take the few oddballs which are simply statistical, and try to use them to dismiss the vast majority of the scientific community. And the criteria used to dismiss is based on whether the person suggests a conspiracy or not. Likewise if the roles were reversed and the 99.999999% of the scientific community supported a conspiracy and just a single person idn't, you would be more than happy to to use the majority to say it's likely the oddball is wrong. But since the majority does not support your pre-determined conclusion, you conclude that anyone, no matter what the credentials or work is that disagrees overrules everyone else for no other reason than because it's what you want to hear.

You can continue to try and dress it up all you want, but that's all you are doing. A nice little song and dance that will only last until the official results are published.

[Jonnyclueless]

OH and as for the court of law comment, it HAS been presented in a court of law and it HAS held up. You unfortunately could not say the same.

[Christopher7]

Yes people have indeed offered evidence.What evidence?

But you simply disagree and do nothing but offer your own speculation.Some here have speculated about 'lateral stress' but NIST made no mention of 'lateral stress' because it played no part in the collapse. If lateral stress was a factor, NIST would have included it in their analysis.

What you are doing Christopher is preying on the fact that no one can or ever will be able to know the exact details and the exact specifics. So each time there is an area or making educated guesses, which is inevitable, you assume they are wrong or impossible. The only educated guess i have made is that the fires were not sufficient to cause the failure of a column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

The whole reason you started this thread is because you know that your own believes have not a single drop of credibility or evidence to back them up,You simply deny the evidence and say there is none.

As the name of this thread indicates, i started this thread because:

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L, doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

I argued that many people here thought it existed.

so your only way or presenting your theories is by taking advantage of the inevitable holes in what so far it the most plausible one. And you do this by cherry picking information and throwing out what you don't want to see.
You keep saying that.
What have i 'thrown out' ?

And the most important part is that you take advantage of the NIST report not yet being released.If we are to disregard the NIST progress report until the final report comes out, then stop saying it presents the most plausible explanation.

But we can certainly say that YOU definitely have no clue as to what the scientific community is thinking because none of that community agrees with you.So very wrong

Stephen Jones is a PROFESSOR of physics at a well known, very conservative university.

Yet you [and others here] arrogantly claim that you know more about the laws of physics than he does.

Many other scholars have joined him in his conclusion that WTC 7 could have collapsed the way it did, without the use of demolition devices.

Two PROFESSORS of structural analysis and construction came to the same conclusion.

The owner of a demolition company says WTC 7 was a CD.

There are now 155 architects and engineers that say WTC 7 was a CD.

You tell yourself that all these professionals don't know what they are talking about, and cling to a hypothesis [set of assumptions] that only 'appears possible'.

You take the few oddballs which are simply statistical, .Let's face it, anyone, no matter how qualified, is an oddball in your book as soon as the say WTC 7 was a CD.

and try to use them to dismiss the vast majority of the scientific community
You keep saying that.
You haven't got a clue what the vast majority of the scientific community thinks.


Once again, many words, no evidence to refute anything in this list of FACTS from the NIST report:


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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 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.

A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F,
and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned for a few hours, on a few floors, at different times,
in the area where the collapse began.

[Christopher7]

OH and as for the court of law comment, it HAS been presented in a court of law and it HAS held up. You unfortunately could not say the same.What court?

What case?

[funk de fino]

You keep saying that.
What have i 'thrown out' ?

Some of Barry Jenning's testimonies

[Disenchanted]

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

WTC 7 was 576 feet tall.
There was too much of it to fit in the original footprint.
The north facade buckled out and hit the building across the street.

Buildings are routinely brought down into their own footprints, many bigger than WTC 7, and in doing so don’t hit buildings around them. That WTC 7 hit the building disproves the claim it fell into its own footprint.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you try to spin what the NIST has said or you say that you have debunked “it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint”. The fact that it hit another building shows it did not land in its own footprint.

[jaydeehess]

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


NIST does NOT say that.

NIST Apx. L pg 36

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

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

All that states is that the initiating event did not originate on the perimeter frame. It says nothing at all about how much stress was on any core column or floor span due to the loss of perimeter columns.

What you are quoting here is a flow chart method of determining WHERE the initial failure that led to the collapse occured. It says very little about what caused the inital failure.


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

You then quote more of NIST's flow chart concerning the perimeter.

pg 37

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

PG 41

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

pg 42

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

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


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

Yes they do cite such a senario and this does indicate that the collapse was initiated in the core of the building. The flow chart says nothing at all about the contribution of the various damages done to the building to that collapse. You misrepresent the NIST flowchart(or misunderstand it)


Let me harken back to that garage you repaired. I asked you to imagine what would have occured if you had simply hooked a chain around the offending studs and used your truck to rip them out all at once. That however would not transfer much of the impulse to the rest of the garage because the studs in question were termite damaged and would give way quickly. A better comparison would be to take a pristine garage and again rip out a corner stud and several studs along the adjacent walls. You may need a bigger truck to accomplish this as the fasteners (screws, nails, bolts) holding the wood together will be pulling through good wood rather than termite gutted wood.

Now the garage would not fall completly, at least I would not expect it to BUT the entire structure is now weakened. A garage has no internal column structure but we can now go through a thought experiment as to what would now happen if this garage, and an identically built one that is still in whole condition, were subjected to a realtively high wind. I daresay that the damaged garage would fail at a much lower windspeed than the undamaged one. What is the initiating cause of the collapse of the garage? Not the damage to the studs. The wind is the initiating cause of collapse.

This analogy breaks down at some point,(as all analogies do), but illustrates how you misinterpret what NIST is saying.

Whether you do this because of a misunderstanding or a prejudice that requires you to do so is not clear in my mind. It may be clear in the minds of others here though.

[Christopher7]

Some of Barry Jenning's testimonies
On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

ETA: Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."

[Christopher7]

Buildings are routinely brought down into their own footprints, many bigger than WTC 7,
TALLEST EXPLOSIVELY DEMOLISHED BUILDING
Hudson’s Department Store
Detroit, Michigan USA
http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/hudson.jpg
At first, protesters objected loudly to the razing of this 26-story, 439-foot tall structure located in the heart of Detroit’s commercial district. But years of neglect and decay precluded an economically viable alternative, and the building was brought down in 1998.

There were large spaces on two sides, yet:

Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudson’s pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/4346/copyofhudsonsvz9.jpg

and in doing so don’t hit buildings around them. Much preparation goes into assuring surrounding buildings are not damaged, but it still happens.
No such preparations were made for WTC 7.

That WTC 7 hit the building disproves the claim it fell into its own footprint.It's not a claim, it's a FACT. WTC 7 was 576 feet tall.
There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you try to spin what the NIST has said Spin? This is a direct quote.
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

“it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint”.You are denying the obvious and the clear statement in the NIST report.

The fact that it hit another building shows it did not land in its own footprint.The Hudson building did not land entirely within it's own footprint.
It damaged a Tramway near the south west corner.

[twinstead]

Chris you still haven't shown that WTC7 should have fallen any different than it did whether it was CD or not.

I'm sure you are preparing another 50 pages on the definition of 'mostly', but during your lull time from that perhaps you could explain, with the math, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.

[jaydeehess]

Chris 7 is quite right when he says that WTC 7 fell mostly within its own footprint.

The CT claim that it fell entirely within the footprint is obviously erroneous.

However all that means is that the collapse was initiated within the building rather than at the perimeter.
In that there is no dispute with Christopher 7, the collapse started roughly along the centerline (E-W). Did something else occur in the few seconds before the columns under the penthouse gave out? We do not know, neither does Chris and neither did NIST, at least as of the printing of the prelim report. THUS, the initiating event is said to be the visible event, that of the failure of the support under the penthouse.

The fact that in tall structure controlled demolitions the building is designed to come down in its own footprint as a much as possible is given as weighty evidence that indeed WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, BUT what can be accomplished by man certainly can be accomplished naturally. What is in evidence on Sept 11, 2001 is that three very tall buildings collapsed and that they did so basically straight down.

The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!", but the truely scientifically minded looks at this and wonders if it means that a straight down collapse is somehow predisposed in buildings of the scale of these structures.
The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!" ,but the truly scientifically minded looks at the fact that all three structures had somewhat unigue engineering (tube-in-tube for the towers and the cantilever system over the pre-existing Con-ed building, as well as the engineered ability to change ceiling heights in the building at WTC 7) and wonders if that played a role in the manner of collapse.
The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!", but, all three structures failed after being subjected to major structural damage and then major fires.

The CT cries "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!, that explains it all", but truly scientific thing to do is to investigate how the conditions that ARE KNOWN to have occured could have contributed to the end result of a global collapse.

So far all the CT, including Chris, has is a few people who say they heard an "explosion" as the building began its collapse and two others who experienced an "explosion" at about the same time as WTC 2 (or perhaps WTC 1) fell. They also have the relatively straight down collapse. That's it for KNOWN conditions that they can use to determine that it was a controlled demolition.

Further to this Chris points out that the damage to the area nearest the (visible) initiating event was not damaged as much as the western end of the building and thus he says the debris damage could not have contributed to the (visible) collapse initiation. He acknowledges that the fires in the area of the (visible) initiating event were indeed large fires that moved about that area over the course of the day but that, in his opinion, the fires could not have caused enough weakening to cause the (visible) initiating event.

There is no need. Chris says, to read the final report, his mind is made up.
By choosing the NIST prelim report to say what he thinks it says and combining that with the paltry amount of KNOWN conditions for controlled demolitions he has come to his conclusions.

The truly scientifically minded would at least wait for the final report to see what the people with relevent education and experience, as well as the time and funds to do the research, come up with.

Of course there are a lot of unknown details concerning the collapse of WTC 7. The most likely senario will be that NIST will come up with a probable collapse sequence that is more detailed than the one outlined in the prelim report. They may include a couple of other collapse sequences and give a probability for each of them. This may include the possibility of a controlled demolition. In the case of a controlled demolition one could deduce where the charges would have to be and how large they would have to be and in what sequence they would have to go off. If there is no empirical evidence to match that, then the probability of this being a controlled demolition would be set as very low.

[Dave Rogers]

There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.
That's an interesting conclusion. Can you show us the calculations by which you arrived at it?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.That's an interesting conclusion. Can you show us the calculations by which you arrived at it?

Dave

It is true that even if the material was carefully placed in a large pile that it would extend to the Verizon and Post Office buildings.
that does not explain the damage to 30 West Broadway or the parts of WTC 7 lying on WTC 6 (accross the much wider, Vesey Street).

However, as I said above Chris 7 does not say it was all within the footprint of WTC 7. He just says that there is too much of it there, in his own opinion.

[Christopher7]

Chris you still haven't shown that WTC7 should have fallen any different than it did whether it was CD or not.Correct

However, the evidence shows that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

It imploded

It collapsed in stages

It fell at a speed consistent with a CD*

It landed mostly in it's own footprint


These FACTS are obvious in the videos and pictures.

These FACTS are verified in the FEMA and NIST reports.

*NIST time line stops at 8.2 seconds.
[West penthouse and screenwall submerged]
Students at BYU calculated the fall of the north and west faces at 6.6 seconds.
The entire collapse took about 15 seconds.

I'm sure you are preparing another 50 pages on the definition of 'mostly',Hopefully, we have put that puppy to bed.

The qualifier 'mostly' is irrelevant because building implosions sometimes have debris fall outside the original footprint and damage nearby structures.

but during your lull time from that perhaps you could explain, with the math, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.I could not explain, with math or any other way, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.

Can you?

NIST determined the above FACTS by analyzing the evidence and tried to get those FACTS to fit the official story.

As of yet, they have not been able to do so.


The evidence shows that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a building implosion.

WTC 7 looks like a professional building implosion

No high rise building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

Therefore, WTC 7 could have been a CD.

[Christopher7]

The fact that in tall structure controlled demolitions the building is designed to come down in its own footprint as a much as possible
is given as weighty evidence that indeed WTC 7 was a controlled demolition,So close, yet so far away.

Will you acknowledge that it is evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition ?

BUT what can be accomplished by man certainly can be accomplished naturally. Natural?

There is nothing natural about a high rise building imploding in 15 seconds.

[GT/CS]

There was no other way for that building to fall. It could not have tipped over, it could not have squashed like a water balloon. It had to fall straight down. It's called gravity. Gravity pulls things down. All buildings of this size and construction type will fall the same way. And they will all look like a cd, they have to, since there is no other way for them to fall.

Get it Chris? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR THEM TO FALL.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, it fell in a manner consistent with Gravity. Just because it reminds you of a CD, which is also the result of Gravity does not mean it is consistent with a CD.

Ships sailing off into the distance and disappearing out of view is consistent with a flat earth. Just as it's consistent with a round earth. One is explained by the ship falling over the edge of the flat earth or going out of view of the round earth. Chris, you're simply making assumptions based on a scenario for which there isn't a single piece of evidence for. And NIST has promised that they will mathematically show what would have been needed to create a scenario with explosives. But no point in waiting for that since your mind is already made up and your argument again is based on taking advantage of everyone not having all the information from the final report which is what is needed to make a proper argument.

[Christopher7]

There was no other way for that building to fall. It could not have tipped over, it could not have squashed like a water balloon. It had to fall straight down. It's called gravity. Gravity pulls things down. All buildings of this size and construction type will fall the same way. And they will all look like a cd, they have to, since there is no other way for them to fall.

Get it Chris? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR THEM TO FALL.Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

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

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

[MaGZ]

On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.


Do we know that? Where is Michael Hess’ statement concerning the explosion ?

[Belz...]

Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

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

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

For the "professional building implosion" bit, you might've wanted to compare 7 WTC with ANOTHER building, not itself.

I just love circular reasoning.

[funk de fino]

On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

ETA: Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."

its in his own words, in interview, how solid do you want it?

so you have thrown this out at the moment cause it does not suit you?

[jaydeehess]

So close, yet so far away.

Will you acknowledge that it is evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition ?

Natural?

There is nothing natural about a high rise building imploding in 15 seconds.

I acknowledge that when buildings fall apart from the center outward the collapses will all look similar no matter the cause.

The "looks like" CD, is barely a blip on any evidentiary radar.

As for 'natural', I am of course refering to forces other than deliberatly and purposefully causing the building to collapse.

Your pictures of earthquake toppled buildings is instructive. each of them failed at or very near the base of the building where the forces generated by the building swaying much more than designed for would cause the most stress. Each of thoe buildings were in pristine condition prior to their toppling (while experiencing lateral forces at ground level) and, there was NO vertical progression of failure.

[jaydeehess]

MaGZ, how's it going in finding that mysterious stairwell with windows or determining how a A2A missile could cause major damage to a stairwell(let alone penetrate 20 feet or so into a building)?

[funk de fino]

http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/hudson.jpg

is there a video of this cd?

[funk de fino]

methinks C7 does not understand the different forces involved in earthquakes and how they affect building structures

silly earthquakes

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, how's it going in finding that mysterious stairwell with windows or determining how a A2A missile could cause major damage to a stairwell(let alone penetrate 20 feet or so into a building)?

Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.

[funk de fino]

Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.

Explain to me exactly how a heat seeking A to A missile target and would hit the WTC7?

Try and find out how much explosives these missiles carry and exactly how they really disable aircraft when they are fired at them?

Do some research on A to A missiles because you are making yourself look very silly here if you think the missile would have targetted and struck the WTC7 and that it could have caused even a miniscule amount of the damage you are claiming

Do not come back till you have more answers

[MaGZ]

Explain to me exactly how a heat seeking A to A missile target and would hit the WTC7?

Try and find out how much explosives these missiles carry and exactly how they really disable aircraft when they are fired at them?

Do some research on A to A missiles because you are making yourself look very silly here if you think the missile would have targetted and struck the WTC7 and that it could have caused even a miniscule amount of the damage you are claiming

Do not come back till you have more answers

Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.

[Dave Rogers]

Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.

Yet another missile? These things are breeding. But if it landed in the Hudson, maybe it's still there? Why not get your Scuba gear out and find it, then some of us might start taking you seriously.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.

AIM 9L will be launched at target and using its seeker follow the heat signature to the target. If the target uses flares to try and fool the missile into looking at another heat signal the missile actually "blinks" and then rescans for the target and locks on again.

Once alongside the target it will explode sending razorsharp fragments into the plane. This is triggered by the proximity fuse IIRC. The missiles do not generally hit and destroy the aircraft with the explosives onboard the missile anywhere near is close enough due to the jet fuel tanks on the target aircraft and the fact the shards from the missile can damage control rods and electrical systems.

The pilot of the attacking aircraft has no control over the missile once it is off the rails, it is autonomous after this point. The range is generally less than 15 miles and dppends on a few of factors.

There is not a lot of explosives inside these missiles, not enough to cause the type of damage you think. The warhead only contains 20lbs explosives in total.

Your videos are not even close to what a missile of this type would look like. they travel at very high speed, up to around Mach 2.5. The ASRAAM is even faster.

What type of aircraft are you saying launched these missiles as it would be more specific as we would know what type exactly you are trying to say would be used. The AIM-9L was generally the standard heatseeker around at that time IIRC, certainly the one I used to load on the aircraft I worked on.

Yet again you are derailing the thread with nonsensse theories without doing basic research yourself though.

[GT/CS]

Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

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

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

You're using earthquake pictures as a rebuttal???!!!! Why expose your ignorance with such pictures? Chris when you get to college be sure to take some geology courses. In the meantime I'll fill you in on a little secret; when the ground moves buildings get thrown about like rag dolls. There was no earthquake in New York on 9/11/2001.

[Drudgewire]

http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/hudson.jpg

is there a video of this cd?
Better yet, is there a video of a CD of a building that size you can't very clearly see where the charges are going off?

[GT/CS]

On the same note, is there a video of a cd of a building (with audio) that you can't clearly HEAR the charges going off.

[Belz...]

Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.

"Perhaps" ?

[Jonnyclueless]

Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake


This is what happens in a professional building implosion



The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

I honestly don't know which is funnier. The missile claim, or comparing earthquake collapses caused by the ground moving to a collapse caused by fire. And BTW, fire and structural damage has ALSO been the cause of building collapses. Please stop being dishonest.

[MaGZ]

AIM 9L will be launched at target and using its seeker follow the heat signature to the target. If the target uses flares to try and fool the missile into looking at another heat signal the missile actually "blinks" and then rescans for the target and locks on again.

Once alongside the target it will explode sending razorsharp fragments into the plane. This is triggered by the proximity fuse IIRC. The missiles do not generally hit and destroy the aircraft with the explosives onboard the missile anywhere near is close enough due to the jet fuel tanks on the target aircraft and the fact the shards from the missile can damage control rods and electrical systems.

The pilot of the attacking aircraft has no control over the missile once it is off the rails, it is autonomous after this point. The range is generally less than 15 miles and dppends on a few of factors.

There is not a lot of explosives inside these missiles, not enough to cause the type of damage you think. The warhead only contains 20lbs explosives in total.

Your videos are not even close to what a missile of this type would look like. they travel at very high speed, up to around Mach 2.5. The ASRAAM is even faster.

What type of aircraft are you saying launched these missiles as it would be more specific as we would know what type exactly you are trying to say would be used. The AIM-9L was generally the standard heatseeker around at that time IIRC, certainly the one I used to load on the aircraft I worked on.

Yet again you are derailing the thread with nonsensse theories without doing basic research yourself though.

Two F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base fired the missiles.

[jaydeehess]

Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.

Oh, I have listened to it MaGZ. Trouble is i only hear what he says, not what I want it to mean, which is the fashion of listening that you, quite apparently, use.

You surmised a stairwell with windows through which they could see the towers. So far you refuse to back up that contention.

Add to that your surmising that the supposed missile would have an abort feature. You fail again to back this contention and now have been informed that no such abort system is available to the pilots.

You keep saying that this air-to-air missile managed to impact WTC 7 and cause enough damage to the building to do various things.
-It starts fires. Perhaps if it went in a window the explosives could start a fire inside.
-It blasts a hole in the building. It has been pointed out several times that A2A missiles contain very little explosive. they are designed to explode and damage an aircraft, not a steel building. If one did manage to hit a building such as the WTC 7 it would leave a scorch mark on the outside of the building most likely. If it entered a window and exploded inside it would shred the contents of the office with shrapnel and, depending on what the interior walls were constructed of, some of that shrapnel might make it into the next room. What it would NOT do, what it could NOT do, is do anything other than superficial damage to concrete or steel work. What it would do if, somehow, it managed to go through windows and open doors and make it into the stairwell where Jennings and Hess were, is shred Jennings and Hess. It would not, could not damage the stairs themselves.

Now be a good Nazi, and play with the other brown shirts. Your ridiculous statements are as bad as anything that Killtown has come up with.

[Jonnyclueless]

Two F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base fired the missiles.

Evidence?

Correction: CIA trained chicken hawks.

[HyJinX]

http://storeforknowledge.com/images/toy-1536b.jpg
Nope...this was used to launch the missiles :rolleyes:

[jaydeehess]

I honestly don't know which is funnier. The missile claim, or comparing earthquake collapses caused by the ground moving to a collapse caused by fire. And BTW, fire and structural damage has ALSO been the cause of building collapses. Please stop being dishonest.

I hope it is dishonesty and not a lack of understanding.

Chris fails to acknowledge that in an earthquake the building fails at or near the foundation, AND then topples because the upper part of the building was moving (swaying) more than it was ever designed to, at the time that the failure occured.


oh, and for "funny". MaGZ wins, hands down, IMHO.

[Christopher7]

Do we know that? Where is Michael Hess’ statement concerning the explosion ? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
[start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]

[Christopher7]

http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/hudson.jpg

is there a video of this cd?
Check out the website in the picture

[Christopher7]

I acknowledge that when buildings fall apart from the center outward the collapses will all look similar no matter the cause.

The "looks like" CD, is barely a blip on any evidentiary radar.So, you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

[Christopher7]

No, it fell in a manner consistent with Gravity. Just because it reminds you of a CD, which is also the result of Gravity does not mean it is consistent with a CD.Gravity has never caused a high rise building to implode without explosives.

NIST has promised that they will mathematically show what would have been needed to create a scenario with explosives.No they haven't.
Do you have a source for that statement or are you talking thru your hat?

But no point in waiting for that since your mind is already made up and your argument again is based on taking advantage of everyone not having all the information from the final report which is what is needed to make a proper argument.The information currently available [videos and pictures] clearly show that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

These FACTS are not going to change in the final report.

It imploded

It collapsed in stages

It fell at a speed consistent with a CD

It landed mostly in it's own footprint

This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

[Drudgewire]

This is what happens in a professional building implosion.
And in situations where large chunks of skyscraper and airliners fall on them. :)

[GT/CS]

Actually, it does not look like any cd I've seen. For the penthouse to fall 1st then the rest of the building seems strange for a cd. Don't they usually go BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, then a slight pause, then everything comes down, more or less at one time?

Why don't you contact some cd companies and find out how they would have taken down the building, then see if that matches the video?

Please don't be hurt if they laugh at you.

[funk de fino]

Check out the website in the picture

I couldnt see the video on the site for that building but i watched every other video they had. You know what I have discovered C7?

Everyone had huge noisy explosions, lots of them. Where are these in the WTC7 videos or testimonies from that day?

And none of them had explosions hours before they fell!

The largest ever building taken down by explosives took 12,000lbs of explosives and it does not look much bigger than the WTC7

The wrold record for tallest is this one you mentioned at 26 stories so WTC7 was possibly a world record, pity the company could not brag about it eh?

Which company do you think carried this world record attempt out?

And I did find the video of the Hudson Building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khD2gZkkSu0

very noisy with lots of explosions again?

and from a fair distance away as well?

thanks, you have just made me more sure you are wrong if that was possible

[Drudgewire]

Actually, it does not look like any cd I've seen. For the penthouse to fall 1st then the rest of the building seems strange for a cd.
The penthouses don't count. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/ssh.gif

[funk de fino]

So, you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

My Brother looks very like my Father but he did not sire me?

[Belz...]

So, you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

Every collapsing building can look like a CD.

[funk de fino]

Two F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base fired the missiles.

Dont embarrass yourself further in here

Go to the NORAD tapes threads and see if your F15 eagle could possibly have been close enough to fire the missile

For one thing, there was no shoot down order at that point anyway even if it was close enough (which is wasnt but I think you know that already)

[Belz...]

Two F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base fired the missiles.

Are you going to stop claiming that or will you ever post some evidence of it ?

[Christopher7]

And in situations where large chunks of skyscraper and airliners fall on them. :) No evidence DD/F caused collapse

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, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

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

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

[Drudgewire]

So, you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?
Wanna buy my holy tortilla? It has Jesus' face on it and might give you the power to perform miracles. :cool:

[Christopher7]

Actually, it does not look like any cd I've seen. For the penthouse to fall 1st then the rest of the building seems strange for a cd. Don't they usually go BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, then a slight pause, then everything comes down, more or less at one time?

Why don't you contact some cd companies and find out how they would have taken down the building, then see if that matches the video?

Please don't be hurt if they laugh at you.Jeff contacted a CD company. The owner doesn't think the lack of boom, boom was cause to doubt what is visually self evident.

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

[funk de fino]

C7 - you need to edit to add to post # 3449

1. There is no evidence of loud explosions heard in a long sequence by any witnesses or captured on recording equipment that would point to a CD like every video on Implosion World

2. No CD on Implosion World has explosions hours before the collapse like C7 is claiming happened on 911

Its only fair?

[funk de fino]

Jeff contacted a CD company. The owner doesn't think the lack of boom, boom was cause to doubt what is visually self evident.

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

Silent explosives?

where do I get some of them then?

I could have done with some of them during the Gulf War

[Drudgewire]

Jeff contacted a CD company. The owner doesn't think the lack of boom, boom was cause to doubt what is visually self evident.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3
Jowenko? LAFFO!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

[Christopher7]

Jowenko? LAFFO!!!!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63884

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your denial.

Everyone here thinks they know more about CD's than the owner of a demolitions company.

He saw several videos of the implosion of WTC 7.

He remained steadfast in his professional opinion.

[Drudgewire]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your denial.
You have one guy with an agenda. We have the world's leading CD experts, in the private and public sector, without any.


And I'm the one in denial. :dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

:dl:

[Christopher7]

You have one guy with an agenda. Agenda? Explain.
We have the world's leading CD experts, in the private and public sector, without any.
No you don't.
Name a few or stop making that claim.

[Drudgewire]

Let's see, there's:
1. Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

2. Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (who you guys wanted SOOOO bad),

3. Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

I'd continue but even pretending this is a debate instead of giving information to a guy with his fingers in his ears going LALALALALAAA would require as much imagination as most of these stupid theories do.

[GT/CS]

Jeff contacted a CD company. The owner doesn't think the lack of boom, boom was cause to doubt what is visually self evident.

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

1st earthquakes, now Jowenko! This is just way too easy. I need more of a challenge.

[Drudgewire]

1st earthquakes, now Jowenko! This is just way too easy. I need more of a challenge.
That's "Mr. No Agenda Jowenko" to you, buddy. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[GT/CS]

Sorry, I haven't learned the proper JREF etiquette yet!

[Christopher7]

C7 - you need to edit to add to post # 3449That post is about the lack of evidence for the official story.
You cannot dispute anything in it so you subject shift.

1. There is no evidence of loud explosions heard in a long sequence by any witnesses or captured on recording equipment that would point to a CD like every video on Implosion World
Are you calling Craig a liar?

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

NIST told they have two videos with sound recorded just before and during the collapse.

2. No CD on Implosion World has explosions hours before the collapse like C7 is claiming happened on 911
Its only fair?It's Michael and Barry who said there were explosions.

[GT/CS]

So Chris, do you agree that we will never agree on this issue and continuing to argue it is senseless?

Good, so if the visual evidence is a wash and we can't agree then what else can we discuss? I know, I know, how about the audio!!!!

No boom, boom means you're losing, badly. You can't even troll your way out of that problem.

[Drudgewire]

Are you calling Craig a liar?

*sigh*

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361

[Christopher7]

Let's see, there's:
1. Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

2. Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (who you guys wanted SOOOO bad),

3. Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E. CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response
Show me where these people say the videos of WTC 7 don't look like a CD.

[Christopher7]

*sigh*

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67361

You all have so much respect for first responders until they say something you can't deal with, then you trash them.

Can you spell 'hypocrite'

[lapman]

Christopher, my challenge to you is finding a multi-story tube-in-a-tube building that has survived an airliner crashing into it at over 500mph and the resulting fires. Just one. Or even one that survived having tons of material crashing into it causing extensive damage and a diesel fuel fed fire. Just one.



While you're at it, provide an example of a controlled demolition by explosives before or since 9/11 that:


The penthouse collapses seconds prior to the rest of the building
Has no sound of the explosive sequence without the sound being muted.
Damages the surrounding buildings.
Ordered and/or carried out by the fire department.
Has firemen running from it saying that the building is going to explode.
Had the term "pull it" used to describe what they were going to do.
Had the walls demolished, columns cut, explosives installed and det chord run accomplished in hours while the building was on fire and without anybody noticing.

[Drudgewire]

You all have so much respect for first responders until they say something you can't deal with, then you trash them.

Can you spell 'hypocrite'

What are you calling his co-workers?

Can you spell "projection?"

[funk de fino]

That post is about the lack of evidence for the official story.
You cannot dispute anything in it so you subject shift.

You should add stuff that is evidence fir the official story?

Like no large explosions?

Are you calling Craig a liar?

I will not pass judgement, but surely you have more than this? there would be thousands of people who heard it, listen to the explosions on implosion world, people for miles would have heard them, there were thousands watching and listening

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

Why is he only hearing it after he is running? He would have started running when he heard a few explosions then saw the building move? he is obviously describing the noise of the building as it hits the deck?

NIST told they have two videos with sound recorded just before and during the collapse.

Eh, I have not seen or heard any sound or video in any film of the WTC7 or seen thosands of people claiming there were multiple huge explosions echoing around Manhattan that day?

It's Michael and Barry who said there were explosions.

You've lost Barry, sorry

I will have a look at Michaels testimony

Now where do I get some of the silent explosives?

[Drudgewire]

Now where do I get some of the silent explosives?
Burning Man duuuuuude. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/350.gif

[funk de fino]

Show me where these people say the videos of WTC 7 don't look like a CD.


Why would they? They might say it looks like one but it isn't one?

Just because something looks like something it does not mean it is something, how can you be so pigheaded about that?

is it cause that is all you have?

I bet they would say it does not sound like a CD

You wouldnt though would you? It would burst the bubble

[lapman]

Former NYPD Officer & 9/11 First Responder Craig Bartmer:
I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

1. He doesn't hear anything until after the collapse is well under way.
2. He is running for his life. How could he distinguish between the sound of an explosive and the sound of the floors collapsing?
Remember. He says that he knows the sound of an explosion as opposed to the sound of explosives. So, why isn't there a single audio recording of the explosive sequence that always accompanies a controlled demolition by explosives?

[Drudgewire]

I bet they would say it does not sound like a CD

You wouldnt though would you? It would burst the bubble

You're talking to people that still quote Romero as if he supports their nonsense.

[GlennB]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your denial.

Everyone here thinks they know more about CD's than the owner of a demolitions company.

He saw several videos of the implosion of WTC 7.

He remained steadfast in his professional opinion.

Several pages back I asked you which video he was shown.

You admitted you didn't know.

Now you say he was shown several.

Methinks you're just resorting to plain LIES.

[jaydeehess]

No evidence DD/F caused collapse

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, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.

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

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

The debris damage could be broken into 3 groups.
1) the damage visible in photos and videos
2) the damage know of by eye witness testimony
3) damage not seen by anyone

1) We can agree that several columns on the south side of the building were severed, that the SW corner had the corner column and several adjacent columns ripped away to a height of more than a dozen stories, that windows were broken over much of the southern face up a couple of dozen stories.

2) We can agree that two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts at the 8th floor, that several persons mention a long , tall gash in the south face of the building.

3) We, I believe, could agree that there well may be internal damage that was not witnessed by anyone.

We know that there was a bulge in the side of the south face. It it quite apparent that a bulge means a huge degree of lateral stress is being put on the internal columns of the structure at, and just above the cantilever truss system that transfers the load of the upper stories above the pre-existing Con-Ed building.

We know that there were then fires on many floors of the building and that one of these major fires burned about the area of the (visible) initiating event and we know that steel does weaken as it is heated.


Therefore we know for fact that this building was in bad condition and that its condition worsened throughout the day.
It creaked and groaned and bulged and was subject to several major fires.
Then it collapsed.

It is too bad that you cannot believe that the violence done to this building, the insults it took, were enough to cause its collapse. However your personal incredulity aside the evidence does indeed point that way.

On the other hand you have nothing but eyewitness reports of "explosions", one occuring very, very likely while one of the towers was collapsing and the other occuring as WTC 7 itself was collapsing. You also claim that the manner of collapse is weighty evidence of something other than DD/F caused collapse when in fact it is indicative soley of a collapse that began along the centerline of the structure which cannot be said to be something that only demolitions could do.

Given all that you have said I personally would put the likihood of this collapse being DD/F, versus demolition caused, at 10 to 1 or better.

[TellyKNeasuss]

deleted

[Drudgewire]

Christopher7 has a great point. If it can't be shown on YouTube, it isn't evidence.
Dude, I was so sure that's where he was going the first time I read his post I thought he said "show me a video of them saying it wasn't a CD." :D

[Christopher7]

What are you calling his co-workers?
9/11 heros

[Jonnyclueless]

"Christopher7 has a great point. If it can't be shown on YouTube, it isn't evidence."

Unless is supports a CD!

[Drudgewire]

9/11 heros
Good answer (despite the spelling) http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/patriot.gif

[Christopher7]

1. He doesn't hear anything until after the collapse is well under way.
2. He is running for his life. How could he distinguish between the sound of an explosive and the sound of the floors collapsing?
Remember. He says that he knows the sound of an explosion as opposed to the sound of explosives.You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.
Deniers mantra #2
It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.

So, why isn't there a single audio recording of the explosive sequence that always accompanies a controlled demolition by explosives?NIST FOIA told me they have 2 videos with sound just before or during the collapse.

Why don't you wait until the final report comes out, and these videos become available, before saying there aren't any videos with sound?

[jaydeehess]

You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.
Deniers mantra #2
It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.


Ct mantra #1
If it can be stretched or twisted to be what we want it to be then do it.

There was a very large building in the process of collapsing when the sounds of "explosions" were heard. Yes they may well have been actual explosions but to assume such is like assuming that the sound of hoofbeats in Alaska during January are being produced wild zebras.

[Christopher7]

Everyone is avoiding the FACTS listed here.
You guys are really good at ignoring that which you cannot dispute and talking about something else.

Is anyone here objective enough to acknowledge that the following FACTS from the NIST report are true?
Do you think NIST didn't get the fire time line correct in the 2 years they had to do so?
They published pictures to verify their conclusions.


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, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

[GT/CS]

Everyone is avoiding the FACTS listed here.
You guys are really good at ignoring that which you cannot dispute and talking about something else.

Is anyone here objective enough to acknowledge that the following FACTS from the NIST report are true?
Do you think NIST didn't get the fire time line correct in the 2 years they had to do so?
They published pictures to verify their conclusions.


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, progressing north

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.


Some time later, fires on 8 and 13



A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

1. Please explain how what you bolded helps your case after you quote all the information about the fires in that area?

2. Is the following your opinion or part of the report?
"A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle."

3. You really don't believe all those fires weakened the building?

4. Why do you behave this way?

[Jonnyclueless]

Please explain why the damage has to be near the initiating event to contribute to the collapse.

[Christopher7]

2. Is the following your opinion or part of the report?
"A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F, and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle."
pg 38 [42 on pg counter]

I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing. 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. As an example, the column capacity curve of column 79 between Floors 5 to 9 is shown in Fig. L–37. Column load-carrying capacities shown in this figure are based on the AISC column capacity formulas (AISC 2001). 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 approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

3. You really don't believe all those fires weakened the building?
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

[GT/CS]

pg 38 [42 on pg counter]

I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing. 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. As an example, the column capacity curve of column 79 between Floors 5 to 9 is shown in Fig. L–37. Column load-carrying capacities shown in this figure are based on the AISC column capacity formulas (AISC 2001). 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 approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."


http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

You're joking right?

Where did you get the 1000 degree figure in the post I questioned you about? How did you go from 500 degrees to 1000 degrees?

You're comparing an 8 story test to a 50 story real building???!!!!

Please also respond to questions 1 & 4.

[Christopher7]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

Please explain why the damage has to be near the initiating event to contribute to the collapse.NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

[Christopher7]

Where did you get the 1000 degree figure in the post I questioned you about? How did you go from 500 degrees to 1000 degrees?
I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: If initiating event components were sufficiently exposed to fire effects to be uniformly heated to elevated temperatures, the steel strength would be reduced below that required to support the load. Figure L–39 shows that for interior columns subject to service loads (shown as approximately 20 ksi of compressive stress),

uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

570 C = 1058 F

You're comparing an 8 story test to a 50 story real building???!!!!
Good point

The columns in a 47 story building would be much larger and therefore take much longer to heat up.

[GT/CS]

Sorry, I missed the F and C differences.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

The fires were caused by the damage, thus no matter how you write it off, the damage will ALWAYS be a contributing factor. And NIST is simply addressing the initiation of the collapse not the other factors which would contribute to the speed of the collapse and other issues the Woo movement use as evidence of a CD.

[Christopher7]

Sorry, I missed the F and C differences.No worries mate

BTW: Humble Texas is a conflict of terms.

[GT/CS]

You're right, there are no humble people in Texas. I think that's why people here pronounced it "umble".

[Christopher7]

The fires were caused by the damage, thus no matter how you write it off, the damage will ALWAYS be a contributing factor.
My bad. I left out the word 'structural'

Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant structural effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.

And NIST is simply addressing the initiation of the collapse not the other factors which would contribute to the speed of the collapseI agree.
The debris damage probably sped up the collapse in the south west portion of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

You're right, there are no humble people in Texas. I think that's why people here pronounced it "umble".Roger that:D

[Belz...]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your denial.

Everyone here thinks they know more about CD's than the owner of a demolitions company.

No, we just think that all the OTHER owners combined know more than that one owner.

He saw several videos of the implosion of WTC 7.

He remained steadfast in his professional opinion.

Good for him.

I'm often wrong about things in my field. Imagine that.

[Belz...]

You all have so much respect for first responders until they say something you can't deal with, then you trash them.

Saying they are wrong is trashing them ? How about when truthers say they lie ?

Show me where these people say the videos of WTC 7 don't look like a CD.

Read that aloud to yourself. Does it make sense ? Hint: no.

You refuse to accept that what he heard could have been demolition charges.

Again. Read that aloud. You should study scientific methodology.

It could have been something other than demolition charges, therefore, it was.

Actually, it's more like "it could not have been demolition charges, therefore it wasn't."

Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

Yes... and we know that "around" means "next to" :rolleyes:

[cloudshipsrule]

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

You don't know that. NIST doesn't know that. Stop saying it as a definitive statement. Try this:

There MAY NOT have been debris damage near the initiating event.

[jaydeehess]

Thank you for your relevant, reasonable and respectfull question.

NIST said:

I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression: Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

They did not include perimeter damage as a possible contributing factor in the collapse.
If it were a factor, they would have included it.


Please explain why you think perimeter column damage to the south west face could have a significant effect on the core columns at the east end if the building.


All that states is that the initiating event did not originate on the perimeter frame. It says nothing at all about how much stress was on any core column or floor span due to the loss of perimeter columns.

What you are quoting here is a flow chart method of determining WHERE the initial failure that led to the collapse occured. It says very little about what caused the inital failure.