10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

1. Please explain how what you bolded helps your case after you quote all the information about the fires in that area?
It doesn't, in fact it detracts from the main point.
Thanks for pointing that out.

[Christopher7]

No, we just think that all the OTHER owners combined know more than that one owner.
Names and sources please.

[Christopher7]

You don't know that. NIST doesn't know that.Yes they do.

They had two years to gather the data.
They have pictures of the south east face.
No heavy debris or debris damage was reported anywhere inside WTC 7

If there was evidence of damage to the area of the initiating event, they would have included it in the progress report.

Just using the evidence we have:

Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

No heavy debris damage to east half of south face was reported.

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 (Spak#) to damage the core columns in the area of the initiating event.
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

There is no large hole or other significant damage to this area between floors 12 and 16.

[Jonnyclueless]

No they DON'T know that. What Chris is trying to do is to say that if something wasn't reported or seen, that it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to know the condition of every inch of the building simply from accounts. Especially since the closer the time came to collapse, the fewer people were around. He is also assuming that when something was reported, that it never changed at any point.

These are all faulty arguments, which is why his claims aren't taken seriously. NIST doesn't know the entire assessment of damage. They can't, and they don't need to. Just lik Chris does not feel he needs to find any evidence of demolitions to conclude there were demolitions. The same infantile tactic could easily be used against his arguments, but he is taking advantage of talking to logical people who would not stoop to his same behavior.

[GT/CS]

Chris, this has been going on so long I forgot the original point.

Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?

For example, the bridge in Minneapolis shouldn't have fallen but it did.

No disrespect intended; I just want to make sure I keep up and don't go in circles.

[Jonnyclueless]

Actually his original point was that there was no hole on the south side of the building. Of course that has been completely disproven by the video footage showing a massive gash that spans what is likely most of the side of the building. So now he has moved onto other points.

[funk de fino]

No heavy debris or debris damage was reported anywhere inside WTC 7


Except by Barry Jennings, he was quite clear in that regard

Can you please explain why thousands of onlookers and all video and sound recording equipment that day did not pick up multiple and huge explosions like the ones on the Implosion Site that you told me to go and look at?

Also, because you seem to be ignoring it, where do I get some of the silent explosives?

[jaydeehess]

Actually his original point was that there was no hole on the south side of the building. Of course that has been completely disproven by the video footage showing a massive gash that spans what is likely most of the side of the building. So now he has moved onto other points.

Indeed, in fact I had said that with the statements that NIST included in its prelim report that it was likely that the gash was not 10 storeys high.
However, with the video you refer to I would have to change my mind on that. The video does seem to indicate a very tall gash in the south face.

Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything in the area of the (visible) initiating event.

[twinstead]

Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything in the area of the (visible) initiating event.

Chris handwaves masterfully that video away as if it is totally meaningless to what happened to WTC7 that day.

[Christopher7]

No they DON'T know that. What Chris is trying to do is to say that if something wasn't reported or seen, that it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to know the condition of every inch of the building simply from accounts. Especially since the closer the time came to collapse, the fewer people were around. He is also assuming that when something was reported, that it never changed at any point.
The debris damage did not change after 11:30 a.m.
11:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]

The face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke

There was access to the area in front of the south east corner.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1955/pedbridge2smnl2.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9192/pedbridge3nh7.jpg

NIST interviewed over 100 witnesses.

No significant debris damage to east half of south face was reported.

NIST doesn't know the entire assessment of damage. You are assuming that.

[Jonnyclueless]

So unless a witness reported it, it isn't possible? Is that what you are saying?

And you are also saying it's not an assumption that NIST knows the entire assessment of damage? Guess that helps their claim of their being no evidence what so ever of any kind of demolition.

[Christopher7]

Chris, this has been going on so long I forgot the original point.
The original point of this thread is:

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' gouge, floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

Who believes that there was a '10 story gouge' and who does not?

ETA 'gouge'

[Christopher7]

Indeed, in fact I had said that with the statements that NIST included in its prelim report that it was likely that the gash was not 10 storeys high.
However, with the video you refer to I would have to change my mind on that. The video does seem to indicate a very tall gash in the south face.The video does NOT show the gouge described on pg 18:

Floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of the south face.

The video does not show that area.

It shows damage further west above the 8th floor.


Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing* because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything* in the area of the (visible) initiating event.How, in your opinion, could damage to the south west face have a significant structural effect* on the core columns in the east end of the building?

[Belz...]

Names and sources please.

Names and sources of people who don't subscribe to your theory and therefore have no reason to say anything about it ? Sure...

[twinstead]

Names and sources of people who don't subscribe to your theory and therefore have no reason to say anything about it ? Sure...

Yes. Of course.

I would suggest, Chris, that you keep to trying to provide evidence to support your theory instead of demanding we find people who don't agree with you.

The ONLY reason anybody would have to make any comment at all on it would be if it contradicts the 'official story'. The sad thing about that little fact is folks like you like to take that as a tacit agreement with your theory until they specifically come out against it.

Of course then that opens them up to be called shills, or stupid, or 'in on it' or whatever truthers are calling people who dare disagree with them nowadays.

Very carefully crafted, if I say so myself.

[jaydeehess]

The original point of this thread is:

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' gouge, floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

Who believes that there was a '10 story gouge' and who does not?

ETA 'gouge'

post 3508

[twinstead]

How, in your opinion, could damage to the south west face have a significant structural effect* on the core columns in the east end of the building?

The issue here is if YOU are indeed qualified to have the opinion that damage to one part of the building could NOT have had any structural effect on another part of the building. You want to hear about some experts who may disagree with you?

Well, perhaps you could ask the experts consulted by Popular Mechanics in the Structural Engineering/Building Collapse section of This (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=9)list.

These are some folks who may disagree with you. Perhaps you could contact a couple of them and tell them that you know better.

[GT/CS]

The original point of this thread is:

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' gouge, floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

Who believes that there was a '10 story gouge' and who does not?

ETA 'gouge'

That is not the point of the thread, it's just the question you asked. Do you think I didn't read the opening post?

What is the point of the thread? What are you trying to prove or what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal by continuing this nit-picking dialog that will never go anywhere or prove anything?

[funk de fino]

C7 - Post # 3507 please?

[twinstead]

That is not the point of the thread, it's just the question you asked. Do you think I didn't read the opening post?

What is the point of the thread? What are you trying to prove or what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal by continuing this nit-picking dialog that will never go anywhere or prove anything?

You have a good point, since Chris was answered on the first page "eye witnesses and video evidence suggests that there was indeed a large area of damage to WTC7. Was it exactly 10 stories? Who knows? Who cares?".

Yet the thread rolls on.

[lapman]

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.Nice duck there Christopher. The fact is that he hears nothing prior to the start of the collapse. He hears the "boom, boom, boom..." after the collapse is well underway and debris is hitting the ground. Why don't you provide an example of another controlled demolition by explosives that has occurred before or since 9/11 that does what he describes.

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?There are plenty of videos ouT there. None of them have the sounds of the explosive sequence. So why would you expect these 2 would be any different since they have already stated that there is no evidence of explosives? The sound on the videos they have would be evidence, so your point is irrelevant.

[jaydeehess]

There was access to the area in front of the south east corner.

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1955/pedbridge2smnl2.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9192/pedbridge3nh7.jpg


No significant debris damage to east half of south face was reported.


Those photos show WTC 7 or WTC 6?

[jaydeehess]

There are plenty of videos ouT there. None of them have the sounds of the explosive sequence. So why would you expect these 2 would be any different since they have already stated that there is no evidence of explosives? The sound on the videos they have would be evidence, so your point is irrelevant.

Chris believes that NIST is hiding the photos and videos that would bolster his own beliefs. Chris believes that NIST's NWO job is to obfuscate and delay so as to have this all blow over.

THAT is why he believes they would be different.

[Christopher7]

Except by Barry Jennings, he was quite clear in that regard

Can you please explain why thousands of onlookers and all video and sound recording equipment that day did not pick up multiple and huge explosions like the ones on the Implosion Site that you told me to go and look at?The government collected and is withholding over 6,000 video clips from 911.

[jaydeehess]

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

post 3523

I suspect I am on Chris's ignore list

[Jonnyclueless]

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

post 3523

[Christopher7]

Those photos show WTC 7 or WTC 6?Please

There was access to the area in front of the south east corner.
[of WTC7]

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/1955/pedbridge2smnl2.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/9192/pedbridge3nh7.jpg

From 11:30 to 2:30 the fire on the south side on floor 12 was observed as it progressed to the south east corner.
The firefighters had 3 hours to observe the debris damage to the east half of the south side.
NIST has 25 pictures of that area.
NIST had 2 years to analyze these pictures.

They interviewed over 100 witnesses.
The witness who observed the following did not report a gouge, a hole or steel ripped out.

”debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium”
[cannot co-exist with - gouge, floor ten to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/1332/copyofatriumsmcb8.jpg

[Christopher7]

Chris believes that NIST is hiding the photos and videos that would bolster his own beliefs. Chris believes that NIST's NWO job is to obfuscate and delay so as to have this all blow over.

THAT is why he believes they would be different.Correct

Six + years to investigate the collapse of WTC 7 = delay IMO.

If, as the Bush appointed director* of the NIST investigation suggests, WTC 7 collapsed mainly due to fire, a prompt investigation of the cause is essential to protect lives and property in other similar buildings.

*More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment.

[Jonnyclueless]

No it is not 6+ years because you are trying to claim that they started the WTC 7 investigation on day 1, which simply is not true. And the reason it didn't take as long for the WTC 1 &2 which preceded 7 was because they put many extra people on it to get it done in a faster than usual manner.

And again Chris is trying to use the logic that unless someone witnessed something, it doesn't exist.

Yeah 60 influential scientists. That's certainly ONE way to refer to the Woo gang.

[Norseman]

If, as the Bush appointed director* of the NIST investigation suggests, WTC 7 collapsed mainly due to fire, a prompt investigation of the cause is essential to protect lives and property in other similar buildings.


Why do think NIST is doing this:
http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm

????

[Christopher7]

What is the point of the thread? This thread is an investigation of the facts.
Writing responses to the thought provoking questions presented here requires a lot of research and thought.
I have learned a great deal by researching the data and evidence in the documents presented here.
Gravy pointed out that there was a logo on all four sides of WTC 7 and i withdrew my statement that Chief Fellini was standing in front of WTC 7.
Belz will point out any overstatement of facts.
Others have provided evidence that required me to change my position and statements.
Thank you

I came into this discussion believing that WTC 7 was a CD.
You [all] came into this discussion believing it was not.

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table,
and analysis of fire behavior.

What are you trying to prove or what do you hope to accomplish? Here is part of what i have accomplished:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

”debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium”
[cannot co-exist with - gouge, floor ten to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/1332/copyofatriumsmcb8.jpg



FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

[Norseman]

If, as the Bush appointed director* of the NIST investigation suggests, WTC 7 collapsed mainly due to fire, a prompt investigation of the cause is essential to protect lives and property in other similar buildings.


Why do you think NIST is doing this:
http://wtc.nist.gov/recommendations/recommendations.htm

????

[GT/CS]

This thread is an investigation of the facts.
Writing responses to the thought provoking questions presented here requires a lot of research and thought.
I have learned a great deal by researching the data and evidence in the documents presented here.
Gravy pointed out that there was a logo on all four sides of WTC 7 and i withdrew my statement that Chief Fellini was standing in front of WTC 7.
Belz will point out any overstatement of facts.
Others have provided evidence that required me to change my position and statements.
Thank you

I came into this discussion believing that WTC 7 was a CD.
You [all] came into this discussion believing it was not.

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table,
and analysis of fire behavior.

Here is part of what i have accomplished:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

”debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium”
[cannot co-exist with - gouge, floor ten to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/1332/copyofatriumsmcb8.jpg



FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

So you started this thread so these other posters will motivate you to research your theory that there was no 10-story gouge?

OK, looks like you've pretty well proven it to yourself. Now what? What are you going to do with that huge list of things you say you've learned? What is your ultimate goal?

[Dave Rogers]

If, as the Bush appointed director* of the NIST investigation suggests, WTC 7 collapsed mainly due to fire, a prompt investigation of the cause is essential to protect lives and property in other similar buildings.

Yes, that would have been nice. Unfortunately, it appears that the whole investigation got derailed by a bunch of idiots throwing around specious CD arguments without a shred of proof to back them up, as a result of which NIST are now having to investigate a series of blast scenarios that properly belong in cloud-cuckoo land. This is a classic example of truth movement hypocrisy; they increase NIST's workload, then complain that they haven't finished soon enough.

Dave

[funk de fino]

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

The ones we have see - nothing. Do you suspect someone filmed it and did not notice these sounds before giving up any images? How many from WTC7?

The thousands of onlookers?? Where are their testimonies?

Barry Jennings claims please, he is very specific about the damage inside the looby area and the hole he was taken out?

Another handwaving dodge of a post to things that destroy your story, you are fooling noone

[Christopher7]

So you started this thread so these other posters will motivate you to research your theory that there was no 10-story gouge? I was already motivated.
Debating here has been useful in finding the facts.

OK, looks like you've pretty well proven it to yourself. Now what? What are you going to do with that huge list of things you say you've learned?Huge list?

There are 5 statements describing debris damage that are in conflict with the 1 statement about a '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]

The 10 story gouge cannot co-exist with 4 of them.


It looks like you don't believe there was

debris damage starting several stories above the atrium

or that

the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact

or that there was

no heavy debris in the lobby area

or that

the only damage to the south face on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

[GT/CS]

I was already motivated.
Debating here has been useful in finding the facts.

Huge list?

There are 5 statements describing debris damage that are in conflict with the 1 statement about a '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]

The 10 story gouge cannot co-exist with 4 of them.


It looks like you don't believe there was

debris damage starting several stories above the atrium

or that

the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact

or that there was

no heavy debris in the lobby area

or that

the only damage to the south face on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

How in the world did you read that into my question about what you are going to do with your data?

Actually, I believe 7 was severely damaged by falling debris. That damage, and the fires that burned all day, was more than the structure could handle and collapsed. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. And I'm the world's biggest Bush hater so if I thought there was a conspiracy involving him I'd be all over it. The evidence just isn't there.

That's why I wonder why you keep up this ridiculous arguing about issues that you either refuse to accept or don't have the ability to understand.

[Christopher7]

How in the world did you read that into my question about what you are going to do with your data?It's in response to:
"OK, looks like you've pretty well proven it to yourself." and "huge list"

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini]

Actually, I believe 7 was severely damaged by falling debris. That damage, and the fires that burned all day, was more than the structure could handle and collapsed. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.Until you look at the evidence.

It's easy to generalize and say
"There was severe debris damage and fires that burned all day."
but a careful look at the evidence shows:

There was no '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]

There were no diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7

[GT/CS]

It's in response to:
"OK, looks like you've pretty well proven it to yourself." and "huge list"

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini]

Until you look at the evidence.

It's easy to generalize and say
"There was severe debris damage and fires that burned all day."
but a careful look at the evidence shows:

There was no '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]

There were no diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7

Ah, now I'm starting to understand how your lack of reasoning works, and how your responses have nothing to do with what you are responding to. You infer by your reply that I said something about a 10-story gouge and diesel fires. I never said anything about such thing. There are real good prescription drugs that can help you focus.

[Christopher7]

You infer by your reply that I said something about a 10-story gouge and diesel fires. I never said anything about such thing. There are real good prescription drugs that can help you focus.
I am focused on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] which is original point of this thread.

You are avoiding the point by talking about me.

Will you please respond directly to this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini]

[Christopher7]

Barry Jennings claims please, he is very specific about the damage inside the looby area and the hole he was taken out?
Barry's statement seems to conflict with the firefighters who rescued him.

He is in conflict with the statement he made on 9/11 when he said:

When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.
I was left there hanging.
I had to climb back up.

This was the most intense moment. One he would remember all his life.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you describe this experience as:

"Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

The two statements are irreconcilable. IMO
As i have said before, i take all witness statements at face value unless there is a reason to doubt their statements.


On the other hand, when two people make the same statement;

We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!

another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion!

that should be considered more compelling than a statement by one person.


BTW: Barry “the landing that we were standing on gave way.”
Mr. Hess did not say he was left hanging.
How could both men ‘forget’ about the most traumatic moments of the experience when interviewed on 9/11.



Please respond to post #3540 before asking another question.
Thank you

[GT/CS]

I am focused on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] which is original point of this thread.

You are avoiding the point by talking about me.

Will you please respond directly to this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini]

I thought I told you what I believe but if it will make you happy (and I want to make you happy because you seem to be unraveling) we'll do it again.

I believe there was significant damage to the building from falling debris. I don't know if the "gouge" was 20 stories or 8 stories so I can't answer your question about a "10 story gouge".

How about answering my question from a while back?
"Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?"

[Christopher7]

I believe there was significant damage to the building from falling debris. I don't know if the "gouge" was 20 stories or 8 stories so I can't answer your question about a "10 story gouge".You skated around the question but you did not answer it.

Do you believe the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] existed as described, or was it a misinterpretation of other damage further west.


How about answering my question from a while back?
"Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?"When you give a straightforward answer about the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18], i will respond to your CD questions
here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

[Unfit4Command]

Hey Chris, what does NIST say about the '10 story gouge' in their Final Report on building 7?

[Christopher7]

Hey Chris, what does NIST say about the '10 story gouge' in their Final Report on building 7?Skating, sidestepping, Is anyone here honest enough to give a straightforward answer?

[Belz...]

Spam, spam, spam.

[funk de fino]

Barry's statement seems to conflict with the firefighters who rescued him.

He is in conflict with the statement he made on 9/11 when he said:

When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.
I was left there hanging.
I had to climb back up.

This was the most intense moment. One he would remember all his life.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you describe this experience as:

"Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

The two statements are irreconcilable. IMO
As i have said before, i take all witness statements at face value unless there is a reason to doubt their statements.


On the other hand, when two people make the same statement;

We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!

another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion!

that should be considered more compelling than a statement by one person.


BTW: Barry “the landing that we were standing on gave way.”
Mr. Hess did not say he was left hanging.
How could both men ‘forget’ about the most traumatic moments of the experience when interviewed on 9/11.



Please respond to post #3540 before asking another question.
Thank you

Barry Jennings said the lobby looked like King Kong had wrecked it and that he got taken out a hole in the wall by the first responders

You said earlier that there was no major damage in the lobby, he says there was

This is all I need to know because you are the one who used him as a witness and now you are doubting him

I am not interested in your little games, you refuse to answer all questions put to you that show your theory to be mixed and muddled and incorrect

This is what I am focuing on why do I need to answer on something that is of no relevance to me?

I believe that the building was damaged by debri quite severely and fires started that burned on many floor for many hours and this weakened the building and it came down. I have seen photos of the damage, photos of the fires, i have seen testimonies about both. There is nothing else I have seen or heard that can take the place of the official theory in my eyes at the moment. This is without the final report. You have shown nothing except word games and playing with the prelim report. If there are slight mistakes in it then fine but overall the theory that I see is acceptable to me. Nothing you have contradicts it.

If you had videos of the building falling with huge and multiple explosions from CD like on Implosion world, you then had thousands of witnesses who said they seen and heard these explosions, then you had numerous experts saying that after reading the full report and looking at all evidence that they believed it was CD then you would have a case. You have nothing like this. Your main witness you have you now have to discount. The videos I have seen have no explosions. There are not thousands of witnesses to the explosions. The final report is not out and the only demolition guys you have only saw a couple of videos that you claimed you knew which ones but in fact later claimed you did not know.

How many WTC7 videos are being witheld C7?

[GT/CS]

You skated around the question but you did not answer it.

Do you believe the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] existed as described, or was it a misinterpretation of other damage further west.


When you give a straightforward answer about the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18], i will respond to your CD questions
here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

I believe the firefighters who say there was a huge gouge in the bulding and the lobby was a disaster area. I cannot pinpoint exactly where the gouge was, and neither can you, but it really doesn't matter. I also believe the firefighters who looked at the wall through a transit and saw that the building was leaning.

I have no desire to waste my time debunking your "facts" because it's been done time and time again on these threads. You would just ignore the evidence anyway, just as you have in the past.

I am more interested in why you ignore most of the evidence but look for and religiously latch onto, tiny details that you think prove your point.

So I'll ask again, what is your point? Are you trying to tell us that 7 shouldn't have fallen without cds or are you trying to tell us that it couldn't have fallen without cds? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your altogether and you're trying to tell us something else. If so what is it?

[tsig]

Skating, sidestepping, Is anyone here honest enough to give a straightforward answer?


Yes.

[jaydeehess]

I came into this discussion believing that WTC 7 was a CD.
You [all] came into this discussion believing it was not.

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the accepted position amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage). The idea of it being a CD came later when some of us stumbled upon the conspiracy theories. I have seen the supposed evidence for a CD and found it wanting to say the least.

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table,
and analysis of fire behavior.

yes it did since the original question is put to rest with the images of a gouge that is highly suggestive of exactly what is described.
Here is part of what i have accomplished:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]


FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

"When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors..." [Do you think he did not notice a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81



The statements are not mutually exclusive unless you REQUIRE that they all agree 100%

Oddly you do not accept all of Jenning's ststement but are unwilling to acknowledge that the FF's statements are all estimates of damages they saw in conditions of dust and smoke. To that end you even have tried to deny the existance of dust and smoke.

The varying assesments of the height of the gouge are from people who were operating in a dust and smoke clouded enviroment and giving statements about things they might have only looked at for a few minutes in a very busy and emotional day.

The FF who walked along the 9th floor did so most likely along the hallway and opened office doors and called for anyone who may still be inside. His first duty, to locate possible persons in the building.

The FF's who stated no heavy debris in the lobby were looking at a lobby that was basically monchromatic, from one end of the lobby. Their first duty ,it is supposed, at that time was to escort civilians out of the building. Their look at the lobby was cursory at best.

debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

The atrium is quite wide and existed in two parts, east and west. It is quite possible for part of the atrium glass to be intact whereas the person making that statement may well not actually state that what he meant was that some of the glass was intact. In fact it is folly to expect that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. Look at the bloody pictures of the building Chris. the greatest damage occured on lower floors and the Cirone pictures show the debris in the street and broken windows on the north side of WTC 6. You cannot honestly expect that all of the atrium windows were intact and therefore the part of the statement that the atrium glass was intact can be shown to not mean that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. In fact given that it is included in the same statement that says that a gouge went down to the ground level illustrates that the statement does not refer to ALL of the atrium glass.

[Christopher7]

Barry Jennings said the lobby looked like King Kong had wrecked it and that he got taken out a hole in the wall by the first responders
You said earlier that there was no major damage in the lobby, he says there wasWrong
A statement in NIST Apx. L said there was no debris in the lobby

This is all I need to know because you are the one who used him as a witness and now you are doubting him
I believe what he said on 9/11 because Michael Hess said the same thing.

I am not interested in your little games, you refuse to answer all questions put to you that show your theory to be mixed and muddled and incorrect
Wrong, i answer questions about CD in the C7 --- C4 thread.

This is what I am focuing on why do I need to answer on something that is of no relevance to me?
You refuse to acknowledge that that the '10 story gouge [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

The '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was the most serious damage mentioned in the NIST report. That damage was shown in the graphics on pg 23, 31 and 32 and mentioned in the summary as
"Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81"

It is very relevant.

I believe that the building was damaged by debri quite severely and fires started that burned on many floor for many hours and this weakened the building and it came down. I have seen photos of the damage, photos of the fires, i have seen testimonies about both.That's your reasoning. There was debris damage and fires.
That's a general statement. It ignores the FACT that there was no debris damage to or near the area where the collapse began.

There is nothing else I have seen or heard that can take the place of the official theory in my eyes at the moment. This is without the final report. You have shown nothing except word games and playing with the prelim report. If there are slight mistakes in it then fine but overall the theory that I see is acceptable to me. Nothing you have contradicts it.I have listed 5 statements from official reports that contradict the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18].

If you had videos of the building falling with huge and multiple explosions from CD like on Implosion world, you then had thousands of witnesses who said they seen and heard these explosions, You choose to ignore the visual evidence for want of sound evidence.

Danny Jowenko, and the 2 professors of structural analysis and construction, did not consider the lack of sound a problem.

then you had numerous experts saying that after reading the full report and looking at all evidence that they believed it was CD then you would have a case. You have nothing like this.There are now 168 architects and engineers who have looked at the evidence and have concluded that WTC 7 was a CD.
They do not consider the lack of sound a problem.

Your main witness you have you now have to discount.Wrong, wrong
He is not 'my' witness nor is he a 'main' witness.
He is a witness.

The videos I have seen have no explosions. The videos show the top half or start after the collapse began.

[Christopher7]

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the accepted position amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).WRONG!

The accepted position is: The working hypothesis "appears possible".


The idea of it being a CD came later when some of us stumbled upon the conspiracy theories. I have seen the supposed evidence for a CD and found it wanting to say the least.The idea came to my mind when i saw this.

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

[lapman]

That's your reasoning. There was debris damage and fires.
That's a general statement. It ignores the FACT that there was no debris damage to or near the area where the collapse began.The damage could have easily overstressed the trusses in the area where the collapse began.

You choose to ignore the visual evidence for want of sound evidence.

Danny Jowenko, and the 2 professors of structural analysis and construction, did not consider the lack of sound a problem.
The 2 professors do not state that it was absolutely a CD. Danny looked at a muted video so he would have assumed the sound of the explosives was there. He did not see the east penthouse collapse 8.2 seconds prior to the collapse. He did not know the extent of the fires or of the diesel fuel storage in the building. So he was basing his opinion on very limited data.

There are now 168 architects and engineers who have looked at the evidence and have concluded that WTC 7 was a CD.
They do not consider the lack of sound a problem.
Please provide a link to all 168 articles that state this. How many of the address the east penthouse collapse? How many address the diesel fuel storage?

[GT/CS]

Chris, someone (sorry I don't remember who it was) had an interesting comment on another thread that applies here.

Do you know that a portion of the pentagon collapsed some time after the plane hit it? Do you agree that a portion of the pentagon did collapse without any further outside influences? If you agree that it collapsed why did it do so? Could it have been because of the fires?

Be sure to answer this question after you reply to my other one.

Thanks

[Christopher7]

The damage could have easily overstressed the trusses in the area where the collapse began. Source?
The 2 professors do not state that it was absolutely a CD. "In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".


Danny looked at a muted video so he would have assumed the sound of the explosives was there. He did not see the east penthouse collapse 8.2 seconds prior to the collapse. He did not know the extent of the fires or of the diesel fuel storage in the building. So he was basing his opinion on very limited data.There was no doubt in his mind.

He is an expert, you are not.

He knows far better than you how much data he needs to say it was a CD.

Please provide a link to all 168 articles that state this. How many of the address the east penthouse collapse? How many address the diesel fuel storage?Good point.

I overstated the wording. My bad.
[emphasis mine]
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.


You also made a good point about Craig not hearing the 'clap of thunder' that Daryl heard.

This conflict of statements brings one of these two statements into question.

Thus lessening the sparse evidence of explosions.

There is still this

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

and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ)

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

If you wish to discuss the issue further i will respond here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320


Would you please respond to post #3531
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714


Chris

[Christopher7]

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table, and analysis of fire behavior.


yes it did since the original question is put to rest with the images of a gouge that is highly suggestive of exactly what is described.Wrong
There are NO images of the middle 1/4 to 1/3 of the south face, floor 10 to the ground.
There are NO images that 'suggest' such a hole existed there.
This image shows that there is no heavy damage east of column 5, above floor 10, other than the large hole around floor 14 just west of center as described on pg 18.

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


The statements are not mutually exclusive unless you REQUIRE that they all agree 100%Wrong

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8063/atriumgraphicgi9.jpg

The ground to floor 5 part of the atrium is between the pedestrian bridge on the right and the promenade on the left
[Spak columns 9 - 12]
The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 cannot co-exist with:

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact"

The damage is 1/4 the width of the south face but it starts several floors above the atrium [floor 8 +or-] and stops above the 5th floor.
Any 'to the ground' damage would have to be west of column 9.

There's still the fact that any 'to the ground gouge' would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

And the problem with the Chief in charge of operations failing to notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep.

Oddly you do not accept all of Jenning's ststement but are unwilling to acknowledge that the FF's statements are all estimates of damages they saw in conditions of dust and smoke. To that end you even have tried to deny the existance of dust and smoke.Barry and the firefighters saw the lobby at the same time.
The firefighters said there was no heavy debris, just a white dust coating and wires hanging from the ceiling.
Barry said the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had stepped on it.
Thats very colorful but not very descriptive.
Furthermore, Barry said:
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. [Trade Towers]

The FF who walked along the 9th floor did so most likely along the hallway and opened office doors and called for anyone who may still be inside. His first duty, to locate possible persons in the building. "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side."

The FF's who stated no heavy debris in the lobby were looking at a lobby that was basically monchromatic, from one end of the lobby. Their first duty ,it is supposed, at that time was to escort civilians out of the building. Their look at the lobby was cursory at best. You have no idea from where or for how long they looked at the lobby.

The atrium is quite wide and existed in two parts, east and west. It is quite possible for part of the atrium glass to be intact Yes, the east part could be intact and the west part could be partly or totally broken.

In fact it is folly to expect that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. Look at the bloody pictures of the building Chris.It would be folly to believe there was a 10 story gouge in the same place where they describe damage between the 8th and the 5th floors and the atrium glass intact.

the greatest damage occured on lower floors and the Cirone pictures show the debris in the street and broken windows on the north side of WTC 6. You cannot honestly expect that all of the atrium windows were intact and therefore the part of the statement that the atrium glass was intact can be shown to not mean that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. Double talk.
The statement is clear "noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
They meant the atrium glass between the pedestrian bridge and the promenade, from the ground to floor 5, was intact.

In fact given that it is included in the same statement that says that a gouge went down to the ground levelWrong
That was a separate statement.

[jaydeehess]

WRONG!

The accepted position is: The working hypothesis "appears possible".

How about I change what i said to:

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the working hypothysis amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).
Better??




The idea came to my mind when i saw this.

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

,,, and you came to this then by first seeing a bare glimpse of what occured. You can barely see that the upper structures were involved first, you see nothing of the lower portion and only the north side.

Oddly enough I saw the same(or similar) video in the evening of Sept 11(IIRC) and did not have the thought that it must be a demolition. Instead I quite considered that it succumbed to the effects of the fires and damage incurred through the day. Later, when the NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT stated that their working hypothysis was exactly that I had and still have, no reason to doubt it.

You go on and on about what is in the NIST report (appendix l) yet fail miserably to note the many references to the FACT that this is a preliminary report.
(bolds mine)
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were
observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east
side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.
From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears
possible:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

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

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.


Yet somehoiw you KNOW that it was a CD that brought the building down and claim that there is more compelling evidence for such a senario.
You make these claims while also proclaiming that NIST is being deliberatly obfuscating and producing reports specifically designed to hide the supposed fact that it was a CD. In this way when the final report does come out and states that a CD was one of the least likely senarios you will simply slander the NIST researchers once again and include them all in the group that is in-on-it.
It seems odd then that all of your construction projects are not circular in nature given that your arguements concerning WTC 7 are certainly circular in nature.

[jaydeehess]

Wrong
There are NO images of the middle 1/4 to 1/3 of the south face, floor 10 to the ground.
There are NO images that 'suggest' such a hole existed there.
This image shows that there is no heavy damage east of column 5, above floor 10, other than the large hole around floor 14 just west of center as described on pg 18.


jaydeehess:
The varying assesments of the height of the gouge are from people who were operating in a dust and smoke clouded enviroment and giving statements about things they might have only looked at for a few minutes in a very busy and emotional day.


In other words Chris these reports are not EXACTING. Make it 1/6th the width and slightly west of center and it matchs what is seen in the pictures.



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


ONLY if you absolutly insist that the report is 100% accurate but because it isn't you claim inconsistency.



There's still the fact that any 'to the ground gouge' would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

once again you INSIST that F's exiting the building would simply have to have been able to see the entire lobby and make a full assessment of it from their vantage point as they aided civilians out of the building. It stands to reason that they were not in the process of making a thorough survey of the lobby if they were escorting civilians. Their first order of business was to get the civilians out and to safety.

And the problem with the Chief in charge of operations failing to notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep.

Again, if in fact it was exactly those dimensions and he could see the entire building and if he was refering to the same damaged area.

Barry and the firefighters saw the lobby at the same time.
The firefighters said there was no heavy debris, just a white dust coating and wires hanging from the ceiling.

No, they said that there was no heavy debris visible as they exited the building. You stretch this to mean that they surveyed the entire lobby and found no heavy debris.

Barry said the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had stepped on it.
Thats very colorful but not very descriptive.

It hardly means that there was no heavy debris in the lobby though.

Furthermore, Barry said:
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. [Trade Towers]


If one listens to his account it is not clear when it was that he saw both buildings standing, before they started down the stairs or when they got to the 8th floor window. There are no windows in the stairwells unless you wish to subscribe to MaGZ's suggestion of other stairwells not in evidence as existing.
They most certainly are not both still standing when they went through the lobby unless their estimate (and I assume they both had watches) of the amount of time they were in WTC 7 on the 8th floor. In fact if they were on the 8th floor from some time after the 23rd floor was empty and for an hour and a half we absolutly know that both towers were down by then.

"According to the account of a firefighter who [B]walked the 9th floor along the south side."

Which does not mean that he walked along the southernmost wall of the building. In fact he could not have unless he was chopping through intervening walls.

You have no idea from where or for how long they looked at the lobby.

Neither do you. However as I said above they were in the process of escorting civilians out. That certainly means that their first course of action was to get those civilians OUT of the building, not stand around and make a good visual survey of the lobby.

Yes, the east part could be intact and the west part could be partly or totally broken.

we agree

It would be folly to believe there was a 10 story gouge in the same place where they describe damage between the 8th and the 5th floors and the atrium glass intact.

Yes, why do you insist then that the atrium glass that was intact must be in the same place as the damage?

Double talk.
The statement is clear "noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
They meant the atrium glass between the pedestrian bridge and the promenade, from the ground to floor 5, was intact.

Wishful thinking on your part that is predicated upon the "middle" of the south face actually being centered on the south face of the building.

Wrong
That was a separate statement.

It is in the same bulleted item in the NIST report. Is that more clear to you?

[Christopher7]

How about I change what i said to:

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the working hypothysis amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).
Better?? Yes, but, you don't know what 'all those involved' think individually.

and you came to this then by first seeing a bare glimpse of what occured. You can barely see that the upper structures were involved first, you see nothing of the lower portion and only the north side.

Oddly enough I saw the same(or similar) video in the evening of Sept 11(IIRC) and did not have the thought that it must be a demolition. Instead I quite considered that it succumbed to the effects of the fires and damage incurred through the day. Later, when the NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT stated that their working hypothysis was exactly that I had and still have, no reason to doubt it.Do you believe the statement on pg 18 describing a '10 story gouge in the middle of the south face' or do you believe the 5 statements that are in conflict with that statement?

[jaydeehess]

Yes, but, you don't know what 'all those involved' think individually.

Neither do you. However it would be very wishful thinking on your part to believe that there are those amoung them that would be in any way close to agreement with you on CD of the building.

Do you believe the statement on pg 18 describing a '10 story gouge in the middle of the south face' or do you believe the 5 statements that are in conflict with that statement?

Did you have trouble reading my recent posts concerning those statements?

[Christopher7]

In other words Chris these reports are not EXACTING. Make it 1/6th the width and slightly west of center and it matchs what is seen in the pictures.Then you agree that the 10 story gouge, as described on pg 18, was smaller than described and west of center.
Correct?

[jaydeehess]

Then you agree that the 10 story gouge, as described on pg 18, was smaller than described and west of center.
Correct?

No!

I believe that with the video and photographic evidence coupled with the statements from those who were there that it is patently obvious that there was serious, major structural damage visible along the south face of the building, predominantly west of center and that damage was likely at least 20 feet wide and extended several stories from the ground up.

We know conclusively that such damge did occur in the SW corner and reports that similar damge occured further east cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I am saying that you dismiss statements based upon your own personal desires.

If the gouge was slightly west of center and not quite 30 feet wide then it fits the description given by people who were there that day.

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse. I go back to the example of the garage you worked on. How would that garage react if you hooked your truck up to a chain attached to several studs(in a building not weakened by termites) and quickly ripped those studs out? You keep harping that the building could stand to lose a few strucural members but fail to understand that they were not simply removed, they were violently ripped out.

I am saying that you make definitive statements with little evidence to go on. That you have a pathlogical requirement to make such definitive statements even when it is obvious that you do not have the neccessary evidence upon which to draw such conclusions and that the conclusions you do make are colored by your own prejudices, and that it frustrates yopu that others will not follow your lead and make such definitive statements using the same evidence or lack of evidence.

Bye now, my life (and my wife) awaits

[twinstead]

Chris has carefully crafted his argument so as to not have to present any evidence at all to support it.

I suspect he thinks we haven't noticed.

[MaGZ]

There are no windows in the stairwells unless you wish to subscribe to MaGZ's suggestion of other stairwells not in evidence as existing.


Isn’t it just common sense that there would be a service elevator in WTC 7 and a stairwell adjacent to the elevator?

[Christopher7]

Chris has carefully crafted his argument so as to not have to present any evidence at all to support it.

I suspect he thinks we haven't noticed.Where have you been?

Here is the evidence:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter] http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

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


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."
[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium.”
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

“the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"
[cannot co-exist with – gouge, floor 10 to the ground]

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8063/atriumgraphicgi9.jpg



FEMA Chapter 5 pg 20
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
“When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors.....”
[Do you think he did not notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

[twinstead]

Chris. You are NOT presenting evidence to support your conclusion, you are trying to find fault in the PRELIMINARY NIST report therefore implying that your ludicrous CD theory is the winning theory by default. Exactly how is this evidence?

Give me some physical evidence of CD. Give me a consensus of CD experts, or a group of scientists with similar expertise as the contributers of the NIST who disagree with their conclusion. This is your claim, PROVE IT. You are also accepting witness accounts that might possibly be construed as supporting your position as the gospel, and totally ignoring witness accounts that contradict your position. That is poor investigative technique.

You've been doing this for a bazillion pages. Your movement is floundering. This is your moment. This is probably your last chance to find a law enforcement agency anywhere in the world, to find a REAL media outlet anywhere in the world, to find a reporter, ANY REPORTER, anywhere in the world who might like a Pulitzer Prize, and CONVINCE SOMEBODY, for God's sake.

And, you obviously think we DON'T SEE IT.

[Christopher7]

No!

I believe that with the video and photographic evidence coupled with the statements from those who were there that it is patently obvious that there was serious, major structural damage visible along the south face of the building, predominantly west of center and that damage was likely at least 20 feet wide and extended several stories from the ground up.Nice tap dance around the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18]
You just can't bring yourself to admit that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage west of center.

Will you agree that the only significant damages, east of center was:
“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium.”



We know conclusively that such damge did occur in the SW corner and reports that similar damge occured further east cannot be dismissed out of hand.Agreed

I am saying that you dismiss statements based upon your own personal desires.Wrong
I have dismissed nothing.

If the gouge was slightly west of center and not quite 30 feet wide then it fits the description given by people who were there that day.
Agreed [except for slightly, column 6 [Spak#] is 36 feet west of center]

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse. There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.


I go back to the example of the garage you worked on. How would that garage react if you hooked your truck up to a chain attached to several studs(in a building not weakened by termites) and quickly ripped those studs out? You keep harping that the building could stand to lose a few strucural members but fail to understand that they were not simply removed, they were violently ripped out.That would put stress on the entire structure as the studs pulled away. The stress would be the greatest on framing members closest to the studs being ripped out. The angle bracing would prevent any significant amount of stress from reaching the other end.

[Christopher7]

you are trying to find fault in the PRELIMINARY NIST report therefore implying that your ludicrous CD theory is the winning theory by default. Exactly how is this evidence?
I am pointing out that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

[jaydeehess]

Isn’t it just common sense that there would be a service elevator in WTC 7 and a stairwell adjacent to the elevator?

No. It would be common sense to find out if indeed there was a stairwell that fits the description of the one you propose. There wasn't. Look at the NIST appendix l MaGZ, or find any other reference to the layout of the building and you will simply not find any stairwell that has windows much less windows to the south face of the building.

[jaydeehess]

There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.

BECAUSE, this was a preliminary report

Quote:
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were
observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east
side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.
From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears
possible:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

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

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.



That would put stress on the entire structure as the studs pulled away. The stress would be the greatest on framing members closest to the studs being ripped out. The angle bracing would prevent any significant amount of stress from reaching the other end.

What angle bracing? I told you that this would be done without adding anything to the structure that was not already there. No garage I have been in has any angle bracing. No one went into WTC 7 and introduced extra angle bracing on Sept 10/01

[Christopher7]

I have no problem with the idea that such major damage causing stresses within the structure and causing other internal damage within the structure that would assist in causing the initial failure that led to global progressive collapse.
There is nothing in the NIST report or elsewhere to support that belief.
BECAUSE, this was a preliminary reportNo, it is because the shear built into any bearing wall or column row would prevent significant stresses from being transfered to columns away from the damaged areas.
This is what NIST was pointing out in this statement.

"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 sizable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

What angle bracing? I told you that this would be done without adding anything to the structure that was not already there*. No garage I have been in has any angle bracing**. No one went into WTC 7 and introduced extra angle bracing on Sept 10/01You know nothing about framing.
In any bearing wall, it is necessary to have shear strength.
[the strength to stop a row of studs or columns from collapsing to the side along the length of the row]

l l l l l > / / / / / > _ _ _ _ _

The exterior walls of WTC 7 had moment frames on perimeter columns for shear strength.
The core columns had to have some form of shear strength, either cross bracing or shear walls.

*The angle bracing was part of the original frame.
**Then they have plywood sheathing or some other form of shear.

[cloudshipsrule]

I am pointing out that there is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

Chris,

YOU don't know what evidence NIST has at there disposal. Do you actually think the clips on Youtube and the images on conspiracy sites are the only evidence NIST is using to formulate their theories?

Damn it, man. Take a break!

[Christopher7]

Chris,

YOU don't know what evidence NIST has at there disposal.
We all know what evidence they had in June of 2004 because they published it.

They suspended the investigation for 2 1/3 years and started again, 5 years after 9/11/01.

This new evidence has become public in the last year:

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

There is no significant damage between column 8 and 11 [Spak#]
between floor 11 and 16.

The east half of the south side was observed from 11:30 a.m. until 2:30.m.
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

The only damage reported to this area was:
“debris damage across ¼ width of the south face, starting several stories above the atrium, noted that the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact"


This video shows the gash between columns 5 and 6 [Spak] that "starts at the roof and extends for at least 5 or 10 floors" [pg 18],
actually extends 20 + floors.
This video also shows that there was NO damage east of center on the floors that can be seen.


They had two years, pictures and videos of the east half of the south face, and they interviewed over 100 witnesses.


The fire time line and progression is well documented with statements and pictures.


The damage to the east half of the south side is well documented.


Do you actually think they will discover significant damage to or near the area of the initiating event at this late date?

[cloudshipsrule]

Message removed. I'm done.

[twinstead]

Message removed. I'm done.

That's the best thing, believe me. I'm forever dubious of somebody whose only action when he believes he has rock-solid evidence that the NIST was a total whitewash and 911 was an inside job is to rant about it on a relatively obscure web forum.

No law enforcement agencies, no media outlets (can you say Pulitzer Prize?), not congressional inquires...just the Internet.

Like my mama always told me; beware of those who 'have it all figured out'.

[jaydeehess]

No, it is because the shear built into any bearing wall or column row would prevent significant stresses from being transfered to columns away from the damaged areas.
This is what NIST was pointing out in this statement.

"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 sizable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"


ONCE AGAIN you misstate what that means. I have pointed out at least twice now that the paragraph you are quoting is one in which NIST determines that the initiating failure did not originate with a perimeter failure and it says squat about the stresses that the original damage would be putting on the core columns. In fact NIST says absolutly nothing about details of the effect of the original damage to the building. That is a job that would better be taken on in a more in depth study.

Quote:
The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were
observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east
side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.
From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears
possible:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

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

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.


You know nothing about framing.
In any bearing wall, it is necessary to have shear strength.
[the strength to stop a row of studs or columns from collapsing to the side along the length of the row]

l l l l l > / / / / / > _ _ _ _ _

The exterior walls of WTC 7 had moment frames on perimeter columns for shear strength.
The core columns had to have some form of shear strength, either cross bracing or shear walls.

*The angle bracing was part of the original frame.
**Then they have plywood sheathing or some other form of shear.

Simple garages do not have angle bracing Chris. I have owned several and been in dozens more. In this area most people do not usually finish the interior walls of their garages and so the frame is readily visible. I have also helped build single story homes and cottages, the only angle bracing was for a bay window in one of them.

Yes the WTC 7 would have angle bracing designed to take loads that the designers would expect the building to ordinarily experience. The structure actually did remain standing despite severe physical damage being done to it when the towers collapsed. however, to state that there was no effect on the building other than extra loads on the perimeter frame (yes that is what you keep saying when you quote that passage from NIST) is absolute folly.

[Christopher7]

the paragraph you are quoting is one in which NIST determines that the initiating failure did not originate with a perimeter failureRight

and it says squat about the stresses that the original damage would be putting on the core columns.Right

The stress would be to the columns in the west half of the building and the lateral 'pull' would be to the south.

In fact NIST says absolutly nothing about details of the effect of the original damage to the building.Wrong, they said:

"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,"

[jaydeehess]

Wrong, they said:

"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,"



,,,, and again this paragraph refers to perimeter columns. The columns known to have been damaged were perimeter columns, the most significant load to redistributed would be the load normally on those columns and that load is what is refered to as having been redistributed. However, some of the load would have to have been transfered to the core as floor pans sagged near the lost perimeter columns. Those floors were still attached at the core. This puts a cantilever load on the core at that point. The fact that there was a bulge indicates that a lot of shear stress was on the core.

So you now have perimeter and core systems that are already stressed more than normal. Despite this the structure held together as could well be expected, but then the fires reduced the ability of the structure to take those non-standard load patterns and still the structure stood for several hours before succumbing.

Is it unusual for the initial failure that precipitated collapse to have occured in the core of the building?
Yes and no. Yes, because that would be the area most affected by the heat as the fires moved about the building and because of the unigue structural system that held the upper portion of the building over the pre-existing Con-Ed building. No, because the perimeter is the area that was suffering the most due to the original damage and it might have been expected to have failed first. On the other hand the south perimeter IS a standard construction system from bottom to top.

[notheist]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

[jaydeehess]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

I certainly realize that all analogies will break down at some point. I cannot speak for Chris on that though.

I also realize that scaling up directly will allow mass to increase proportional to the cube of the increase in a linear dimension which is why doing so will cause something to collapse under its own weight. Thus, for example, there is a limit on the height of a purely masonry structure.

Personally I also accept the fact that the more massive an object the less likely that it will fall any direction other than straight down.

The garage analogy was used by Chris to explain that taking out a column or two will not cause a full collapse. In his senario however he simply strapped in an extra truss and then casually removed the studs he had to replace. I then pointed out that in WTC 7 no extra structural members were added prior to the collapse and that the columns were violently removed. Chris appears to not understand the difference or wishes to minimize the effect. Of course no one has ever suggested that the WTC 7 collapsed purely because of the physical damage done during the collapse of WTC 1&2.

[Galileo]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

The NIST scientists have not determined that WTC 7 came down from fire.

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

[jaydeehess]

The NIST scientists have not determined that WTC 7 came down from fire.

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

That is a mischaracterization of what NIST is doing ,AFAIK.

NIST is investigating several senarios for the collapse of WTC 7 , one of which is that of the use of explosives, and others are the effects of the various fires in the building.

[notheist]

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

No. A "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a backdraft or Smoke Explosion.

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"?

Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. All the oxygen had been used up from fire and you need oxygen for an explosion (rapid burning). Now at some point a small section of the building fails opening a hole fro air to get in, oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!. Weakened hot steel structure can't take the overpressure and they fail. Down come WTC7

A much more logical scenario then someone planting bombs that are not discovered and that leave no tattletale trace in the rubble.

[Galileo]

No. A "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a backdraft or Smoke Explosion.

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"?

Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. All the oxygen had been used up from fire and you need oxygen for an explosion (rapid burning). Now at some point a small section of the building fails opening a hole fro air to get in, oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!. Weakened hot steel structure can't take the overpressure and they fail. Down come WTC7

A much more logical scenario then someone planting bombs that are not discovered and that leave no tattletale trace in the rubble.

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

But NIST has not completed their investigation, so please let them finish before you declare what happened, OK?

[notheist]

If says they are investigating the use of explosive it won't be because they actually believe such a scenario could have happened. It will be because a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorist have made enough noise and NIST feels it need to pacify the inside job children with a pat on the head and a "Yeah we will look into it"

A mistake it think because with 9/11 conspiracy theorist it inside job or nothing. At what point is a conspiracy theory too loony to warrant investigation, mini nukes, space beams?

[jaydeehess]

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.


Do you have a link to an article that states that?

All I know is that NIST will investigate possible collapse senarios, ONE of which will be the use of explosives, NOT that NIST is specifically investigating supposed "blast events".

[Galileo]

Do you have a link to an article that states that?

All I know is that NIST will investigate possible collapse senarios, ONE of which will be the use of explosives, NOT that NIST is specifically investigating supposed "blast events".

States what?

[notheist]

But NIST has not completed their investigation, so please let them finish before you declare what happened, OK?

I am not telling them to NOT continue. Neither am I telling them to waist time going down a rat hole of mini nukes, space beams and the oh so popular urban legend of a controlled demolition.

Best to spend that time and money on reality issues like how do we make buildings safer in fires, which FYI was the subject of PBSs NOVA program two nights ago, And NIST has already made some big recommendations in the areas of fire proofing and better wider hardened stair wells.

Building on Ground Zero
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[jaydeehess]

States what?

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

That they are investigating a "blast event(s)" rather than a collapse senario that includes the use of explosives.

You do understand the distinction right?

[Galileo]

That they are investigating a "blast event(s)" rather than a collapse senario that includes the use of explosives.

You do understand the distinction right?

How do you know the blast events weren't caused by explosives set by terrorists?

[jaydeehess]

How do you know the blast events weren't caused by explosives set by terrorists?

:boggled:

As I explained twice now, as far as I know NIST is investigating various collapse senarios including one that has explosives as the cause of the collapse. This does not mean that NIST is looking into specific "blast events".

I want you to provide some reference that states that NIST is investigating "blast events". Do you or do you not have such a reference.
If not say so, if you do then please provide it.

[Galileo]

:boggled:

As I explained twice now, as far as I know NIST is investigating various collapse senarios including one that has explosives as the cause of the collapse. This does not mean that NIST is looking into specific "blast events".

I want you to provide some reference that states that NIST is investigating "blast events". Do you or do you not have such a reference.
If not say so, if you do then please provide it.

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

....

"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."

....

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

[Reality Believer]

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7
"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

Make sure you include NIST's entire paragraph that contained that statement:

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

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

[jaydeehess]

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

....

"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."


Galileo wrote:

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.


The blast event?? Your words convey a connotation that refers to a specific event known to have occured. NIST makes no claim that there truly was a "blast event".
You do know the definition of "hypothetical" right?

In classic CT fashion you have completely twisted the statement by NIST to mean something it most certainly does not mean. Hell, you even twisted what fetzer wrote and he had already twisted the NIST statement to the breaking point. Fact is that NIST is investigating the senarios that would have explosives used to attempt to mollify the CT movement. They found "no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event" and are doing the study purely as a thought experiment. Most assuredly there is a placement of explosives that could fail structural members to cause a collapse as seen. If debrisand fire can do it so can explosives. HOWEVER, there is no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, but there IS ample evidence of severe debris damage and major fires.

Jennings' description fits well into his "explosion" being the collapse of WTC 2. Dust and smoke entering the stairwell as the building shook from the vibration of WTC 2 collapsing (not hitting WTC 7. The collapses felt like an earthquake to those nearby.) They were in WTC 7 for 90 minutes afterwards, according to their account. Thus when they were in the lobby both towers had already collapsed.

I should also note for G. that I suspected that the "blast events" he was refering to were the hypothetical kind which he and Fetzer have made real by some magical process.

[notheist]

Nowhere in the NIST statement is the word explosive or explosives used. An as I pointed out a "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a Backdraft or Smoke Explosion, you do know this sort of thing is common in large fires.

This is the same the desperate silly word play as saying "Pull" means "Implosion by Explosives"

[Christopher7]

,,,, and again this paragraph refers to perimeter columns. The columns known to have been damaged were perimeter columns, the most significant load to redistributed would be the load normally on those columns and that load is what is refered to as having been redistributed. However, some of the load would have to have been transfered to the core as floor pans sagged near the lost perimeter columns. Those floors were still attached at the core. This puts a cantilever load on the core at that point. The fact that there was a bulge indicates that a lot of shear stress was on the core.Good point

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors.[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[between columns 5 and 6 [Spak#] - Apx. L pg 31]
This composite photo shows that hole was at least 20 floors.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6950/copyofupperfloorsdamageww3.jpg

This would put stress on core columns 67 - 69 [NIST#] on those floors.
[see below]

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

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/5446/sw11wghx3.jpg

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg

This photo shows:
Damage to the right of column 1 [Spak#] on floors 14 and 15.
Damage to the left of column 5 on floors 12 and 13.*
*confirmed below

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

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

This photo shows damage to the left of column 5 on floors 11, 12 and 13.*

This damage, and the damage on floors 14 and 15 to the right of column 1*, would put stress on core columns 58 - 66, as they are all tied together with girders at every floor.
*possibly going higher and lower

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8526/wtc7fl8edit4pp2.png

It also shows a: Large debris hole near center of the south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
This damage is centered on column 7 and would put stress on core columns 67 - 75 on floors 16 - 10[guess]

The broken floor beams and floors would be pulling these columns to the south.
The cantilever effect would be countered by the girders and shear members between the south row of core columns, and the middle row.
[there were no moment frames in the core so the cantilever effect would be minimal]

This building was built to withstand its normal load and the lateral force of a hurricane [100 mph winds]
It was overbuilt to allow for the removal of floors for tenants wanted two story accommodations.

The collapse began with core columns 79, 80 and 81.

[GT/CS]

Chris, it's been a while since we last spoke! I see that you are ignoring my questions but since you insist that others answer your questions I'm afraid I need to insist you answer mine.

1. Are you saying that WTC7 could not have fallen without a cd or should not have fallen without a cd?

2. What is the point of all this? Do you want this group to peer review your facts? If so, just ask.

Have you considered writing up your evidence, theories, and calculations and sending the package to NIST. I'm sure they'd love to use your information since that would reduce their workload

[Galileo]

The blast event?? Your words convey a connotation that refers to a specific event known to have occured. NIST makes no claim that there truly was a "blast event".
You do know the definition of "hypothetical" right?

In classic CT fashion you have completely twisted the statement by NIST to mean something it most certainly does not mean. Hell, you even twisted what fetzer wrote and he had already twisted the NIST statement to the breaking point. Fact is that NIST is investigating the senarios that would have explosives used to attempt to mollify the CT movement. They found "no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event" and are doing the study purely as a thought experiment. Most assuredly there is a placement of explosives that could fail structural members to cause a collapse as seen. If debrisand fire can do it so can explosives. HOWEVER, there is no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, but there IS ample evidence of severe debris damage and major fires.

Jennings' description fits well into his "explosion" being the collapse of WTC 2. Dust and smoke entering the stairwell as the building shook from the vibration of WTC 2 collapsing (not hitting WTC 7. The collapses felt like an earthquake to those nearby.) They were in WTC 7 for 90 minutes afterwards, according to their account. Thus when they were in the lobby both towers had already collapsed.

I should also note for G. that I suspected that the "blast events" he was refering to were the hypothetical kind which he and Fetzer have made real by some magical process.

In typical OCT fashion, you have completely twisted what I wrote.

[Galileo]

Chris, it's been a while since we last spoke! I see that you are ignoring my questions but since you insist that others answer your questions I'm afraid I need to insist you answer mine.

1. Are you saying that WTC7 could not have fallen without a cd or should not have fallen without a cd?

2. What is the point of all this? Do you want this group to peer review your facts? If so, just ask.

Have you considered writing up your evidence, theories, and calculations and sending the package to NIST. I'm sure they'd love to use your information since that would reduce their workload

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

[GT/CS]

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

Thank you for the reply but Chris needs to speak for himself. Oh, sorry, maybe he just did.

[jaydeehess]

In typical OCT fashion, you have completely twisted what I wrote.

I quote you directly:

Galileo wrote:

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

You do not say that NIST is investigating possible blast events, not hypothetical blast events, not the effect of possible blast events. You say NIST is investigating the blast event. That context would indeed mean that NIST has identified a specific blast event. They have not stated such, you have. You are twisting the NIST statement. I have not twisted yours at all, merely pointed out what you are doing to NIST's.

If you mis-stated what you intended then by all means clarify the point. So far you have stuck by your original statement and that is in error.

[jaydeehess]

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

Simple in the way that Biblical creation is simpler than evolution, but let'sw not get started on that since there are several threads in other sub-forums on this site dedicated to it.

Although the damage would be stressing columns other than the ones that did fail first it would also be stressing the entire core. If the column(s) that failed were under a greater load to capacity ratio originally then they would be predisposed to fail first rather than the ones under direct duress from the missing columns. If a girder relived the cantilever load at one point it would be transfering that load to the next core to perimeter span. It seems that Chris expects that these redistributed and altered loads just disappeared into the ether.

[Galileo]

Thank you for the reply but Chris needs to speak for himself. Oh, sorry, maybe he just did.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the terrorists also turned the fire alarm system off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11.

[GT/CS]

Oh, I forgot to mention, the terrorists also turned the fire alarm system off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11.

Thanks for that input Galileo7.

[Christopher7]

Will you please respond directly to this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...14#post2942714 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714)

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini]

I believe there was significant damage to the building from falling debris. I don't know if the "gouge" was 20 stories or 8 stories so I can't answer your question about a "10 story gouge".

How about answering my question from a while back?
"Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?"

The question is NOT "how big was the gouge"

The question is "where was the gouge?"

Was it "in the middle" as described on pg 18 or was it a misinterpretation of damage further west?


I believe, as millions of others do, that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did without explosives.

I have answered your question directly.
Please answer mine directly.

[jaydeehess]

Shall we review what the NIST report stated:

After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level

I assume Chris has no problem with that.

[QUOTE]• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

...or that, other than to state that perhaps it extended from the 18th to the ground floor.

• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

.........or that

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

hmmm, now we get to Chris' buggaboo. Let's label each

1)− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

2)− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

3)− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

4)− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

Well if they are all taken to be exacting description then yes they conflict.
However two of them describe the width as 1/4 the width of the south face. This is an estimate of course. The south face was about 250 feet wide , one quarter of that would be 62 feet. One fifth would be 50 feet and one sixth would be 42 feet. All very large. It would be difficult to get a real good sense of the dimension of the hole/gouge given that one cannot back off from the building too far and it is dusty and smoky. However we do at least have two reports of a wide hole in the building.
Now one says ground to 5th floor and one says to the 10th. While on the face of it this is in conflict it certainly could be an error on both person's part. If in fact it was to the 8th floor both might characterize it as they did. Conversly the report of the hole going to the 5th floor may well be a report of what the person could see while the true height was masked by dust and smoke.
We also have the report of a hole at the 14th floor. It is not particularily neccessary that this be part of the same damage in the other two reports.
the last one is very interesting. On the 8th floor the south wall was missing and more light was visible to the west of this position suggestive of damage to the west of it. We already have two reports of damage that reachs from the ground to near the 8th floor occuring in the "middle" of the building as seen from the outside and this would back that up as an observation from the inside. Trouble is there are several elevator banks, it could have occured at any of them.

Then we get :
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

Possibly Jennings and Hess from the 8th floor. They don't mention others and we don't know who the persons were who were on the 7th floor.

• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

I assume Chris has no problem with that

• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

Or that. It does back up the idea that there were FF's on the 7th floor.

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed

That is in some conflict with Jennings description of the lobby. IF, as Chris insists, a large gouge would mean that heavy debris absolutly must be in the lobby then these FF's must not have been able to see the entire lobby. The SW corner was gouged out down to the ground floor so according to Chris there should have been heavy debris visible. Perhaps the FF's could not see through the unlit, dusty lobby all the way to the SW corner. In that case how far could they see well enough to make the determination of no heavy debris? 100feet? 150? 200? 220?

FACT is that all of these eyewitness reports are anecdotal, not precise measurements. Chris insists they are contradictory but they are only if one insists they be precise.

[GT/CS]

The question is NOT "how big was the gouge"

The question is "where was the gouge?"

Was it "in the middle" as described on pg 18 or was it a misinterpretation of damage further west?


I believe, as millions of others do, that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did without explosives.
I have answered your question directly.
Please answer mine directly.

I told you that I don't know exactly where the gouge was. I wasn't there and didn't see it, but since there is no reason for the investigators to be dishonest about its location I am going to trust them to have it figured out when the final report is published. If, at that time, I think the report doesn't make sense I'll post my concerns right here. This is a skeptics web-site after all.

Since you (and millions of others:rolleyes: ) believe that the building was taken down by a cd why does the gouge even matter? Even if NIST is off by a few feet in their preliminary report one way or the other what difference does it make?

So again, why are you going on, and on, and on, and on, about the location of the gouge? It doesn't matter exactly where it was or exactly how high it was because you won't accept anything but your belief in a cd. And it seems that you would rather blow a gasket by obsessing about it than just wait for the report.

[Christopher7]

I assume Chris has no problem with that.

Quote: • Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

...or that, other than to state that perhaps it extended from the 18th to the ground floor.

This photograph shows damage to the right of the corner column on floors 14 and 15.
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg


In this photograph, the corner column is missing at floors 14 and 15.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2677/sw1croppg9.jpg

In either case, the stress would primarily be to core columns 58, 59, 60 and 63, pulling them to the south west on the damaged floors.

• Quote:
Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

That damage was shown to be over 20 floors in this composite photo:

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/6950/copyofupperfloorsdamageww3.jpg



Quote:
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:


hmmm, now we get to Chris' buggaboo. Let's label each

1)− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

2)− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

3)− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

4)− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the westYou left out:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
and
“According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Well if they are all taken to be exacting description then yes they conflict.
However two of them describe the width as 1/4 the width of the south face.Right

Now one says ground to 5th floor and one says to the 10th. Wrong

One says the debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, started several floors above the atrium, [either the damage went up from there or stopped above floor 5] Noted the atrium glass was still intact.
"the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor)" [not the damage]

This is in agreement with:
middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face

But is in conflict with:
was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

For both these statements to be true, the gouge had to be west of column 23 [NIST#].

[jaydeehess]

the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor)" [not the damage]

well it could be read both ways. There are typos and incorrect paragraph structure in the report.

We have gone through the atrium glass part before and you continue to insist that this report means what you want it to mean.



You left out:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed

Wrong. Why did you only read the first half of my post?
and
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."[/SIZE]



True, I left that part out. My bad, but it means little given that the 10 storey report is not supposed to be a precise measurement. Please re-read my post.

[Christopher7]

well it could be read both ways. There are typos and incorrect paragraph structure in the report.

We have gone through the atrium glass part before and you continue to insist that this report means what you want it to mean."debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact"

Definitely poor sentence structure, but (extended from the ground to 5th floor), clearly describes the atrium, not the damage.
"noted that the atrium glass was still intact" was to clarify that the damage was above the atrium.

Also, how could the damage extend from the ground to the 5th floor if it started several floors above the atrium ?



Wrong. Why did you only read the first half of my post?
My bad
Didn't have time to answer the whole post, should have at least read it.

True, I left that part out. My bad, but it means little given that the 10 storey report is not supposed to be a precise measurement. Please re-read my post.Done

However we do at least have two reports of a wide hole in the building.
Wrong, we have one report of a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width and one report of damage 1/4 the width starting several floors above the atrium.

If in fact it was to the 8th floor both might characterize it as they did. Conversly the report of the hole going to the 5th floor may well be a report of what the person could see while the true height was masked by dust and smoke.see above
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number*) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
[corrected to the 12 floor in Final 4-5-05]

The area below the 12th floor was not covered by smoke.

They had at least 3 hours to view the south side and watch the fire on floor 12 as it progressed eastward.
The dust from WTC 1 had settled long before that.

Possibly Jennings and Hess from the 8th floor. They don't mention others and we don't know who the persons were who were on the 7th floor. NISTNCSTAR1-8 pg 110 [164 on pg counter]
It was a security officer.



• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

I assume Chris has no problem with that


• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

Or that. It does back up the idea that there were FF's on the 7th floor.
Correct

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
That is in some conflict with Jennings description of the lobby. IF, as Chris insists, a large gouge would mean that heavy debris absolutly must be in the lobby then these FF's must not have been able to see the entire lobby.[/quote]
That's a possibility.
Here 's a video of the lobby after WTC 2 collapsed and before WTC 1 collapsed.
http://loosechange911.com/download/wtc7_lobby.mov

Note the broken glass on the first floor [and possibly the 2nd floor] of the atrium.
Also note that the lobby is open end to end and the TV camera is seeing in available light
If Barry and the firefighters came down the east stairway, they might have missed heavy debris at the west end of the building, but not in the middle because of all the south facing atrium glass would provide plenty of light.

Barry said that both Towers were still standing when they got back to the 8th floor.
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. [Trade Towers]


BTW, the floor plan of floor 3 is on pg 9 of the Final 4-5-05
pg 9 [13 on pg counter] of Apx. L shows floor 2 as floor 3 and has 1 & 2 reversed on pg 8 [as you have pointed out]



The SW corner was gouged out down to the ground floor Wrong

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3507/copy2ofnw1ak9.jpg

so according to Chris there should have been heavy debris visible. Perhaps the FF's could not see through the unlit, dusty lobby all the way to the SW corner. In that case how far could they see well enough to make the determination of no heavy debris? 100feet? 150? 200? 220?Beyond the atrium ground to 5th floor.

[Christopher7]

I told you that I don't know exactly where the gouge was. I wasn't there and didn't see it, but since there is no reason for the investigators to be dishonest* about its location I am going to trust them to have it figured out when the final report is published. If, at that time, I think the report doesn't make sense I'll post my concerns right here. This is a skeptics web-site after all. Point taken

*If the administration did it, that would be a compelling reason to falsify the report dontchathink?

Here's another conundrum

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2677/sw1croppg9.jpg

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

Since you (and millions of others:rolleyes: ) believe that the building was taken down by a cd why does the gouge even matter? Even if NIST is off by a few feet in their preliminary report one way or the other what difference does it make? I thought you'd never ask.
NIST attributed a great deal of damage to that gouge.

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


The inside part [1/4 the width] would have left the atrium glass intact but would have left a huge pile of debris right in the middle if the lobby, and the gouge would have let in plenty of light.

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

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

[GT/CS]

Point taken

[I]*If the administration did it, that would be a compelling reason to falsify the report dontchathink?



I'd like to since, as I told you beore, I'm a complete and total Bush hater and I'd love to see him fry for something, but I think it is impulsive and senseless to blame everything on "the administration", and taking WTC7 down with a cd just isn't credible IMHO. In fact, I'd say it is 100% impossible due to the issues I've previously stated.

That said, if you can tell me how someone went into the building and rigged it for a cd, while it was on fire, using silent explosives, I'll agree with your cd theory 100%.

[Christopher7]

I'd like to since, as I told you beore, I'm a complete and total Bush hater and I'd love to see him fry for something, but I think it is impulsive and senseless to blame everything on "the administration", and taking WTC7 down with a cd just isn't credible IMHO. In fact, I'd say it is 100% impossible due to the issues I've previously stated.
Statement of personal incredulity.

That said, if you can tell me how someone went into the building and rigged it for a cd, while it was on fire, using silent explosives, I'll agree with your cd theory 100%.You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

[jaydeehess]

Once again, if you listen to the recording of Barry recounting his tale is it by no means obvious that when he states, for the second time, that both towers were standing that he means that they were standing when he was on the 8th floor.

He first states that they were both standing before they started down the stairs.

I do not for one instant believe that what he experienced is anything other than the collapse of WTC 2.

I cannot see the video of the lobby. Too bad, I'd like to. My work computer blocks all video except that which pertains to work and my home computer's power supply just bit the dust.

refresh my memory Chris. on what page of this thread did we already cover those two photos.

[alexg]

Statement of personal incredulity.

You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

Faked? Explain why one must be faked. If you mean that the damage appears to be more extensive in the picture taken from above then I think you are going to need to analyze the two very carefully and detail your assertion. In the lower view smoke obscures the damaged area too much to determine how much damage there is. If you put a a straight edge on the corner you will see that the apparent corner of the lower damaged area, which should in fact lack a proper corner, is not in line.

I think the upper photo has a distorted aspect which makes the damage appear to come in further than it actually does. Count the windows and you will see what I am talking about.

What does NIST actually say about the depth of the corner damage? Their diagram seems in keeping with what we see and does not take advantage of the seeming exaggerated effect of the upper photo.

[GT/CS]

Statement of personal incredulity.

You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you can't keep a coherent thought. What photos are you talking about?

I'm ready to change my mind Chris just show me any little scrap of evidence that someone wired the building with silent explosives. That's all that matters. The size of the hole makes no difference. The only things that are of any importance are the explosives. Who placed them, how did they do it, why didn't they make any noise? Let's go, everyone's waiting.

[Christopher7]

Once again, if you listen to the recording of Barry recounting his tale is it by no means obvious that when he states, for the second time, that both towers were standing that he means that they were standing when he was on the 8th floor.What part of
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion.That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing.
don't you understand?

[Dave Rogers]

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

The building was burning for eight hours, and IIRC firemen at the scene reported further localised collapses as the fire progressed. Could it be that the two photos were taken at different times, as the very different lighting levels suggest, and that in between the two photos part of the corner of the building had fallen off?

Dave

[Christopher7]

Faked? Explain why one must be faked. If you mean that the damage appears to be more extensive in the picture taken from above then I think you are going to need to analyze the two very carefully and detail your assertion. In the lower view smoke obscures the damaged area too much to determine how much damage there is.In the first photo, the corner column and the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 are intact.
In the second photo. the corner column and the first two windows on the west side are gone on the floors 14 and 15.

If you put a a straight edge on the corner you will see that the apparent corner of the lower damaged area, which should in fact lack a proper corner, is not in line.
If you put the straight edge on the west side of WTC 7, the corner lines up.

I think the upper photo has a distorted aspect which makes the damage appear to come in further than it actually does. Count the windows and you will see what I am talking about.
? The upper photo shows no damage to the west side in floors 14 and 15.

What does NIST actually say about the depth of the corner damage? Their diagram seems in keeping with what we see and does not take advantage of the seeming exaggerated effect of the upper photo.Whatever NIST says about the damage has no effect on what the photographs clearly show.
The corner and first two windows on floors 14 and 15, on the west side, are intact in the first photo and missing in the second .

[alexg]

In the first photo, the corner column and the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 are intact.
In the second photo. the corner column and the first two windows on the west side are gone on the floors 14 and 15.

If you put the straight edge on the west side of WTC 7, the corner lines up.

? The upper photo shows no damage to the west side in floors 14 and 15.

Whatever NIST says about the damage has no effect on what the photographs clearly show.
The corner and first two windows on floors 14 and 15, on the west side, are intact in the first photo and missing in the second .

The corner column is not intact. A stright edge demonstrates this. You can also see this my measuring the space between the window and the corner.

There is plenty of window damage in the area you describe. It does appear to be a little worse in the first photo, I grant yo that, but I am quite sure this is due to the different aspect and angle of the shot. You have failed to demonstrate anything is faked.

There is simply too much smoke in the second photo and it is also shot almost straight on to the corner so any gauge of depth is difficult at best.

There is also the possibility of something haven fallen off in the time between the two shots.

In any event you are very far away from demonstrating any fakery with these two very different photos.

[Christopher7]

The building was burning for eight hours, and IIRC firemen at the scene reported further localised collapses as the fire progressed.Wrong
There were no reports of further collapses in WTC 7.

Could it be that the two photos were taken at different times, as the very different lighting levels suggest, and that in between the two photos part of the corner of the building had fallen off?
DaveBoth photos were taken after the collapse of WTC 1
The damage was attributed to the collapse of WTC 1.

[alexg]

Please note that the aspect ratio of the upper view seems off. This can be seen in how much wider the windows appear in that shot than in the other one.

This will tend to stetch out the damaged area in the upper view. This I am pretty sure is one source of the discrepancy. Coupled with the differing angle.

What windows are present or abscent or damaded to what degree is just too hard to gauge from the upper shot.

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong
There were no reports of further collapses in WTC 7.

From Gravy's reference paper, 'World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"':

"...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

"Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides."
(Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

Things falling, chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Those look like reports of further collapses.


Both photos were taken after the collapse of WTC 1
The damage was attributed to the collapse of WTC 1.

"After the collapse of WTC1" places the time between 10am and 5:30pm. The damage from the collapse of WTC1 made the structure unstable and the building was on fire. Firemen reported things falling. Over the course of seven and a half hours, is it impossible that the damaged area could have deteriorated?

Dave

[Miragememories]

Please note that the aspect ratio of the upper view seems off. This can be seen in how much wider the windows appear in that shot than in the other one.

This will tend to stetch out the damaged area in the upper view. This I am pretty sure is one source of the discrepancy. Coupled with the differing angle.

What windows are present or abscent or damaded to what degree is just too hard to gauge from the upper shot.

The aspect ratio is the same throughout.

People still see that which they choose to see!

MM

[Christopher7]

The corner column is not intact. A stright edge demonstrates this. Wrong

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9540/copyofsw16wgsc1.jpg

You can also see this my measuring the space between the window and the corner. The windows are different on some floors.


There is plenty of window damage in the area you describe. It does appear to be a little worse in the first photo,You're getting the photos mixed up.
The first photo shows the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15, are intact.

There is also the possibility of something haven fallen off in the time between the two shots.There are no reports of collapses after the fall of WTC 1.

In any event you are very far away from demonstarting any fakery with these two very different photos.On the contrary, on floors 14 and 15, the first two windows on the west side of WTC 7 are intact in one photo and missing in the other.

[alexg]

Your line isn't even close to being straight!

That effort was a joke.

No sale on any point.

The windows are different on some floors.

In terms of closeness to the corner? Evidence please.

There are no reports of collapses after the fall of WTC 1.

There were reports of parts falling off the building. Which is not a collapse. Are you saying you know for a fact nothing fell off? Evidence please.

Not that I really think that explains it. My explanation does a good job of that until you can effectively counter it.

No evidence of any fakery here. Just more CT paranoia. If anything the first photo is a decpetive angle. Not that there is any reason to suspect it was done that way on purpose. Move along.
I will acknowledge that there is a possible APPEARANCE of greater window damage in the high angle shot. But there is too much going on here to say much of anything for sure. Particularly with that odd stretching going on! If those windows are stretched as far as they appear this would also mean the damaged area in general is getting stretched. If this is the case that could be the source of your discrepancy right there! In a way you would have made a good observation for the CT side; the photo shot from above exagerates the damage. Good point. Instead you leap to the conclusion of fakery.

Would you acknowledge that the photo shot from above has a faulty aspect ratio. Look how the windows get wider as you approasch the corner, Much wider. That stretching of the window is not apparent in the other photo at all.

[alexg]

The aspect ratio is the same throughout.

People still see that which they choose to see!

MM
And what, I am to take your word for it? At least I offer some evidence. How do you explain the rapid widening of the windows as you approach the corner? Why is that not at all evident in the other photo?

One of the photos is incorrect on this point. Do you not see that?!?

[Christopher7]

From Gravy's reference paper, 'World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"':

"...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

"Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides."
(Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

Things falling, chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Those look like reports of further collapses.WTC 5 cannot be seen from West Street. Picciotto was standing at West Broadway and Vesey where 5, 6 and 7 could be seen.
Furthermore, 'things falling' does not mean collapse.

"After the collapse of WTC1" places the time between 10am and 5:30pm. The damage from the collapse of WTC1 made the structure unstable and the building was on fire. Firemen reported things falling. Over the course of seven and a half hours, is it impossible that the damaged area could have deteriorated?
DaveNote the shadow on Wintergarden from WFC 2

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2955/copyofsw11th7.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8783/copy4ofwtcmapka6.jpg

Note shadows on roof of the Verizon Building

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/2677/sw1croppg9.jpg

This photo was taken about noon.

[Christopher7]

Your line isn't even close to being straight!

The photo isn't exactly level.
Note the windows on WFC 2 on the right.
At the top, there is a slightly larger space between the windows and the edge of the picture.
I added a line to the edge of WFC 2 to illustrate that the jogs in the vertical lines are due to the pixels being vertical and the photo being slightly off level.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6170/copyofsw16wgyl2.jpg

[alexg]

The photo isn't exactly level.
Note the windows on WFC 2 on the right.
At the top, there is a slightly larger space between the windows and the edge of the picture.
I added a line to the edge of WFC 2 to illustrate that the jogs in the vertical lines are due to the pixels being vertical and the photo being slightly off level.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6170/copyofsw16wgyl2.jpg

Very clearly, at about floor 15, the apparent corner jumps inward, proving it is not a corner at all, there is something there that is almost vertically straight but it is not the building corner. It has to be part of the damaged area. There is also some obvious window damage and I do not believe we can rule out that the end of the window near the corner is in fact torn off, which is consistent with the other picture, again with the proviso that the upper picture is taken from a bad angle and is distorted.

No evidence of anything except a poor picure and view.

And what do you make of the stretched out windows?

[funk de fino]

What part of
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion.That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing.
don't you understand?

you have to disregard everything jennings says and not just cherry pick the bits you think support you, this is very dishonest

he states that the lobby looked like king kong had trashed it and he was taken out a hole in the wall

this would say to me there was lots of damage in the lobby

you either use all his testimonies or you disregard it all

i notice you are running away from someone else when asked about your silent explosives

please tell me where i can get some

[Christopher7]

Very clearly, at about floor 15, the apparent corner jumps inward, proving it is not a corner at all, there is something there that is almost vertically straight but it is not the building corner. It has to be part of the damaged area.Wrong
The corner line goes right thru it and the windows are intact on 14 and 15.
[whoever made this graphic corrected the slightly out of level but
the arrows are a little off so i added the floor numbers]

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/9752/copyofcopyofb1bz1hv8.jpg

There is also some obvious window damage and I do not believe we can rule out that the end of the window near the corner is in fact torn off, which is consistent with the other pictureWrong
There is something between 14 and 15 in the photo on the right, but it's too vague to say what it is.

The corner and the window on 14 are in tact on the photo on the right, and missing in the photo on the left.
The spandrel [wall] between 14 and 15 is intact between 14 and 15 in the photo on the right, and missing in the photo on the left.

And what do you make of the stretched out windows?Hard to say. It could be the different angles.

[alexg]

Yuor unfounded arrogance is childish. "Wrong. Wrong."

The line OBVIOULSY gets much closer to the lower windows than the upper. OBVIOUSLY. So that is NOT and CANNOT BE an intact corner.

The windows are stretched out, obviously, because of some sort of distortion I am not qualified to explain, but that there is a distortion which would exagerate the damge is not even in question.

The 2 photos can be reconciled to an acceptable degree and there is no evidence of any fakery whatsoever. One has a bad angle and a distorted aspect and the other is obscured by smoke and of generally poor resolution.

Find better photos and we could then see for sure if the damage is worse in one of them. As it stands there is nothing conclusive. I'm not saying there isn't worse damage in the upper shot, I'm saying it is inconclusive and that at the very least the two shots are much closer than you make them seem. To claim fakery at this point is simply a joke. You have (or whomever) taken a bad photo, bad apect and angle, and then interpolated a rotated view. That ain't gonna cut it and is in all probablity impossible to do with any accuracy. Cameras don't see around corners. I am assuming that's what that new shot is?

No sale. There is also the very real possibility that an area damged in the inital collapse might fall apart further with time. As has been pointed out there were reports of parts falling off. If you are loking for a detaild report of exactly what fell off and when I suppose you are dreaming. That would not have been high on the firefighter's list.

[LashL]

People still see that which they choose to see!


That is true of some people; it is not true of all people. In fact, I know of one person who chooses to see a 22 storey building where a mere 6 storey building actually exists. Pretty odd behaviour, isn't it?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2885543&postcount=394

:whistling

[GT/CS]

That is true of some people; it is not true of all people. In fact, I know of one person who chooses to see a 22 storey building where a mere 6 storey building actually exists. Pretty odd behaviour, isn't it?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2885543&postcount=394

:whistling

Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

[Christopher7]

The line OBVIOULSY gets much closer to the lower windows than the upper. OBVIOUSLY. So that is NOT and CANNOT BE an intact corner.Incorrect
However
You are right about the distance from the window to the corner.
I tried it again using the left side of the windows as a guide and made the two lines parallel.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9909/3b1bz1vw4.jpg

It cannot be said for sure if the corner column is there or not.
I stand corrected thank you.

The photo on the left shows the first windows on floors 14 and 15 and the fascia between them on west wall are missing.

The photo on the right shows that area is not missing.

This is not a distortion, there's stuff hanging in the left photo where there are windows and wall in the right photo.

[Christopher7]

There is also the very real possibility that an area damged in the inital collapse might fall apart further with time. The NIST photo was taken around noon.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3488/copyofsw1mf1.jpg

The other photo was taken late in the afternoon.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg

The shadow of WFC 2 on Wintergarden means the sunlight was coming from the west.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/574/copy4ofwtcmapdi8.jpg

[GT/CS]

I'm ready to change my mind Chris just show me any little scrap of evidence that someone wired the building with silent explosives. That's all that matters. The size of the hole makes no difference. The only things that are of any importance are the explosives. Who placed them, how did they do it, why didn't they make any noise? Let's go, everyone's waiting.

Still out there Chris?

Any luck with the silent explosives yet?

How about finding someone stupid enough to rig the building while it was burning and leaning?

[funk de fino]

Incorrect
However
You are right about the distance from the window to the corner.
I tried it again using the left side of the windows as a guide and made the two lines parallel.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9909/3b1bz1vw4.jpg

It cannot be said for sure if the corner column is there or not.
I stand corrected thank you.

The photo on the left shows the first windows on floors 14 and 15 and the fascia between them on west wall are missing.

The photo on the right shows that area is not missing.

This is not a distortion, there's stuff hanging in the left photo where there are windows and wall in the right photo.

One on right has lots of smoke and flames showing there is an obvious fire which you can see from the windows on the west side

The one on the left does not have this fire or smoke on the left side but has evidence of such fires that have obviously gone out

The one on the left is later than the one on the right therefore any extra damage could have occured in this time

Unless you have accurate timings for the pictures you cannot cry fake.

Shadows are very unreliable for working out time especially in cropped photos like you are using

still no supplier of silent explosives you reckon must have been used?

[LashL]

WTC 5 cannot be seen from West Street.

This is not accurate. WTC5 was certainly visible from West and Vesey.

[Christopher7]

One on right has lots of smoke and flames showing there is an obvious fire which you can see from the windows on the west side

The one on the left does not have this fire or smoke on the left side but has evidence of such fires that have obviously gone out

The one on the left is later than the one on the right therefore any extra damage could have occured in this time

Unless you have accurate timings for the pictures you cannot cry fake.

Shadows are very unreliable for working out time especially in cropped photos like you are using
Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2955/copyofsw11th7.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg


NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3488/copyofsw1mf1.jpg

[funk de fino]

Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2955/copyofsw11th7.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg


NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3488/copyofsw1mf1.jpg

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp, if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakery

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?

Is it easier just to ignore stuff you cannot reconcile? At least we try to answer your questions and points, you made the claims about explosives that no-one could hear you have to back it up?

[Christopher7]

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp, You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakeryIt definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?
NIST or the other photo?

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

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2932754#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]

The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

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

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

[GT/CS]

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.



Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters. You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no difference since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.

Chris, I sincerely hope that you know it is impossible for someone to rig the building for a CD while the building is on fire, using explosives that make no noise and do not flash when ignited.

[Christopher7]

Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.You demand something you know doesn't exist
The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters. and insist that's all that matters.

You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no differenceThe shadows show what time of day the two photos were taken.
This is important because:
The NIST photo shows the fires in floors on floors 17, 18, 19 and 22 had burned out.
The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the photo was taken around noon.
The other photo shows the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning around 3 p.m.

Therefore, eather
The WTC 7 portion of the NIST photo was taken after the fires had burned out, sometime after 3 p.m.
or
the fires on 17, 18 and 22 started up again and the windows next to the corner on floors 14 and 15, and the fascia between them, magically reappeared.

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

since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.
The evidence for CD is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

When boxed into a corner, you try to change the subject.

[respublicus]

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters.

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

[respublicus]

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"? Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. ... oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

[Dave Rogers]

Furthermore, 'things falling' does not mean collapse.

Just one point I have to take issue with. Things falling, have to fall from somewhere. After the debris from the WTC towers had all fallen, the only source of things falling was for them to be pieces falling off buildings. If you want to argue that there's a fundamental difference between a partial collapse and pieces falling off a building, you'll lose credibility very fast.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

Go and read this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_bomb

[funk de fino]

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.
But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

Show us the videos and recordings of these explosions from WTC7. Exactly the same as the ones contained on the Implosionworld site videos that C7 so kindly supplied for us.

There were thousands of onlookers that day, where are there reports of the very loud and huge explosions that should have been present?

C7 cannot answer the above question can you?

When was it rigged?

[Belz...]

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

There was a blast event ?

[Belz...]

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

Actually, there are reports of a clap of thunder, but a controlled demolition, even an uncontrolled one, would have to be much, much more than that.

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?

How do you manage to ensure that the entire assembly is destroyed to the point of non-recognition ? Explosives tend to explode -- that is, they send stuff flying outwards -- so how do you make sure that nothing escapes the destruction ?

Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

Asking questions is not evidence ?

[GT/CS]

The evidence for CD is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403



Sorry Chris but I didn't see any evidence for a CD at the link you posted.

Try this link, and be sure to check out the video of the CD. Watch it go boom, boom, boom and flash, flash, flash.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94079&highlight=barn

[funk de fino]

The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

OK, not fakery then?

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

Its not the oldest way as you have claimed though is it? It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law. Especially as it looks likeNIST may have made a mistake when they used this method

It definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Ok, but I would say possibly at the moment

[I]NIST or the other photo?

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.
No, you made the claim about the lack of noise from the explosive and then ran from the question, we are just trying to get you to explain

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2932754#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]
The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

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

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

I am quite happy to disregard all of his tesimony as would happen in court due to inconsistencies, you must also though

[Christopher7]

OK, not fakery then?
In the NIST photo, the fires on the west face had burned out.

The other photo shows the fires on 17, 18 and 22 were still burning at about 3 p.m.

The WTC 7 part of the NIST photo was taken sometime after that.

The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the NIST photo was taken around noon.

The NIST photo is a FAKE

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.
It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law.Shadows are conclusive evidence of the time of day [+ or - 1/2 hour]. They would stand up in a court of law.

Especially as it looks like NIST may have made a mistake when they used this method
Police photos have a time stamp.
NIST did not use shadows to determine the time.

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/418/copyofmmcompairlc1.png


The damage to floors 14 and 15 is not obscured by smoke.
The NIST photo shows a ragged edge, stuff hanging, the corner windows missing and damage to the second window on 14.

[Galileo]

you have to disregard everything jennings says and not just cherry pick the bits you think support you, this is very dishonest

he states that the lobby looked like king kong had trashed it and he was taken out a hole in the wall

this would say to me there was lots of damage in the lobby

you either use all his testimonies or you disregard it all

i notice you are running away from someone else when asked about your silent explosives

please tell me where i can get some

The 'king kong' remark is not specified by Jennings as to have occurred before WTC 1 fell.

sorry.

[GT/CS]

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank you

[GT/CS]

Chris, you may want to see post #65 from the attached link before you get too deep into your shadow theory. Using shadows to tell time among buildings is extremely difficult and you will need to provide some pretty serious geometry calculations for us to accept your findings.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20056&st=50&p=408373&#entry408373

[Gravy]

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank youFrom the NIST report:

At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 collapsed, and debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7. At 10:28 a.m., WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7. A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped a part of the southwest corner off from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside of WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs. In addition, a security officer for one of the businesses in the building was also was trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor and firefighters escorted him down the stairs. Other firefighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlight through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8 floor saw the flashlight beam and heard the firefighters calling and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building. NIST NCSTAR 1-81 p.109-110An abbreviated version. Article dated September 11, 2001:
After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htmI see that Christopher 7 is claiming that a NIST photo is fake. He's a real good photo analyst. One of the best. I wonder what happened to him ordering the copies of photos from NIST, which he said he would do long ago.

Maybe someone can explain why people are still attempting to talk sense into him. Has he shown that he's open to reason in the past year?

[GT/CS]

Thank you for the information, Gravy.

[Christopher7]

Chris, you may want to see post #65 from the attached link before you get too deep into your shadow theory. Using shadows to tell time among buildings is extremely difficult and you will need to provide some pretty serious geometry calculations for us to accept your findings.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20056&st=50&p=408373&#entry408373

Thank you for the link
You are a gentleman and a scholar.

The sun was due south at 12:52 p.m. EDT
The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:47 p.m. EDT
[+ or – 10 minutes for angle error]

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg


Azimuth is the angle along the horizon, with zero degrees corresponding to North, and increasing in a clockwise fashion. Thus, 90 degrees is East, 180 degrees is South, and 270 degrees is West.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
o , o ,
W 73 55, N40 44
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard TimeDaylight time (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/daylight_time.php) is not implemented in this program. When daylight time is in use, add one hour to the times listed in the table.

Altitude Azimuth (E of N)
h m o o
11:50 53.6 179.1*
12:00 53.6 183.3
13:40 46.3 220.8
13:50 45.0 223.9*
14:00 43.7 226.8

Source
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz

[Christopher7]

Article dated September 11, 2001:
First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.On 9/11 he also said "We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both through a closed fire door.
[he probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO]

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

I see that Christopher 7 is claiming that a NIST photo is fake. He's a real good photo analyst. One of the best.Thank you

I wonder what happened to him ordering the copies of photos from NIST, which he said he would do long ago.
Report not final, therefore, documents will not be released.

[funk de fino]

On 9/11 he also said "We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both through a closed fire door.
[he probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO]

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.
The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Thank you

Report not final, therefore, documents will not be released.

he is not your guy to go to about explosions before the towers fell then?

he is all you had for this unless you can post Hess statement?

are you admitting we have to totally disregard everything jennings says now?

i'm happy to if you are

[funk de fino]

The 'king kong' remark is not specified by Jennings as to have occurred before WTC 1 fell.

sorry.


And?

[Christopher7]

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9899/wtcsunanglegraphicsp8.jpg

[buka001]

Seems awfully familiar to Terral's pentagon timeline theory. Use of shadows to determine time.

Can you clearly outline your hypothesis in regards to the time. Indicate clearly on the photographs. I would like to see your calculations. You have not done this. You quoted some text and you have drawn some nice lines on a cartesian plane. Detail the calculations. Show the shadows. Illustrate how this contradicts the official time of the photo.

I am struggling to see the direct connection. I see alot of words but no proof.

[twinstead]

Why do conspiracy theorists always claim to be expert photo and video analysts?

[Belz...]

And?

And he stopped reading there, obviously.

[Belz...]

Why do conspiracy theorists always claim to be expert photo and video analysts?

Because, like most people, they give their senses too much credit, and give other people's expertise too little.

[GlennB]

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9899/wtcsunanglegraphicsp8.jpg

You're making the same kind of mistake as Terral over on LCF.

The shadow on the Winter Gardens* isn't being cast by the top of the building, as your line would indicate. It's being cast by the base of the building. Also you have it just clipping the Winter Gardens. In the original photo it's much more central.

I accuse you of i) wilful distortion or ii) ignorance

*sorry, I'm in a rush here. As I recall this is what that structure was called.

[Christopher7]

Can you clearly outline your hypothesis in regards to the time. Indicate clearly on the photographs.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg

The shadow of the Merrill Lynch Building [on right] intersects Wintergarden right where the damaged section meets the lower section on the right, and continues up to the [11].

The Azimuth* of the sun in the following graphic is 225°

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9899/wtcsunanglegraphicsp8.jpg

I would like to see your calculations. You have not done this.I did, in post #3661 [probably wasn't very clear]
Here's the main part:

NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard Time Daylight time (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/daylight_time.php) is not implemented in this program. When daylight time is in use,
add one hour to the times listed in the table.

*Azimuth is the angle along the horizon, with zero degrees corresponding to North, and increasing in a clockwise fashion. Thus, 90 degrees is East, 180 degrees is South, and 270 degrees is West.

..............................Azimuth
13:50 [2:50 p.m. EDT] 223.9
13:54 [2:54 p.m. EDT] 225.0*
14:00 [3:00 p.m. EDT] 226.8

Source
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz

Illustrate how this contradicts the official time of the photo.
http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/9651/copyofsw1mw7.jpg

NIST states this photo shows the fires on the west side burned out before 2:00 p.m. Shadows on Verizon building confirm the time that portion of the photograph was taken.[about 1:00 p.m. EDT - Azimuth 183.3° ]

The conundrum is:
The first photo shows the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still going at 2:50.

The WTC 7 portion of the NIST photo was taken sometime after 2:50 p.m. EDT.

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

At 2:50 p.m. the corner windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 and the fascia between them were not seriously damaged.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/418/copyofmmcompairlc1.png

[Norseman]

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9899/wtcsunanglegraphicsp8.jpg

Christopher7, your W, S and E arrows are ca 30 degrees off the true directions. In other words your S arrow is pointing 210 degrees to SW and not 180 degrees straight south as it should. If you correct this in your photo, then suddenly the 2:50 p.m. arrow is close to where your S arrow is pointing.

Please feel free to check this fact with any map you like. Like Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/), the maps are oriented along true north.

Here are some photos (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9773403@N02/with/922392305/) of the WTC 7 and the Verizon building just before noon and at noon.

Why did you do this mistake Christopher7?

[Norseman]

In the
The NIST photo is a FAKE




The NIST photo is not a fake. What you are looking at in the NYPD photo that NIST used in its preliminary report on WTC 7 is the effects of light refraction and maybe to some degree lens distortions.

All relevant details are present in both the NYPD photo and the Aman Zafar photo. Since the NYPD photo is taken from above, the light from the damaged area have to move up through a lot of hot air/smoke that is rising up along the face of the building. But the effects of refraction is very evident in all parts of the NYPD picture when you look at the window frames.

Relevant Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

[jaydeehess]

refresh my memory Chris. on what page of this thread did we already cover those two photos.


I don't know if anyone has answered my question yet (don't have time to look) but this (the supposed fake NIST photo of WTC 7's corner damage) was covered starting on page 44 of this thread.

[Christopher7]

The shadow on the Winter Gardens* isn't being cast by the top of the building, as your line would indicate. It's being cast by the base of the building.The lower parts that stick out are also set back from the corner.
The shadow is being cast by the corner.
[in the next photo]

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/8838/wintergarden1smoq3.jpg

Also you have it just clipping the Winter Gardens. In the original photo it's much more central.Wrong
Winter Garden has 4 sections [and a little blurb in front].
Section 4 is closest to the river.[closest to us in this photo]
Section 3 is the largest.
Section 2 has a hole in the roof as does
Section 1
[The blurb in front is not visible in these photos]

The shadow starts where sections 2 and 1 meet on the right side.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/9391/sw16cropcp7.jpg

The direction of sunlight line goes thru this point.
[see post #3671]

I accuse you of i) wilful distortion or ii) ignoranceBefore you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, perhaps you'd like tp correct your compas direction for South. It is incorrect. None of the WTC buildings faced directly south.

[alexg]

Chris, look at the pieces of debris sticking out of the windows on the 15th floor. They are the same in both shots. The long, angular stuff hanging out..

And look at how much wider the windows are in the upper view. The image is definitely stretched possibly by a factor of 2, but only as you near the edge. I have no idea why this is the case but it is.

I submit the photos are showing the same damage. The upper shot is at a bad angle and is distroted. That is all. This is a classic cherry pick, IMHO.

In your inevitable attempt at a rebuttal please address these 2 points specifically.

And keep in mind that we have already established the apparent corner at this level is not a corner, it is too close to the damaged windows, the corner is destroyed. There is no mystery here except why the one upper photo, supposedly directly from NIST, is distoreted in aspect near the corner.

From the NIST photo it is clear that the damage gets dramatically worse JUST below what is visible in the other photo. Too bad. That photo is simply not helping you.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, your W, S and E arrows are ca 30 degrees off the true directions. In other words your S arrow is pointing 210 degrees to SW and not 180 degrees straight south as it should.
I was going by this graphic. Oops
Vesey Street runs east and west. Note the north indicator - upper left.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/574/copy4ofwtcmapdi8.jpg
Note the 'late afternoon' turned out to be right

Corrected graphic:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/964/copyofgroundzeroarial1ri6.jpg

.............................. Asmuth
15:50 [4:50 p.m. EDT] 252.3
15:55 [4:55 p.m. EDT] 253.2*
16:00 [5:00 p.m. EDT] 254.2



http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1456/copyofsw1pt2.jpg
...............................Asmuth
13:00 [2:00 p.m. EDT] 207.2

Please feel free to check this fact with any map you like. Like Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/), the maps are oriented along true north.Corrections made, thank you.

[Christopher7]

The NIST photo is not a fake. What you are looking at in the NYPD photo that NIST used in its preliminary report on WTC 7 is the effects of light refraction and maybe to some degree lens distortions.Effects of light refraction? Grasp at straws much?
There are distortions but the corner windows on 14 and 15 and the fascia around them is clearly missing or severely damaged in the NIST photo and clearly there in the other photo.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/418/copyofmmcompairlc1.png

All relevant details are present in both the NYPD photo and the Aman Zafar photo.No. There is stuff hanging from a raged edge and the windows on 14 and 15 are just not there in the NIST photo.

[Christopher7]

Chris, look at the pieces of debris sticking out of the windows on the 15th floor. They are the same in both shots. The long, angular stuff hanging out.. More or less

And look at how much wider the windows are in the upper view. The image is definitely stretched possibly by a factor of 2, but only as you near the edge. I have no idea why this is the case but it is.
The photo has been stretched out to make the damage look bigger.
How can the windows furthest away, top to bottom, get stretched to twice their normal size?
The photo did not come out of the camera that way.
Things further away from the camera appear smaller.

I submit the photos are showing the same damage. The upper shot is at a bad angle and is distroted. That is all. This is a classic cherry pick, IMHO.Classic denial IMHO.

In your inevitable attempt at a rebuttal please address these 2 points specifically.

And keep in mind that we have already established the apparent corner at this level is not a corner, it is too close to the damaged windows, the corner is destroyed.The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.
From the NIST photo it is clear that the damage gets dramatically worse JUST below what is visible in the other photo. So what?
The damage on 14 and 15 is clearly different in the two photos.

[twinstead]

Sorry Chris, but as a layman, I must categorically reject your image analysis (at least for now) because I suspect you aren't qualified to perform image analysis at all.

So, I will need a second opinion. Find an expert.

[phunk]

I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:

img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg

If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.

[Drs_Res]

I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg

If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.

Added the image for you.

[alexg]

More or less

The photo has been stretched out to make the damage look bigger.
How can the windows furthest away, top to bottom, get stretched to twice their normal size?
The photo did not come out of the camera that way.
Things further away from the camera appear smaller.

Classic denial IMHO.

The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.
So what?
The damage on 14 and 15 is clearly different in the two photos.


The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.

Ah, but here you are guessing what we see is exterior wall material, it could be anything, even crushed wall, interior wall, anything, you take a superficial resemblance and assume much, particularly since we KNOW that corner has been damaged. You have no more than a barely tenable hypothesis here. Calling fake is pure speculation.

That there is a distortion which may exaggerate the damage in favor of the OS, oh so slightly, is a more rersonable suggestion. Now find out why it is distorted detective Chris.

[alexg]

Chris look closely at your supposed rectangular windows on 14 and 15, in the lower angled shot, the window ends at the corner are broken off - there is clearly an indentation - what appears to maybe be the window edge is not an edge at all. This is easy to miss with the straight on angle. But imagine moving the camera around to the side ever so slightly and suddenly those areas indented and deeper in will at a point vanish, and leave what we see in the NIST photo.

[Norseman]

Effects of light refraction? Grasp at straws much?
There are distortions but the corner windows on 14 and 15 and the fascia around them is clearly missing or severely damaged in the NIST photo and clearly there in the other photo.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/418/copyofmmcompairlc1.png

No. There is stuff hanging from a raged edge and the windows on 14 and 15 are just not there in the NIST photo.

No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) and the original Aman Zafar photo (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm) and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.

[Christopher7]

Added the image for you.Norseman pointed that out.
Here's the revised posts:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/964/copyofgroundzeroarial1ri6.jpg

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1456/copyofsw1pt2.jpg

[Christopher7]

No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) and the original Aman Zafar photo (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm) and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.Refraction, my elbow.
In the NIST photo, the west side is pushed in. The corner is gone and what's left of the window on 14 is heavily damaged.

Here's another comparison:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Kinda makesya think thats the way it was in the first place.
Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/461/cornercomposituz7.png

[Dave Rogers]

The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.

What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...


Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all. Thanks for clearing that up - I might bookmark your post and use it for debunking next time someone claims that the two photos disagree.

Dave

[funk de fino]

If you have software that could take away the smoke and the dust etc, this would be a good time to use it otherwise your analysis is useless

Why would they fake a photo saying the fires had gone out earlier than they needed to when they would have been better faking them to show more fires that lasted longer. It would have supported the official theory better.

There is no point in faking the photo to make the damage look worse, why not just focus on the huge gouge and use that?

explosive type please C7? stop running away

[alexg]

Where does the rotational software aquire the data to create parts of the image that the lens could not see? You want fake, there's your fake right there. That simply does not work.

[GT/CS]

...the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all....


My exact thoughts when I saw the new photos. The straight on shot shows stuff that is in the background, not at the corner.

[Christopher7]

What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

Why does the 'curve distortion' occur only in that area?
The only distortion in the original NIST photo is the stretched windows.
Rotating corrects this distortion.

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.

"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."

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. That's the wall next to the window, not something internal.

[Belz...]

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.

Back to school, with you!

[Dave Rogers]

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.

Irrelevant to the point that the two photographs, after your modifications to the NIST one, clearly do not disagree as to the damage to the corner. Your claim that at least one of the photographs is fake is rejected.

Dave

[Norseman]

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.


Is this picture on Flicker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinowens/386219911/) good enough. Look at the lines of the building and the letters that is visible through the hot gases of the small fire in front of the building.

[Dave Rogers]

I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.

Sorry, Chris, that was rather a knee-jerk reaction. You need to understand that your appreciation of refraction is desperately inadequate if you recognise that refraction would be observed looking across a desert, yet you fail to understand that refraction would be observed when looking downwards at a building fire for exactly the same reason. I would explain this, and could also explain why the distortion appears greater in the lower parts of the building (basically because they're further from the viewpoint so the bending of the light creates a greater lateral deflection), but I don't really have the time to write a textbook on geometrical optics. I strongly suggest, though, that you find one and read it. You're embarrassing yourself.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Is this picture on Flicker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinowens/386219911/) good enough. Look at the lines of the building and the letters that is visible through the hot gases of the small fire in front of the building.
Excellent find.
Evidence, presented in a straightforward manner, is always appropriate and appreciated.

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

NIST says the fires on the west face had burned out when the picture was taken.
The breeze was blowing the smoke [hot gases] to the south east.

[Dave Rogers]

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places, and that for some reason the refraction of light due to random density variations in unevenly heated air may not have occurred just on that day, at that time. You're standing on a rooftop shouting out your ignorance for the world to hear. Really, it's quite embarrassing to watch.

Dave

[Belz...]

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places

:dl:

[tsig]

Excellent find.
Evidence, presented in a straightforward manner, is always appropriate and appreciated.

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

NIST says the fires on the west face had burned out when the picture was taken.
The breeze was blowing the smoke [hot gases] to the south east.

Just looking at pictures.

[Christopher7]

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places, and that for some reason the refraction of light due to random density variations in unevenly heated air may not have occurred just on that day, at that time. You're standing on a rooftop shouting out your ignorance for the world to hear. Really, it's quite embarrassing to watch.

DaveI'm saying that looking thru a gas flame up close at details is not comparable with the photo in question.
The refraction effect was minimal when looking thru a flame.
There are no examples of this phenomenon in any of the photographs from 911.
The fires had gone out on the west side and the hot gases were being blown to the south west.
This is very clever but it cannot account for the missing window and wall in the NIST photo, nor can it account for the stretched out windows and the curved wall.
Walls do not curve. The granite cladding would have broken off if the wall were pushed inward.
The Zafar photo shows the wall and granite cladding around the windows on 14 and 15 are intact.

[Belz...]

Walls do not curve.

These do.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)

[Christopher7]

These do.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg


Good find.
The bowing out occurs over about 30 feet.
This is quite different from a wall bending in over a few feet.
WTC 7 had a stone facade that would have broken and fallen off if the wall was bent in.

[Norseman]

The fires had gone out on the west side and the hot gases were being blown to the south west.


You should be very careful with that claim Christopher. The wind gave the impression that the fires had gone out on the West side. But as you can see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U), when the wind lost strength for a moment smoke poured out of the windows on the West side. But when the wind blew stronger, it went in through the broken windows on the West side and blew the smoke out of the broken windows on the South side.

And if you look at figure 5-15 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) on WTC 7 the photo gives the impression that fires had burned out on the West side. But when you look at figure L-22a in the NIST interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) on WTC 7 and the Aman Zafar photo (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm), both photos taken later in the day, you will notice an increase in the number of broken and burned out windows. And also a lot more smoke coming out of the windows in the Zafar photo. So evidently the fires continued burn and spread on the West side of the building throughout the day.

[funk de fino]

I like the bit where someone says "look at the hole in that building....its gonna come down"

I wonder why he thought that?

I wonder if he seen them planting the "silent" explosives C7 cannot find any examples of?

[twinstead]

I like the bit where someone says "look at the hole in that building....its gonna come down"

I wonder why he thought that?

I wonder if he seen them planting the "silent" explosives C7 cannot find any examples of?

Yup. Don't you know "it's gunna come down" is code for "I know the building was rigged with explosives"?

[Norseman]

I'm saying that looking thru a gas flame up close at details is not comparable with the photo in question.
The refraction effect was minimal when looking thru a flame.
There are no examples of this phenomenon in any of the photographs from 911.


In addition to the NYPD photo you can take a look at this photo on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=922398633&size=o). The photo is taken at noon at a moment when the wind allowed hot smoke and air to move a bit North.

In the photo it looks like the top part of the Verizon building is tipping over. Also note how all the details of the building is smeared out and how some of the windows have take on twisted shapes, in this regard look at the small building structure at the foot of the upper part on the North side. That building part should look more like it those in this photo (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=922392305&size=o), even though all details of the Verizon building is smeared out in this photo also, due to hot air and smoke swirling around the building.

When looking at du first photo again, notice how the buildings behind the Verizon building appears through the heat shimmer from the fires at Ground Zero, while the top of WTC 7 looks quiet sharp. And also take a look at the buildings in the upper left corner, there are some lines there that should have been straight.

Photographed from a different angle and distance about 20 seconds later the Verizon building (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=923246808&size=o) looks like it should, but take look at the lower NW corner and North wall of the Verzion building, those it look straight to you?

Finely take a look at this photo to (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=923241650&size=o). Notice how the buildings in the upper left corner have a stretched appearance.

And I find it very likely that the NIST photo is from the same series as the pictures that I have linked here, taken by Olympus C-2100 UZ with only 2 MP.

[Norseman]

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/461/cornercomposituz7.png

Finally it is time to address the mistakes you did in the interpretation of the above photos Christopher7.

In the NIST photo, the west side is pushed in.
No, the west side only appears to to be pushed in. If you look at the NYPD photo (figure L-22a) in the NIST interim report on WTC 7 (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) you can see a gray haze of smoke raising from the foot of WTC 7 up towards the SW corner window in area of floor 21. This is where the line of the SW corner starts to curve in. Because of this smoke there is a layer of hoter air between WTC 7 and the Verizon building, this causes the light to change direction going from the hot layer to the colder layer above, crating the effect of the lower part of WTC 7 being pushed in. This effect is enhanced by the fact that the corner plates on floor 17 and down are gone. Photographed from other angels this effect is not noticeable. Therefore we can be pretty sure that the west side of WTC 7 was not pushed in. While the stretching of the windows in the upper right hand corner of the photo, could just as well be due to design compromises in the construction of the camera lens and sensor.

The corner is gone and what's left of the window on 14 is heavily damaged
Yes, that is a correct statement. This is evident in all the photos including the photo in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 7 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf). The corner plates are gone together with corner column. And all the photos show the same details regarding the damage to the corner area.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1814146fd9aa329ad5.jpg

Here's another comparison:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Kinda makesya think thats the way it was in the first place.


What your software did was to correct for some distortions likely introduced by the camera. But this you did at the price of messing up the picture more than ever. Perspective is totally changed, the window frames now look ragged and uneven, items that in the original photo appeared be down on floor or below the window sill now appears in the middle of the window, or seems to be a part of the lower window frame, and the roof of the Verizon building looks like it is a part of the bellow of an accordion. And the frames of the corner windows from floor 17 and down looks like they are curved around the corner. You only managed to make the damage look a lot worse than it really is. You know, you can not use software to get out of focus pictures sharp, or correct for air refraction's in one part of the picture. You can use software to correct for uniform lens flaws in a picture, like curved building lines in a picture taken by a wide angel lens.

Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.
Yes, but not in the way you imply. The corner plates on both the west side and south side of the SW coner are gone, together with the corner column from below floor 18 and down. This fact is very evident when we look at the right hand close up crop that you posted above. But it is only the right hand frame in the corner windows, on the west side, that is gone. Even in your wildly distorted version of the NYPD photo the corner windows are clearly visible. Below floor 14 the corner windows are hidden by smoke in the NYPD photo.

Of course there is something there when we look at the Zafar photo, because that photo is taken from an angle where we are able to see the south side of WTC 7. While we in the NYPD photo, that is shot from an angle where we can not see the south side of WTC 7, we are looking straight through the spots where the corner plates and the corner column should have been on floor 17 and 16. What we in fact are looking at in the Zafar photo is the edge of the wall on the south side of WTC 7. Again this fact is very evident when we look at the close up crop that you posted, and even more evident when you compare the close up crop with the drawing in figure 5-11 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf).

The red arrow from your close up crop is pointing at the wrong place in your distorted version of the NYPD photo, because it points at an object that appears to hang outside the second window frame from the SW corner. While the object it should point at, is inside the corner window to the right of where the arrow now points in your photo.

The only claims, regarding structural damage, that NIST have made based upon the NYPD photo are that the SW corner is damaged from floor 18 and down to floor 8. And that the NYPD photo indicates that a least two exterior columns were severed. That the corner column is severed is very evident from the photos above. While I also find it likely, judging from the NYPD photo and the other photos, that at least one of the two columns next to the SW corner on the west side could have been damaged or severed. In fact I find the claims NIST makes very reasonable, given the available information we have. And keep in mind Christopher7, the damage to the SW corner is ruled out as causing the initiating event in the collapse hypothesis that NIST discusses in the interim report:

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

The only ones who have presented versions of the NYPD photo with the appearance of exaggerated damage is you and your fellow CT'ers.

The fact is that the NYPD photo, as presented in the NIST interim report, is completely consistent with all other available photos of the SW corner of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

You should be very careful with that claim Christopher. The wind gave the impression that the fires had gone out on the West side. But as you can see in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U), when the wind lost strength for a moment smoke poured out of the windows on the West side. But when the wind blew stronger, it went in through the broken windows on the West side and blew the smoke out of the broken windows on the South side.It's not my claim.
NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on pg counter]
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

Astute observation. If the wind was blowing thru the windows on the west side and blowing the smoke [hot gases] out the south side, when the NIST photo was taken, then there would be no distortion due to refraction.

And if you look at figure 5-15 in the FEMA report (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) on WTC 7 the photo gives the impression that fires had burned out on the West side. But when you look at figure L-22a in the NIST interim report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) on WTC 7 and the Aman Zafar photo (http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm), both photos taken later in the day,The FEMA photo 5-15 was taken about 2:00 p.m.
The shadow of the Verizon building is just past the north wall of WTC 7.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/7001/timeofzafarnistphotogralq1.jpg

The NIST photo was also taken about 2:00 p.m.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1456/copyofsw1pt2.jpg


The shadow of WFC 2 on Winter Garden puts the time of the Zafar photo at about 4:30 p.m.*

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5605/sw16wgwz6.jpg


you will notice an increase in the number of broken and burned out windows.No, the FEMA photo doesn't show anything above the 9th floor.
The Zafar photo doesn't show any broken windows, just smoke on floors 17, 18 and 22.

And also a lot more smoke coming out of the windows in the Zafar photo. So evidently the fires continued burn and spread on the West side of the building throughout the day.The Zafar photo only shows the first 2 windows on the west side so we can't tell if the fires spread on the west side.

* GlenB, you were right about using the bottom of WFC 2 as the proper point to determine the shadow. The aerial photo is centered on the WTC plaza so the top of WFC 2 is to the left of vertical.
Correction made, thank you.

[GT/CS]

Chris, I'm pretty sure you still have your directions skewed. Please post the aerial with North at the top and South at the bottom.

[Zlaya]

How many times do you have to be told that the final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, Christopher? What part of that do you not understand?

You do know, don't you, that they are currently working on said final report and that they hope to publish it this spring, right? You can tilt at windmills all you like in the interim but if your posts here to date are any indication of your (lack of) rational, logical and critical thinking skills, well, let's just say that I won't be holding my breath waiting to hear anything intelligent from you in the future.

It was due in September of this year. What is taking so long? I mean Bin Ladin was proven to be guilty 10 minutes into the event, and we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.

Why is the report into what brought down WTC 7 taking so long in comparison?

[GlennB]

* GlenB, you were right about using the bottom of WFC 2 as the proper point to determine the shadow. The aerial photo is centered on the WTC plaza so the top of WFC 2 is to the left of vertical.
Correction made, thank you.

Very decent of you to say so.

In retrospect, my point was in fact rather minor in the grand scheme of things, and made much too aggressively. My apologies. Spending too much time debating Terral can make folk a little tetchy....

[Norseman]

It's not my claim.
NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on pg counter]
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

The FEMA photo 5-15 was taken about 2:00 p.m.
The shadow of the Verizon building is just past the north wall of WTC 7.

The NIST photo was also taken about 2:00 p.m.

The shadow of WFC 2 on Winter Garden puts the time of the Zafar photo at about 4:30 p.m.*

No, the FEMA photo doesn't show anything above the 9th floor.
The Zafar photo doesn't show any broken windows, just smoke on floors 17, 18 and 22.


Sorry, I meant figure 5-16 in the FEMA report just below figure 5-15. It appears to have been taken before noon. This photo gives the impression that the fires have burned out on the west side. Notice the corner window and its closest neighbor on floor 22, where only the right half of the corner window appears to have be broken. Also note seven broken and blackened window frames on floor 29 and 30. And there is no or very little smoke coming from the the windows on floor 17 and 18.

In the NYPD photo (figure L-22a in the NIST interim report), that you estimates to have been taken at 2:00 pm, the two windows on floor 22 now both appears completely broken and blackened. While the seven broken and blackened windows on floor 29 and 30 now have become eight. And there appears to be some smoke from the windows on floor 17 and 18.

And finally in the Zafar photo, that you estimates to have been taken at 4:30 PM, a lot of black smoke appears to come out of the two window frames at the corner on floor 22. And from windows on floor 17 and 18.

What this shows, is that the appearance of the NYPD photo likely have led NIST to underestimate the level of fire on the west side in the interim report. This is not exactly like NIST exaggerating the level of fire and damage in its interim report. Generally I find the NIST report to be very conservative and careful in its estimates of the damage and the fires in WTC 7, quiet contrary to what you have tried to imply in this thread Christopher7.

And by the way, figure 5-15 in the FEMA report and figure L-22b in the NIST interim report shows smoldering inside the rubble between WTC7 and the Verizon building, with shimmering hot air and some smoke raising up between the buildings.

[Norseman]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045892c4f64e35.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3266)
Good point Belz, I have been considering this for some time, even though I do not think that the NYPD photo shows the effect of sagging floors pulling the exterior walls in, like they did in WTC 1 and WTC 2 as the photo above shows.

Given the fact that WTC 7 was a tube in tube design like WTC 1 and WTC 2 it seems likely that this could have developed in parts of the building during the day. But none of the available photos show this effect. The most likely place would have been the south side with the heaviest fires, but that part of the building was obscured in smoke, so we do not now.

If this developed in parts of the building during the day, it certainly would not have be good for the stability of WTC 7.

Judging from photographs of the rubble heap (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm) of the collapsed WTC 7 building, it seems very likely that the exterior walls could tolerate some bending without the granite panels breaking and falling off, as Chiristopher7 claimed they would.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, considering the fact that this thread is beyond ridiculously long, it really, really is time to let it end, while we all wait for the NIST draft report (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html) for public comment due at the end of the year. And if Christopher7 is not happy with the conclusions in the final report he can start a new thread. Or even better write a public comment to NIST explaining what he is unhappy with, if anything. Personally, I find the NIST interim report very reasonable indeed so far.:)

[GT/CS]

It was due in September of this year. What is taking so long? I mean Bin Ladin was proven to be guilty 10 minutes into the event, and we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.

Why is the report into what brought down WTC 7 taking so long in comparison?

If they produced it quickly would you not then be whining about them not doing a thorough job and rushing out an incomplete product?

[firecoins]

World Trade Center # 7 never collpased. Its still there today. There is a CT saying 7 collapsed. The video of collapse is just a holligram to throw you off the real ct, that aliens were behind 9/11.

[RedIbis]

we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.



Brief correction. We had the list of 19 hijackers atabout 11am on 9/11. Fast work, huh?


Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, "We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001." (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn't take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists." [New York Observer, 2/11/2004]

[Christopher7]

Very decent of you to say so.

In retrospect, my point was in fact rather minor in the grand scheme of things, and made much too aggressively. My apologies. Spending too much time debating Terral can make folk a little tetchy....No worries mate.

I appreciate the correction.

Chris

[Christopher7]

Sorry, I meant figure 5-16 in the FEMA report just below figure 5-15. It appears to have been taken before noon.I would put the time at about 1:00 p.m.
Note the sunlight on the fence rail at the corner of the promenade [3rd floor exterior plaza] on the left, and on the WTC 1 framework section leaning up against the promenade.
That puts the sun a little east of due south.
12:00 [1:00 p.m. EDT] sun azimuth 183.3

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/3571/timeofzafarfemaphotogracm1.jpg

This photo gives the impression that the fires have burned out on the west side. Notice the corner window and its closest neighbor on floor 22, where only the right half of the corner window appears to have be broken.The fire has just started and has busted one window pane. [note the smoke]

Also note seven broken and blackened window frames on floor 29 and 30. And there is no or very little smoke coming from the the windows on floor 17 and 18.

In the NYPD photo (figure L-22a in the NIST interim report), that you estimates to have been taken at 2:00 pm, the two windows on floor 22 now both appears completely broken and blackened. While the seven broken and blackened windows on floor 29 and 30 now have become eight. And there appears to be some smoke from the windows on floor 17 and 18.Right, the NIST photo was taken some time after the FEMA photo.

And finally in the Zafar photo, that you estimates to have been taken at 4:30 PM, a lot of black smoke appears to come out of the two window frames at the corner on floor 22. And from windows on floor 17 and 18.And therein lies the rub.
NIST figure L-22a shows the fire on floor 22 had burned out.

If the wind was strong enough to blow the smoke out the south facing windows, as you suggested.
That would eliminate refraction as a factor.

If the fire is burned out on floor 22 then the WTC 7 part of the NIST Photo was taken after the Zafar photo.

[Belz...]

Good find.
The bowing out occurs over about 30 feet.
This is quite different from a wall bending in over a few feet.
WTC 7 had a stone facade that would have broken and fallen off if the wall was bent in.

"Good find" ? The thing's been used for two years against truthers. Haven't you been paying attention ?

[Christopher7]

Judging from photographs of the rubble heap (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm) of the collapsed WTC 7 building, it seems very likely that the exterior walls could tolerate some bending without the granite panels breaking and falling off, as Chiristopher7 claimed they would.


http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5107/postcollapsebarcklaysmxh9.png

Point made, well done.

Prove me wrong with evidence, and i will alter my position accordingly.

The wall could have bent at the joints where the stone facade panels meet.

Thank you

Chris

[Norseman]

If the wind was strong enough to blow the smoke out the south facing windows, as you suggested.
That would eliminate refraction as a factor.


Please go on and pretend that the clearly visible smoke, including the gray haze, between WTC 7 and the Verizon building in figure L-22a in the NIST report is not smoke. The sources of that smoke is clearly visible in figure L-22a and L-22b in the NIST report and in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report. That includes both broken windows on the lower floors of WTC 7 and the debris pile between the two buildings.

And the smoke between WTC 7 and the Verizon building was shielded from the northwesterly wind by several buildings (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9773403@N02/922396875/).

[Norseman]

Prove me wrong with evidence, and i will alter my position accordingly.
Chris

Did you read my post, I only made some suggestions regarding the possibility of pull in, I do not need to prove anything.

You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.

[Christopher7]

Did you read my post, I only made some suggestions regarding the possibility of pull in, I do not need to prove anything.

You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

[Christopher7]

Please go on and pretend that the clearly visible smoke, including the gray haze, between WTC 7 and the Verizon building in figure L-22a in the NIST report is not smoke. The sources of that smoke is clearly visible in figure L-22a and L-22b in the NIST report and in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report. That includes both broken windows on the lower floors of WTC 7 and the debris pile between the two buildings.

And the smoke between WTC 7 and the Verizon building was shielded from the northwesterly wind by several buildings (http://www.flickr.com/photos/9773403@N02/922396875/).
This photo was taken about 2:00 p.m. There is very little smoke rising from the street.
[shadow of Verizon bldg. about even with north side of WTC 7]
L-22b was taken a few minutes earlier.
[shadow of Verizon not hitting WTC 7]

The breeze is stronger higher up but it still blows between the buildings at street level.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3507/copy2ofnw1ak9.jpg

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3397/copyoftimeofzafarphotogvd6.jpg


Refraction is just an attempt to explain away the obvious differences.
You can see these differences or you would not be trying to explain them with refraction.

[funk de fino]

On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

I cant believe you just posted that

The overwhelming evidence points to this scenario

You have to prove the DD/F did not bring the building down and explosives did

You have nothing except a few very bad attempts at photo analysis, claims of fakery and contradictory witnesses. Nothing else.

No recordings of explosions, no proof of the building being rigged, you are unable to find hundreds of witnesses who would have heard these explosions

Cant you see why you are in the minority?

Why avoid your claim of explosives that could not be heard?

[twinstead]

Chris I would have thought artificially shifting the burden of proof was a tactic beneath you.

Sigh. I'm so disappointed in you.

[Matthew Best]

Back to school, with you!

Your use of a comma in that sentence has given it a rather unappetising element. :eek:

[Belz...]

Thanks, Matthew. Now I feel dirty.

[twinstead]

I was hoping you were just talking about carrying his books Belz

[jaydeehess]

I'm back. power supply in the 'puter fried and all I could do was look at this forum at work and it blocks most photos and all video then the idiots 'updated' to IE7 and most pages simply won't load at all.

Now I just tried to view, on my newly repaired home 'puter, the quicktime link that Chris posted of a video of the WTC 7 lobby at http://loosechange911.com/download/wtc7_lobby.mov but all I get is the audio portion, no vid.
Any one able to help me out

[jaydeehess]

On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

Debris damage and fires in the building are well established as having occured. There is no evidence at all to establish, to anywhere near the same degree, that explosives were used in this building. Your personal incredulity at the idea that the building could have been brought down as a result of debris and fire damage is your most compelling 'evidence' (meaning it is compelling to you, not to others) that explosives were involved.

In short you start with personal incredulity then assume that since debris and fire damage could not cause the collapse that explosives must have.
You are a creationist too aren't you Chris? You use the same logic at any rate. Personal incredulity leads to a casting about for a magical total explanation.

[Caustic Logic]

14th post deleted - see below for my first JREF post with pictures possible. Hooray!
Too bad I'm taking the debunker within thing beyond the Pentagon. Am I trying too hard here?
see below

[Caustic Logic]

Okay guys - not enough time to read 90+ pages, but it seems we're arguing no NIST photo fakery as aleged, that Zafar's and NIST's show the same minus some illusion hocus-pocus. I'm getting no response at LCF and ATS, but I've done my own inexpert photo analysis and found that there really seems to be a fake photo: Zafar's. No one seems to agree but no counter-arguments at all, just silence.

And nothing I've seen here yet to back me up either. So I guess I'm missing something, so please help!

Here I outlined the NIST damage edge, de-skewed:
Yes it's rough. Floor 15 is iffy, but 14 and below seem clearly gone as if torn away.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/NIST_edge.jpg

Here's an analysis of Zafar's image.
15 and 14 seem intact to the edge, probably 13, and 12 too for all we can tell. All that's visible seems intact. Hmm...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Zafar_Analysis.jpg
Put together with other images of lower damage, the contrast is interesting. Borrowing Arie's graphic from his corner controversy PDF, which excluded NIST's for being suspicious, I put it like this (even excluding floor 13's apparent intactness just for good measure):
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Arie_Put_Together.jpg
His is to the left, what I think it should have looked like center, and what it'd look like with NIST's swapped in for Zafars at right. It seems obvious to me... what am I missing?

So if we turn this around so the "truther source" might be accused, is anyone willing to see a difference? Or is this just smoke illusions?

http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5107/postcollapsebarcklaysmxh9.png
This photo shared above shows what may be the only other logical answer:
Perhaps the outer wall was pushed in in such a way that it was invisible from the northeast and far above (NIST helicopter shot) AND below (Cirone and Miller shots) but when seen more level, from the southeat and far away (Zafar's), it looks perfclty intact even though it's two different planes that happen to line up perfectly from that angle. This seems a stretch to me, as NIST's image shows a jagged edge, not a curve.

Confused and baffled and awaiting thoughts

[Caustic Logic]

Still nothing? The thread keeps ticking on until I appear and then... Nobody will help me see how I'm wrong here. If I'm an idiot just please explain it, someone!

[GT/CS]

Still nothing? The thread keeps ticking on until I appear and then... Nobody will help me see how I'm wrong here. If I'm an idiot just please explain it, someone!

I'm sure you will soon be hearing from Chris.

[Norseman]

Put together with other images of lower damage, the contrast is interesting. Borrowing Arie's graphic from his corner controversy PDF, which excluded NIST's for being suspicious, I put it like this (even excluding floor 13's apparent intactness just for good measure):
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Arie_Put_Together.jpg
His is to the left, what I think it should have looked like center, and what it'd look like with NIST's swapped in for Zafars at right. It seems obvious to me... what am I missing?


You are missing the fact that also the Aman Zafar photo clearly shows that the corner plates are gone on floor 15 and 14 together with the corner column, both on the west side and the south side of the corner. This is more evident when you compare floor 15 and 14 with the floors above.

What I guess is confusing you, is the fact that the broken edge of the south side wall appears to be closer to the corner than it really is, since the Zafar photo was taken with a telephoto lens (explained here) (http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm). This becomes more evident if you go to figure 5-16 in the FEMA report, and zoom in, but this is also a telephoto. In the photo you can see what looks like the corner column a bit below the red rectangle. While on floor 15 you can se the edge of the south side exterior wall, a bit receded compared with the column below.

Therefore you should have colored the corner red on floor 14 and 15, in the interpertation of the damage you did in the center figure above.

Aagain the conclusion is, as I have stated earlier in this thread, that all the avialable photos of the SW corner are consistent with each other, they show the same damage details.

I also note that Arie, a truhter, in his analysis (http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/corner_controversy.pdf) agrees with me on this fact. But he should have added and considred the effect of refraction due to hot smoke and heated air from the fires as the most plausible explanation for this effect:
Floors 12-17 bend towards each other with 5 floors bending upwards. It would be hard to
explain this as damage from falling debris of the Twin Towers since falling debris would
have pushed the floors downwards, not upwards. This anomaly is not found anywhere else
in the photo. Also, the Zafar photo shows that floor 15 and 16 were straight.
The effects of refraction I have discussed in earlier posts in this thread.

Otherwise he is quit sensible, but I think he is overstating the damage below floor 14 and on floor 18. On floor 18 it looks as though it is only a granite plate that is broken off, not the complete corner. Below floor 14 none of the photos show enough detail to draw any sure conclusions in my view, beyond the fact that there is damage down to floor 8.

In this YouTube video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA) we can see the effect of refraction on the SW corner area of WTC. Pay attention to area below the text in the picture when the camera is zoomed in on WTC 7. It is helpfull to pause the video frequently. Compare the area with the area above. The effects we see in the SW corner area of WTC 7 is not evident when zoomed in on the other buildings in the area with a different smoke situation.

Hope this helps.:) Otherwise I am reluctant to participating in keeping this thread alive, since it has been going in circules for a long time without C7 making a convincing case for his theories. And since it is now off the orginal topic.

[Christopher7]

I cant believe you just posted that

The overwhelming evidence points to this scenario
Here is the evidence:

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.

You have to prove the DD/F did not bring the building down and explosives didThis thread is about the lack of evidence for the DD/F hypothesis.
Evidence for CD is a separate subject and is being debated here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

You are asking me to prove a negative.

I can only show that the evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis.


*Column failure
NIST Apx. L 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. The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced. This column would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.
I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: .......
uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

570°C = 1058°F

"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://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.


http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html)
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

NFPA 921:
A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass.

[Christopher7]

Chris I would have thought artificially shifting the burden of proof was a tactic beneath you.


You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.
We were discussing the evidence of damage to the south west corner.

Before you accuse me, take a look at Norseman.

ETA: and jaydeehess and funk

[Christopher7]

Debris damage and fires in the building are well established as having occured.So what?
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
The fires were insufficient to cause a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to fail.

There is no evidence at all to establish, to anywhere near the same degree, that explosives were used in this building.Subject shift and the traditional "MY dog is bigger than your dog" statement.

[jaydeehess]

Here is the evidence:

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

Yes, as said many times here, there was severe debris damage to the structure and major fires on several floors. Quite definitive as to the general condition of the structure that day --- it was in bad shape.



[qupte]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.[/quote]

That would assume that such column was undergoing stresses that would be considered normal. That cannot be said to be the case and in fact should very much be expected to not be the case given the debris and fire damage occuring in the structure.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.*

The NIST report is a preliminary report that did not go into the extent of fire damage at all.

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

As pointed out many times , this is not neccessary to cause a collapse initiating failure. Insisting that it is required is naive.



This thread is about the lack of evidence for the DD/F hypothesis.
Evidence for CD is a separate subject and is being debated here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

Correction, was being debated there. It petered out largely because you felt more compelled to post in this thread.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

Your whole approach to this thread is an attempt to prove that negative. The other point, that explosives were used, would be asking you to prove a positive point.

I can only show that the evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis.

there you go, attempting to prove that negative.

*Column failure
NIST Apx. L 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. The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced. This column would be [I]approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.

However a floor system failure would further stress other structural systems nearby. It may not be the 'final straw' but it would contribute to the added stress of other systems.

I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: .......
uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

570°C = 1058°F

Yep, and my woodstove chimney must be rated to withstand 2000oC and that is for nothing but wood and gases released by combustion of wood.
Oh, and it really doesn't matter what colour you make the letters most people here are quite comfortable converting F to 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://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

In a test structure that was in pristine condition before the test fire and in which only one fire was lit at a time. This was a test fire.




http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html (http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html)
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

In structures that are intact before the fire starts.

A column which is not bearing its load directly vertically or that has an inordinate lateral stress will react differently.

[jaydeehess]

So what?
There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
The fires were insufficient to cause a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to fail.

Your opinion that debris damage contributing to the failure must be proximate to the collapse initiating failure.
Your personal incredulity that fire caused enough damage to cause the initial failure to take place is not evidence that it did not.

Subject shift and the traditional "MY dog is bigger than your dog" statement.

No, it is the whole point in determing what caused the collapse of this building. Yes, there simply and concisely is more evidence that the debris damage, combined with the accumulating fire damage caused the building to collapse.

Two dogs in the yard one big (German Shepard), one tiny (Pomeranian). A 2 foot wide and 1 foot deep hole has been dug in the yard in the past hour, obviously by one of the dogs. What's the best bet which one did the deed?

btw, my dog died several years ago. however my large cat is , at this time, my avatar:cool:

[GT/CS]

Chris, since you believe the building was taken down by a CD please provide evidence of said CD. Anything. Anything at all. Any shred of evidence would be met with open arms.

[Christopher7]

Here I outlined the NIST damage edge, de-skewed:
Yes it's rough. Floor 15 is iffy, but 14 and below seem clearly gone as if torn away.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/NIST_edge.jpg

Here's an analysis of Zafar's image.
15 and 14 seem intact to the edge, probably 13, and 12 too for all we can tell. All that's visible seems intact. Hmm...

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Zafar_Analysis.jpg
Put together with other images of lower damage, the contrast is interesting. Borrowing Arie's graphic from his corner controversy PDF, which excluded NIST's for being suspicious, I put it like this (even excluding floor 13's apparent intactness just for good measure):
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Arie_Put_Together.jpg
His is to the left, what I think it should have looked like center, and what it'd look like with NIST's swapped in for Zafars at right. It seems obvious to me... what am I missing? I agree with the center.
I see the problem as being:
Both NIST photos show a jagged edge and part of the corner windows gone on 14 and 15.
The Zafar photo shows they are still there.


http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/5107/postcollapsebarcklaysmxh9.png
This photo shared above shows what may be the only other logical answer:
Perhaps the outer wall was pushed in in such a way that it was invisible from the northeast and far above (NIST helicopter shot) AND below (Cirone and Miller shots) but when seen more level, from the southeat and far away (Zafar's), it looks perfclty intact even though it's two different planes that happen to line up perfectly from that angle.

This seems a stretch to me, as NIST's image shows a jagged edge, not a curve.
I agree.

BTW, nice work

[Christopher7]

Yes, as said many times here, there was severe debris damage to the structure and major fires on several floors. Quite definitive as to the general condition of the structure that day --- it was in bad shape.And i have been showing that to be a vague, hollow statement.

There was NO damage to the area where the collapse began.

The fires were insufficient to heat core columns to 1,000 F over 4 floors.

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. That would assume that such column was undergoing stresses that would be considered normal. There was no significant abnormal stress to the wast end of WTC 7.

WTC 7 was built to carry many times it's live load in a hurricane.

The NIST report is a preliminary report that did not go into the extent of fire damage at all.
The NIST report has three pages detailing the progression of the fires. [photos in FEMA and NIST reports]
NIST has many other photos. If there were any other fires, NIST would have listed them.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
As pointed out many times , this is not neccessary to cause a collapse initiating failure. Insisting that it is required is naive.
You have claimed this many times.
You fail to grasp the concept that all the framework in between the damage and the area where the collapse began, would take up the stresses.

Correction, was being debated there. It petered out largely because you felt more compelled to post in this thread.
I have responded to all reasonable posts including your last post.


I can only show that the evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis.

there you go, attempting to prove that negative.Not at all. One cannot prove a negative, one can only point out that the people at NIST included enough facts to show that the conditions needed for a core column to fail were not present.

The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced. This column would be [I]approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C. However a floor system failure would further stress other structural systems nearby. It may not be the 'final straw' but it would contribute to the added stress of other systems.1) It would take the collapse of several floors and the uniform heating of 17 tons of steel column to 1,000 F before failure could occur.

2) There is no evidence of floor failure in the east end of WTC 7, just fires on floors 11 and 12 up until 3:00 p.m., then floor 13, and later floor 8.

"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."

In a test structure that was in pristine condition before the test fire and in which only one fire was lit at a time. This was a test fire.
The area of the initiating event was in 'pristine' condition as there was no damage to this area.
Are you saying the test has no bearing and the British Research Establishment just wasted its time and money?
Actually, what the test showed is that steel frame buildings perform better than was previously thought.

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.
In structures that are intact before the fire starts.The area of the initiating event was intact.

A column which is not bearing its load directly vertically or that has an inordinate lateral stress will react differently.There were no inordinate lateral stresses on the area of the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Your opinion that debris damage contributing to the failure must be proximate to the collapse initiating failure. Yes.

Your personal incredulity that fire caused enough damage to cause the initial failure to take place is not evidence that it did not.Actually, it's the lack of fire on 4 contiguous floors in the area of the initiating event.

Seriously jdh, do you think office fires could heat a vertical column weighing over 4 tons per floor to 1,000 F ?
How long do you think that would take?

Subject shift and the traditional "MY dog is bigger than your dog" statement.
No, it is the whole point in determing what caused the collapse of this building. Yes, there simply and concisely is more evidence that the debris damage, combined with the accumulating fire damage caused the building to collapse.
The evidence clearly shows that the fires were insufficient to cause a core column to fail.

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

Two dogs in the yard one big (German Shepard), one tiny (Pomeranian). A 2 foot wide and 1 foot deep hole has been dug in the yard in the past hour, obviously by one of the dogs. What's the best bet which one did the deed?
Teenage mutant Ninja gophers?
btw, my dog died several years ago. however my large cat is , at this time, my avatar:cool:If you share a house with a cat, you can't be all bad.:cool:

[Caustic Logic]

Norseman: thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure that explains it, as NIST's really seems to show no corner columns or anyything at that spot or below, roughly matching the lower photos (Miller, Cirone), which likewise show stuff entirely gone it seems, and I don't think the angle is sharp enough that minor damage like that would be maximized like that. But hey, I'm not an expert, I just can't see it with my dumb eyes for some reason. And being OT that's all for now except:

I agree with the center.
I see the problem as being:
Both NIST photos show a jagged edge and part of the corner windows gone on 14 and 15.
The Zafar photo shows they are still there.

I agree.

BTW, nice work

Thanks! But what I was trying to show with the center shot how little sense it makes, which would've been worse if I'd included floors 12 + 13 which also seem intact. My point was the right image makes mot sense. All of this has me very confused and I will now drop the issue. :) Sorry for the off-tracking all and for nothing else to add to a discussion that's over my head. Traipsing back south of the Hudson and Potomac...

[Norseman]

Norseman: thanks for the thoughts. I'm not sure that explains it, as NIST's really seems to show no corner columns or anyything at that spot or below.........


If you are referring to floor 14 and 15 that is correct, as I said in my earlier post. The corner window frames are there, but everything from the right hand side in the corner window frames and out is gone. The other available photos of the SW corner confirm this fact. As you should see in the crop below from the NYPD photo, the corner windows below floor 14 are hidden by smoke. And as Arie concluded in his report, the corner on floor 12 in the Zafar photo is in fact hidden by a part of the World Financial Center 3 building in the foreground.

As you asked in your earlier post, any other differences in my view is just smoke illusions and some twisting of the remaining plates between the window frames in the corner area. The photos are consistent with each other.

(click for full size)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1814146fd9aa329ad5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8559)

[Christopher7]

Thanks! But what I was trying to show with the center shot how little sense it makes .... . My point was the right image makes most sense. All of this has me very confused and I will now drop the issue. :) Sorry for the off-tracking all and for nothing else to add to a discussion that's over my head. You added this:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/NIST_edge.jpg
It points out the difference between the NIST photos,

and the Zafar photo and this screen capture:
[shows corner column on 17, 16 and possibly 15]

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7045/wtc7column00001iy5.jpg