10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 2

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 08:56 PM

Coritani: I'm discussing the report that has been released. We can discuss the 'final' report when it comes out.

Why is it so important to you, C7, that we establish it was a gouge of a particular size, anyway?
The gouge as depicted on pg 31 & 32 [NIST Appendex L] is the reason that columns 69, 72 & 75 are mentioned in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of coliumns 79, 80 and/or 81"

The evidence [see post #94] shows that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" is in conflict with 4 other statements [2 on the same page]

The report ignores these other statements and uses the incorrect statement to bolster it's hypothesis that debris from WTC 1 damaged these core columns, leading to the initiating event.

It is clear from the photographs that there was substantial damage to the WTC7 building from the debris from the tower collapse. So what if it was 8 stories or 12 stories or 10?It's the debth and the damage [or lack of it] to the core columns is the key issue here.

Could you please explain where exactly this is leading, or what the point is?The '10 story gouge' is the most serious damage to the south face.
Since this gouge cannot co-exist with the other 4 statements, it should not be used as evidence in further reports or in discussions here.

Do you have additional evidence for demolitions other than someone reporting hearing "explosions"? Could you please link to your expert (i.e. written by someone with relevant expertise such as a structural engineer) report that advances the theory of controlled demolition along with the supporting evidence for that theory?This thread is not about CD's.
It's about the '10 story gouge' and damage to the core columns.

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 09:10 PM

J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out
No. Just the part about the damage to the core columns and the extent of the damage to the south side of WTC 7.

on the basis that it cannot be proved that the gouge/hole/damage was as great as the greatest extent reported by witnesses and shown in the report and indeed that eyewitness reports do not fully match each other.They are in conflict.

He is trying to say that the report requires it to be this great in order to support the preliminary probable collapse sequence set out in this report.No. The sequence is not in question.

CHF

17th January 2007, 09:23 PM

Chris,

How do you reconcile a controlled demoltion with WTC7 leaning over?

How do you explain the fact that the demoltion charges on 9/11 were so quiet?

Here's what a real CD looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yK9XLRb1u8

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 09:25 PM

I see five videos listed.
It's the first one [new footage]
[tryed to post direct link, didn't work]

Of course we go back to that old bugaboo in which only actual explosions can be characterized as explosions rather than loud booms or bangs.Every time you are presented with someone saying explosion or describing an explosion you drag out your 'it could have been something else' bugaboo.
Can you acknowledge that it may have actually been an explosion ?

LashL

17th January 2007, 09:25 PM

I've no idea why you cling to this one quote like Linus to his blanket, but as I said a long time ago, and as I say repeatedly in real live courts in real cases where it actually matters, it's all about location, perspective and opportunity to observe. When there are multiple eyewitnesses to traumatic events, their accounts will always differ with each other - if they didn't, well thatwould be suspicious indeed.

But you seem hung up on this one account without recognizing the basic, fundamental realities as set out above. Each witness account is dependent upon each witness' location, perspective and opportunity to observe. You cannot simply take one account and claim that it is inconsistent with other accounts unless you can pinpoint each witness' location, perspective and opportunity to observe. Even then, the accounts will most likely differ. probably 99 times out of 100.

I'm sure I asked you several pages ago to set out these accounts that you continue to cite on a time line with their positions and locations pinpointed and cross referenced with the times of their observations. That would go a long way to trying to determine whether they are consistent, inconsistent or somewhere in between. I haven't seen you try to compare them in that manner yet. It means nothing to say, Witness A said W; Witness B said X, Witness C said Y, Witness D said Z" unless you can put those statements into context - i.e. when, where, position, perspective, and opportunity to observe, since we're talking about events that occurred over several hours.

What Witness A saw from vantage point A at 1400 may very well - and should - differ from what Witness B saw from vantage point D at 1400, and from what Witness B saw from vantage point D at 1500, and from what Witness C saw from vantage point B at 1430, and from what Witness D saw from vantage point J at 1530, and from what Witness D saw from vantage point G at 1300, and from what Witness E saw from vantage point C at 1100, etc etc etc. Get the idea?

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 09:40 PM

UK_dave said they are the experts who say WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire with 'certainty'.

No I didn't.
see post #204

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

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 09:42 PM

Arus808

17th January 2007, 10:29 PM

chris, you can't have us commenting on something that isn't even out yet.
NIST released a premilinary report, with a statement SAYING tha there were conflicting testimony to DAMAGE.

So, why sHOULD WE Continue to commento n something THAT IS probably going to change in the near future?

Coritani

17th January 2007, 10:37 PM

Coritani: I'm discussing the report that has been released. We can discuss the 'final' report when it comes out.

Exactly. The final report isn't out yet.

And, can you also explain to me:

That's right. They are all part of NIST and they concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible"

Why you thought NIST concluded that it 'appears possible', considering that they haven't finished their investigation yet. I thought conclusions come at the end of an investigation?

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 10:39 PM

But you've already seen numerous examples of people using the word "explosion" to mean a loud scary noise, whether or not there were explosives involved.
No, it doesn't make it a possibility - it is no evidence one way or another. To make it a possibility, you would need at least some evidence for it. Since we could reasonably expect there to be some evidence if it were true, and there is zero evidence, it's pretty safe to rule out that possibility for now. If you get any actual evidence, we'll listen.
The physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed before it could be inspected to see what caused the collapse of WTC 7. None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected.

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on the actual material from the structure"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

[pg 5]

The only evidence NIST or anybody else has is eyewitness testimony,
pics and vids.

Are you saying that all eyewitness statements are 'no evidence one way or the other' or just this one ?

Why can't you take the man at his word ?

Why do you always have to find an alternate explanation ?

Arus808

17th January 2007, 10:42 PM

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 10:58 PM

Exactly. The final report isn't out yet.

And, can you also explain to me:

Why you thought NIST concluded that it 'appears possible', considering that they haven't finished their investigation yet. I thought conclusions come at the end of an investigation?
"appears possible" was the conclusion of the report they released.

[Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis - NIST Appendex L pg 50]

It is this report that we are discussing.

Until they release the final report, this is currently the 'official' statement.

Are you basing your opinion [in part] on this report or the one that hasen't been released yet ?

c6gunner

17th January 2007, 11:05 PM

The physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed before it could be inspected to see what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years?

By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media.

None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected.

This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links.

The Doc

17th January 2007, 11:26 PM

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.

Think about this.

WTC7 is rigged up for demolitions without any demolitions in WTC1 of WTC2? That is placing a lot of hope on those two towers collapsing. If WTC1 had not collapsed - WTC7 would have been left untouched and a random collapse would pretty much confirm a conspiracy.

So relying on an "architectural freak" to bring WTC1 down onto WTC7 is not something I can see planners of such an event doing.

The guy you're talking about is Frank Albert Demartini. He stated that he believed that the towers could withstand multiple impacts before 9/11 happened. He hasn't been able to offer an opinion after the fact because he was sadly killed in his office on 9/11.

So saying that WTC7 was a controlled demolition but WTC1 and WTC2 weren't is rather odd. I personally don't believe any of the buildings were demolitions, but seeing as the collapse of WTC7 has been blamed on the collapse of WTC1, I can't see why "the planners" would even consider a CD at WTC7 without knowing for a fact that part of WTC1 would fall onto WTC7. There's no way they could have predicted whether that would actually happen or not.

Just think about your conclusion.

uk_dave

17th January 2007, 11:33 PM

see post #204

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

See post 190

Christopher7

17th January 2007, 11:50 PM

Again, Christopher7 as has been stated ad nauseum
THIS IS A PRELIMNARY REPORT> meaning at any time between this report and the final one, FINDINGS, EVIDENCE, FACTS AND TESTIMONY can change.

So please why do you want us to comment on something that is bound to change in the near future? WE can freaking speuclate till the cows come home, but it doesn't mean one IOTA if the findings end up proving something entirely different.
Gravy insisted that i read this report. He even gave me the URL.
At the time [Sept '06] he thought it was evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis.

Prelimnary or whatever, it is an official document and is part of the permanent public record.

Why do you keep saying "it's just a prelimnary report" are you disavowing it now?

Why can't you bring yourself to accknowledge that there is serious flaw in it instead of constantly saying it doesn't matter?

Christopher7

18th January 2007, 12:10 AM

post #190
Who are these experts that say it was a certainty
It appears possible because......bla bla bla
You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b**************
Do you know the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

uk_dave

18th January 2007, 12:12 AM

post #190

Do you know the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

Did I ever say it was a 'certainty'?

Methinks you're getting me confursed with someone else.

Arus808

18th January 2007, 12:18 AM

Gravy insisted that i read this report. He even gave me the URL.
At the time [Sept '06] he thought it was evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis.

Yes, and what's your point? YOu asked about WTC 7, he gave you a link to the report that has been released...its a preliminary report, however, its based on evidence they have thus far collected and analyzed, thereby whatever is in that report may end up being in the final version.

He wanted you to get familiar with the tactics and the evidence that were found about WTC 7, because much of what you are asking has already been answered.

However, just like Christophera and 28thdumbdon and KillClown you persist on taking one aspect of the report (one that has been admittedly prone to inconsistecny because its based on eyewitness testimony) and think that one little thing means the whole report is "trash".

einsteen

18th January 2007, 05:03 AM

That's of course the point TheDoc. If the TT's where 100% gravity driven and that became the standard then one needs to find a workaround for wtc7, because if the answer will be CD one might make a connection between the twin towers.

But there is a workaround for this problem, simply by admitting wtc7 has been imploded very quickly and dirty, as Jowenko explained, the reason then could be because it became instable and it was a high risk to let an unstable building stay there as it is.

If you look at the Naudet wtc7 video for example, you clearly see all structures on several levels are broken at the same time, this is a discontinuous process, there is no scientist who will ever be able to explain this. After this shockwave it fell with an acceleration of about 9.1 N/kg and the collapse was very complete.

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined. For wtc7 the impossible became possible, there is no chance at all this can happen, this chance is even lower than the chance that a group of people lie.

You have a safe with $10,000, nobody knows the code of the save. 100 people swear they don't know it. Now the safe is empty. The theory is that due to the fact that the safe fell in such an improbable way the code has been typed because of mechanical collisions between the buttons and the environment. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. If some ******** between those 100 know the code and lie that chance is a couple of 1000 times higher than 'the best hypothesis'.

In a court of course it should be proved but if it can never be proved one needs to accept the improbable hypothesis. That’s how it is. It’s the perfect crime.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 05:21 AM

But there is a workaround for this problem, simply by admitting wtc7 has been imploded very quickly and dirty, as Jowenko explained, the reason then could be because it became instable and it was a high risk to let an unstable building stay there as it is.

Fires burned in WTC7 from the moment WTC1 collapsed to the moment WTC7 collapsed. I think it was roughly 6 hours. How do you suppose people set up an implosion during large scale fires and during a building collapse right next door?

There was 102 minutes from when WTC1 was hit to when WTC1 collapsed. 102 minutes is no where near enough time to set up ANY kind of implosion. Especially one that goes unnoticed by seismographs. In an implosion, thousands of small explosives (shaped charges) are placed on the majority of the columns. A "quick and dirty" job would need large explosives to get more building cleared out using less charges. The larger the explosives, the more they get picked up by seismographs. That rules out large explosives.

If you look at the Naudet wtc7 video for example, you clearly see all structures on several levels are broken at the same time, this is a discontinuous process

This is a contradiction by yours truly. First you tell me that is was a quick and dirty implosion... and now you're telling me that it explosives were placed so "all structures on several levels at the same time"? Do you have any idea how many explosives you would need to do that?

You would have needed to place explosives undetected, WELL in advance of 9/11. And then you would be relying on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. See what I'm saying?

there is no scientist who will ever be able to explain this.

What about the scientists at the NIST? You forget about them? Or are you just going to ignore the final report if it doesn't conclude demolitions...?

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined. For wtc7 the impossible became possible, [B]there is no chance at all this can happen, this chance is even lower than the chance that a group of people lie.

Have you got statistics and solid numbers to back that up?

No. You're just speculating.

You have a safe with $10,000, nobody knows the code of the save. 100 people swear they don't know it. Now the safe is empty. The theory is that due to the fact that the safe fell in such an improbable way the code has been typed because of mechanical collisions between the buttons and the environment. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. If some ******** between those 100 know the code and lie that chance is a couple of 1000 times higher than 'the best hypothesis'.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with WTC7.

In a court of course it should be proved but if it can never be proved one needs to accept the improbable hypothesis. That’s how it is. It’s the perfect crime.

That is known as speculation my friend. Innocent until proven guilty is the rules most people play by - you are playing the opposite. Based on an assumption and some speculation you have determined that WTC7 was a controlled demo.

Do you see how wrong that is?

Andúril

18th January 2007, 05:31 AM

Here we can see part of the damage to the south side of WTC 7:

_3uUQt8bu6k

And if that's not enough, here are two more vids that clearly show that WTC 7's fires were not "relatively small", as CTists hallucinate, but quite the opposite:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

Of course, it is not entirely impossible that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives. Tearing down heavily damaged buildings is not unusual at all among firefighters. The collapse of WTC 7 was only a matter of time anyway, so it may be possible that the rescue workers thought it to be better if they decide when the building comes down than to allow it to remain there as a time bomb, ready to collapse at any time.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 05:33 AM

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a few man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

Whatever what happened with the goddamned building the end result is what counts.

twinstead

18th January 2007, 05:35 AM

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

How on Earth could that have been accomplished in an occupied building pre 911?

einsteen

18th January 2007, 05:42 AM

Belz...

18th January 2007, 05:42 AM

Belz...

18th January 2007, 05:44 AM

The '10 story gouge' is the most serious damage to the south face.
Since this gouge cannot co-exist with the other 4 statements, it should not be used as evidence in further reports or in discussions here.

So, by your logic, any conclusion that contradicts even ONE eyewitness statement cannot be reached ?

Well, that does it for me. NO conclusion can EVER be reached.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 05:45 AM

I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar.

Firefighters reported huge fires engulfing the whole building.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

There are only limited images of WTC7 because of what had just happened at WTC1 and WTC2. "Oh look at that. Two 110 story buildings have just come down and there is smoke and dust absolutely everywhere... think I might just hang out over by that piece of steel"...

You see, for the "No WTC7 images" to be bizarre, that would imply that somehow these images were "covered up" by the government. How do you suppose that there would have been enough 'government agents' around GZ right after the collapse to confiscate all photographs of WTC7? There's nothing "Bizarre" about it unless you're world view is based on seeing everything as one big conspiracy, one big cover up.

Where do you suppose all that smoke came from? Water? Ok you're probably not following so I'll answer it. It came from burning materials as a result of fire. FIRE.

You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

So what you're suggesting is not only that there were no fires in WTC7, but that men were cutting columns inside the building with torches... They weren't blinded or suffocated by all that smoke? They haven't come out? They managed to get out before the collapse?Your Scenario:

WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.
WTC7 was a controlled demolition using explosives planted after the plane impacts and also using people cutting the columns with torches.

All who were presumably in WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1 where "the planners" thought... "Hey! WTC1 came down and f*cked WTC7 up... LET'S BLOW WTC7 UP TOO! WTC1 HITTING IT WILL BE A GREAT COVER STORY! QUICK! ORGANIZE THE MEN!"

Whatever what happened with the goddamned building the end result is what counts.

Oh so you're basing this whole argument on... "It looked like a demolition, therefore it is a demolition".

Jesus H...

Belz...

18th January 2007, 05:47 AM

Andúril

18th January 2007, 05:47 AM

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has.
Check those vids I posted above.

The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement.
By the way, I've heard that there was a diesel generator and lots of fuel for it in the 5th floor of WTC 7. That burns quite merrily.

Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a few man-minutes per column Jowenko said.
Who would go to cut the supporting columns? It's not exactly the brightest idea to cut the columns of any building while being still inside. It's like sawing the tree branch which you are sitting on.

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 05:47 AM

If you look at the Naudet wtc7 video for example, you clearly see all structures on several levels are broken at the same time, this is a discontinuous process, there is no scientist who will ever be able to explain this. After this shockwave it fell with an acceleration of about 9.1 N/kg and the collapse was very complete.

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined. For wtc7 the impossible became possible, there is no chance at all this can happen, this chance is even lower than the chance that a group of people lie.

You have a safe with $10,000, nobody knows the code of the save. 100 people swear they don't know it. Now the safe is empty. The theory is that due to the fact that the safe fell in such an improbable way the code has been typed because of mechanical collisions between the buttons and the environment. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. If some ******** between those 100 know the code and lie that chance is a couple of 1000 times higher than 'the best hypothesis'.

In a court of course it should be proved but if it can never be proved one needs to accept the improbable hypothesis. That’s how it is. It’s the perfect crime.
What are you trying to express in that bolded section? The Newton (N) is a unit of force, defined as 1Kg*m/(s^2) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton). Dividing Newtons by Kilograms does give an acceleration, but you've picked an absolutely bonkers way of expressing it.
G (the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface) is 9.8m/(s^2)

The rest of your spew is simply gibberish.

WTC7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the towers. It was also burning. Witnesses describe it as leaning. Firemen were pulled out of the building because of safety concerns.
Simply: WTC7 was smashed and collapsed.

If a "quick and dirty CD" was needed, why all the subterfuge? Warn people, blast it, gone on. What would be the point of concealing such a thing?

On the other hand, who trucked in the tons of explosives that such a demolition would need? If you presuppose that WTC7 was not damaged enough to collapse, then you would also need a very good bit of explosives to take it down. Since you don't have time for the painstaking, precision placing of charges needed for a controlled demolition, you are going to have to go over kill on the explosives to be sure that the building comes down - simply put, you will need a bigger BOOM to allow for the crude placement (piled in the hallways and offices.)

Who trucked in the explosives while everyone else was evacuating WTC7? Who carried all of the needed explosives into a burning building? Who laid the detonation cord?

Most importantly:
Where was the ear splitting KABOOM of tons of explosives going off?

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 05:53 AM

I'm no criminal, I don't know what happened, I just want the answer...

Occupied building ? My brother who works through the whole country always says if you wear a orange/yellow jacker and a helmet nobody asks you what you do. I remember that there are some guys here wearing mililtair uniforms, they went to important events, nobody asked them who they were, even one made it on a photo with a foremer German minister (Honecker). You look to difficult, people can do so much, is not impossible.
Yes, but if people see someone methodically cutting support columns in an occupied building (which will make an *****' big mess in an office or hallway,) they'd sure as heck check to find out what's going on.

Planting charges before hand is the same problem. You are talking about holes in walls and floors, all over the area where you want to cause the collapse.

Are you folks so seriously disconnected from reality?

Belz...

18th January 2007, 05:55 AM

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Actually, the only likely explanation is that you don't understand them.

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has.

We've seen tower 7 engulfed in smoke from tip to toe. Where do you think THAT comes from ?

The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar.

So, BECAUSE it was the "crime of the century" (that remains to be seen) it MUST have show what YOU want it to show ???

You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no fires or somewhere in the basement.

If you do then the building could simply topple over and will look NOTHING like a controlled demolition, contra what you guys have been claiming.

Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a few man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

Patently ridiculous. It takes months to rig a building like 7 with complete, unobstructed access.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 05:56 AM

Belz...

18th January 2007, 05:58 AM

Just answer my points.

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 06:00 AM

It didn't look like a demolition; it was a demolition, by definition. The only difference is that OCT'er mention fire and non-OCT'ers mention explosives or something else.

Mortfurd, N/kg=m/s^2, they are both valid, I’ve studied 5 years physics, one year numerical mathematics and 8 years electrotechnical engineering.

N/Kg does reduce to m/(s^2) I mentioned that in my post.

Expressing it that way (with out any good reason to not use the conventional expression) just makes you look like a dolt tossing out buzzwords in an attempt to impress the rubes.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 06:01 AM

einsteen

18th January 2007, 06:03 AM

Mortfurd, one of my teachers always used g=9.81 N/kg

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 06:04 AM

It didn't look like a demolition; it was a demolition, by definition. The only difference is that OCT'er mention fire and non-OCT'ers mention explosives or something else.

Mortfurd, N/kg=m/s^2, they are both valid, I’ve studied 5 years physics, one year numerical mathematics and 8 years electrotechnical engineering.
:Sigh:

If it looks like a CTer and it quacks like a CTer and it waddles like a CTer, then it probably is a CTer.

WTC7 was demolished by the collapse of the towers. You paranoid people are positing that WTC was intentionally demolished by someone from the US government.

twinstead

18th January 2007, 06:05 AM

Occupied building ? My brother who works through the whole country always says if you wear a orange/yellow jacker and a helmet nobody asks you what you do. I remember that there are some guys here wearing mililtair uniforms, they went to important events, nobody asked them who they were, even one made it on a photo with a foremer German minister (Honecker). You look to difficult, people can do so much, is not impossible.

Don't you think that once the building fell people might put 2 and 2 together though?

I submit that indeed rigging a huge, occupied building with explosives and/or exposing and cutting columns (even at man minutes per column this would take quite a while) with nobody noticing or even more significant nobody commenting on it even in passing in the subsequent 5 years since the event, while not impossible, is so much more unlikely than the prevailing explanation as to safely be ignored.

This coupled with the copious eye witness testimony by experts on the scene that day that the building was in dire shape leaning and creaking and groaning, and testimony of CD experts who with the exception of ONE disagree that it was CD, well to me is pretty compelling that the collapse wasn't CD.

But, I'm no expert. I don't expect my opinion to hold any weight. It's just my opinion.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 06:07 AM

Major smoke with minor fire, ever heard about smoke bombs ?

You see the problem with you Truthers is you are disproven on a fact, so you create an absurd situation that makes no sense instead of admitting you were wrong.

So I'll update your scenario:
Einsteen's Scenario:

WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.
WTC7 was brought down with people manually cutting columns
WTC7 was also brought down with tiny amounts of explosives in the basement.
WTC7 had smoke bombs and no fire.
You claim that "natural" collapse is impossible but you rely heavily on it in your thesis.
You state that only key elements of the building needed to be destroyed - but claim it was impossible for fire to do this.

Come on man. Wake up to yourself.

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 06:09 AM

Belz, it won't topple if you blow up it symmetrically. It would not take 7 months, you think it happend 'naturally' why would it then take 7 months ? You contradict yourself with that.

Major smoke with minor fire, ever heard about smoke bombs ?
No contradiction at all.

There's a huge difference between "huge honkin chunks of rubble and bad a** fire destroy building in hours" and "suicide squad cuts support columns in a couple of hours and lets building fall on them."

To do the job in hours, you're going to need a LOT of suicidal people armed with cutting torches. If they aren't suicidal, they need much longer - easily months, if they were covertly preparing the collapse prior to September 11, 2001 as you seem to be suggesting.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 06:18 AM

Sigh.... smokebombs was only mentioned in order to show that not all processes with a lot of smoke involve a lot of fire. No wtc7 didn't contain smoke bombs.

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

http://users.telenet.be/netdata2/afbeeldingen/horen-zien-zwijgen.jpg

Please remember to NOT hotlink; use URL's in the future.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 06:22 AM

Sigh.... smokebombs was only mentioned in order to show that not all processes with a lot of smoke involve a lot of fire. No wtc7 didn't contain smoke bombs.

So where did the smoke come from? Fire maybe? What else to you suppose the smoke came from?

Do you agree that fire was responsible for the smoke?

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

Dude!

You say yourself that only minor damage was needed to bring the building down! The difference is you are saying that this damage could not have been caused by fire and that therefore explosives were used at the bottom of the building (that had a huge hole in it) and cutting torches were used by real live people at the top of the building.

Did you even read those links on the "small scattered fires" issue that I posted?

twinstead

18th January 2007, 06:23 AM

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

Because your straw man aside, the fires according to EYE WITNESSES and EXPERTS at the scene was not minor and the damage was not random.

That the building fell because of those, and not some clandestine demolition team, just makes more sense to us.

It's really simple. It's not required that you agree.

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 06:23 AM

Sigh.... smokebombs was only mentioned in order to show that not all processes with a lot of smoke involve a lot of fire. No wtc7 didn't contain smoke bombs.

Why on earth is it for everyone here (I say here explicitly) so self-evident that a building implodes itself in such a way because some random damage and minor fire. I really don't get it

http://users.telenet.be/netdata2/afbeeldingen/horen-zien-zwijgen.jpg
Where's my Clue-by-four? (http://www.bofh.com/store/cluebyfour.html)
Try major ***** fire and huge farkin hole.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 06:24 AM

I would like to point out here that I am not agreeing that the damage was minor - I'm just pointing out a double standard on Einsteen's part.

c6gunner

18th January 2007, 06:47 AM

So according to our nuclear scientist over there, firefighters don't actually fight fires - they set off smoke bombs, blow up buildings, and cover up government plots.

Well.

If I'd known that, I wouldn't have donated anything for the fireman's ball....

Andúril

18th January 2007, 06:58 AM

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q246/Wilfred_Ivanhoe/WTC7_South_damage.jpg

jaydeehess

18th January 2007, 07:02 AM

It's the first one [new footage]
[tryed to post direct link, didn't work]

Every time you are presented with someone saying explosion or describing an explosion you drag out your 'it could have been something else' bugaboo.
Can you acknowledge that it may have actually been an explosion ?

You might have skipped my post in which I assumed you meant the first link.

Post #224

Good of you to find more corroborating evidence of elevator cars being ejected due to (or at the very least at the same time as ) the collapse of WTC 1.
From post 224
The OEM was evacuated at 9:44 AM
The south tower collapsed at 9:59 AM
This man was walking down from the 23rd floor sometime after the evac order was given at 9:44.
It stands to reason that the 'explosion' he is reporting on was the result of the collapse of the south tower smashing the windows and sending dust and smoke throughout WTC 7. We know very well that such occured even down on the first floor of WTC 7 when the south tower collapsed from eyewitness accounts there. From those same reports and others, we also know that in the immediate aftermath of the south tower's collapse that the dust and smoke was so thick that it was difficult or impossible to see well enough to move around, that it blocked out the sun for those in the dust. Thus his complaint that they were trapped on the 8th floor "with smoke all around us".

That's 15 floors below where he starts from and 15 minutes to get there IF he immediatly left the 23rd floor at exactly 9:44 AM. More likely, since there was no immediate known danger to those in WTC 7, he gathered up personal items such as jacket and breifcase and made his way out in an orderly fashion.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 07:07 AM

The Doc

18th January 2007, 07:22 AM

You have two options here:

a) The amount of explosives needed to bring down WTC7 were much larger than could be planted in the time frame of the attacks. Therefore they would have needed to have been placed before the attacks with people in the buildings. Why did no one report demolitions activity?

b) A minimal amount of explosives are needed - so little they could be placed and rigged to go within hours. This would be far less than are used in normal CD's. This does, however, go against standard controlled demolitions:

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120

That's for 9 floors. I fail to see how such a small amount would be needed.

In this "minor demolitions" case you are admitting that minor damage in certain areas of the building could have brought the building down. Couldn't fire have done this?

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 07:27 AM

Sorry Doc, missed that part about the scattered fires.

We have a building that is hit by the twin towers, it got a hole in it, there is fire, yes where smoke is is fire, but a small fire can cause a lot of smoke. now let's go to the situation of raging fires, whatever caused it is not relevant, a burning part from the WTC or an exploded tank.

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole) and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment. Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving with 9.1 m/s^2. if this really is caused by fire and a few columns that are gone then the whole science of CDs need to be revisited.

A cd is really a high-skilled job in which you
- exactly study the building
- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
- cut also some columns on higher levels or place charges there
- connect a computer system to time it very precisely, a random timing will lead to a failed CD.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ? We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.

Gosh, you should go out straight away and offer your services to the insurance companies. Boy, will their face be red when they find they've paid out billions of dollars to someone who deliberately blew up his own extremely lucrative building in order to...

um...

Now, why did he do it, again?

The Doc

18th January 2007, 07:28 AM

Gosh, you should go out straight away and offer your services to the insurance companies. Boy, will their face be red when they find they've paid out billions of dollars to someone who deliberately blew up his own extremely lucrative building in order to...

um...

Now, why did he do it, again?

Excellent point.

Einsteen - What are your proposed motives for the destruction of WTC7?

c6gunner

18th January 2007, 07:32 AM

it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment.

Another lie. They knew it was coming down, but nobody knew when. I'd love to see you try and prove this assertion.

Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving

Really? A shockwave eh? And ofcourse, your super-dooper x-ray goggles allowed you to see this shockwave, while everyone else missed it.

Man, where can I buy a pair of those?

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ?

A infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters.....

Anyway, if you look at the way the building collapsed, it actually fell over to one side. In the CD business, that would be considered a failure. Someone would get their butt kicked for screwing it up.

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 07:33 AM

The physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed before it could be inspected to see what caused the collapse of WTC 7. None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected.

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on the actual material from the structure"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

[pg 5]

The only evidence NIST or anybody else has is eyewitness testimony,
pics and vids.

Are you saying that all eyewitness statements are 'no evidence one way or the other' or just this one ?

Why can't you take the man at his word ?

Why do you always have to find an alternate explanation ?

No offense, but your argument for CD has a ten-story hole in it.

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 07:35 AM

Really? A shockwave eh? And ofcourse, your super-dooper x-ray goggles allowed you to see this shockwave, while everyone else missed it.

Including seismologists with extremely sensitive equipment!

How do you think THEY missed it, einsteen?

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 07:39 AM

Sorry Doc, missed that part about the scattered fires.

We have a building that is hit by the twin towers, it got a hole in it, there is fire, yes where smoke is is fire, but a small fire can cause a lot of smoke. now let's go to the situation of raging fires, whatever caused it is not relevant, a burning part from the WTC or an exploded tank.

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole) and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment. Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving with 9.1 m/s^2. if this really is caused by fire and a few columns that are gone then the whole science of CDs need to be revisited.

A cd is really a high-skilled job in which you
- exactly study the building
- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
- cut also some columns on higher levels or place charges there
- connect a computer system to time it very precisely, a random timing will lead to a failed CD.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ? We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.
My arm is getting tired from swinging the ole Clue by four:

All of the WTC buildings made a freaking mess when they collapsed. That's how WTC7 was damaged in the first place - debris from the towers smashed into it and took aout a big chunk as well as starting fires. So much for controlled.

Have you ever seen a CD being prepared? They don't connect things to a computer. They may use one before hand to do calculations, but the delays are all done using detonation cord and non-electrical delay devices.

There was nothing controlled about the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 07:45 AM

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Doc, I admit of course that I cannot explain everything, it would be very easy to repeat the fire story, it's very easy to lay down and be one of the debunkers. But also the debunkers cannot explain it, they only refer to some preliminarily reports.

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 07:55 AM

Excellent point.

Einsteen - What are your proposed motives for the destruction of WTC7?
He doesn't need to find a motive or a mechanism. He's a CT and "just asking questions."

He also ignores answers and willfully ignores reality.

The Doc

18th January 2007, 07:56 AM

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Again, two options:
a) People saw the state of the building and all the smoke coming out of it, the tilt, the hole, the fires etc. And thought "That doesn't look good".

b) Everyone knew demolition charges were in the building. They haven't come out. They didn't report it on the day.

Seriously, think about what you're saying.

Doc, I admit of course that I cannot explain everything, it would be very easy to repeat the fire story, it's very easy to lay down and be one of the debunkers. But also the debunkers cannot explain it, they only refer to some preliminarily reports.

Well I have yet to see any undisputed research at all that proves a controlled demolition.

No one's "laying down and [being] one of the debunkers". You've provided nothing. The official account is far more convincing and is backed up by qualified eyewitnesses who were given the job of surveying the building, structural engineers, NIST, FEMA, Architects and common sense. The idea that charges could have been planted undetected in itself is utterly absurd.

So I think if anyone is "lying down", it is you. It is much easier to speculate than prove anything. Questions are not evidence buddy.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 08:01 AM

Oops, sorry wrong words, no I don't mean lying but in fact (how do you say it) just relaxing and repeating the official story.

Belz...

18th January 2007, 08:04 AM

Belz, it won't topple if you blow up it symmetrically.

And you know this how ?

It would not take 7 months, you think it happend 'naturally' why would it then take 7 months ? You contradict yourself with that.

What the hell are you talking about ?

When did I ever say it happened "naturally" ? A 110-storey building fell unto it. I don't call that natural.

Major smoke with minor fire, ever heard about smoke bombs ?

Irrelevant. Unless you can prove that "smoke bombs" of a size never before seen were used, this is just speculation.

Also, a motive would be a good thing to add to your theory.

Belz...

18th January 2007, 08:08 AM

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q246/Wilfred_Ivanhoe/WTC7_South_damage.jpg

First time I see that one.

Belz...

18th January 2007, 08:11 AM

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole)

Yes the building was still intact EXCEPT FOR THAT HUGE FREAKING HOLE IN IT.

and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment.

The damn thing was tilting. What part of that didn't you understand ?

- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges

I would've thought they needed to determine where to place the EXACT amount of charges.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ?

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.

And if that isn't a pre-determined conclusion, I don't know what is.

CurtC

18th January 2007, 08:12 AM

The evidence [see post #94] shows that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" is in conflict with 4 other statements [2 on the same page]

The report ignores these other statements and uses the incorrect statement to bolster it's hypothesis that debris from WTC 1 damaged these core columns, leading to the initiating event.So your point now is that the larger estimate was used by NIST in explaining the collapse, but if they had used the smaller estimates (still a huge gouge), that the collapse couldn't have been explained? Sorry, I don't believe you - can you show your work?

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction?Possibly. You're saying that you saw the video of them clearing people out of the area, then only assumed that it must have collapsed immediately afterwards? Do you not see a problem with this thought process?

My brother who works through the whole country always says if you wear a orange/yellow jacker and a helmet nobody asks you what you do.If I see guys wearing orange jackets working in my building, I often will not ask them what they're doing (but I actually often do, not because I'm suspicious of them, just that I'm always curious). But if I saw guys with orange jackets getting access to the structural elements of the building, then a week or two later the building collapsed, even if I hadn't asked them at the time, don't you think that I, and every other building occupant, would be telling all to the authorities? Nothing you say can stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 08:16 AM

First time I see that one.

that image is consistent with the expected column damage.

Mancman

18th January 2007, 08:16 AM

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined.

If you use the 'greening model' for WTC7 you will find the following if you assume that the building collapsed at the 7th floor:

Floor Falling Vi Vf Vavg Time Cuml. Time
7 40 0.00 8.52 4.26 0.87 0.87
6 41 8.31 11.90 10.11 0.37 1.24
5 42 11.62 14.41 13.02 0.28 1.52
4 43 14.08 16.46 15.27 0.24 1.76
3 44 16.09 18.21 17.15 0.22 1.98
2 45 17.81 19.74 18.78 0.20 2.17
1 46 19.32 21.11 20.22 0.18 2.36

And absolute freefall from 25.9m (7x3.7m) would be 2.30 seconds. A massive resistance of 0.06 seconds.

*Note that some of these floors are mechanical and may differ from a 3.7m floor height (174m/47), but I can't find the figures anywhere.

Andúril

18th January 2007, 08:19 AM

First time I see that one.
It's a still from a YouTube video clip:

_3uUQt8bu6k

einsteen

18th January 2007, 08:20 AM

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ? they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical. But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum. Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream.

c6gunner

18th January 2007, 08:23 AM

Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Really? Can you provide a link to these videos?

I doubt anyone would have stood looking at it for 7 hours, no. However, we have firefighters on record as saying that it was noticably leaning. This tilt would have kept increasing until the point of collapse. At a certain point, anyone with half a brain would probably stop, look at it, and think "holy crap, that thing's coming down any minute". From the on, yeah, they probably would have been watching it.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing those videos, any time you can dig up the link.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 08:25 AM

The Doc

18th January 2007, 08:26 AM

Post #243:
Einsteen said:
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak

Post #320
Einsteen said:
they were demolitions

:rolleyes:

Come on man.

einsteen

18th January 2007, 08:28 AM

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

Arkan_Wolfshade

18th January 2007, 08:30 AM

OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof
I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
Did any of the chiefs that did not say they thought it would collapse actually say "I don't think it will collapse" or actually disagree with those that stated they thought it would; or were they just silent on the issue?

Mancman

18th January 2007, 08:36 AM

mancman, the greening pancake model for wtc7 will give 8.5 seconds if it starts from the top (assuming E1=0) and will be faster if it starts at the bottom. If you blow up the bottom of wtc1 his formalism will give 9.2 seconds. Free fall one storey and the second stage of collapse will also be free fall because of the kinetic energy of the whole building.

8.5 or 8.3 seconds, all well and good.

But it clearly didn't collapse from the top. So such an analysis is fairly useless.

If we apply Greenings second stage to the 7 story collapse model, we'd have 174-25.9m = 148.1m of building left, with a starting velocity of 21.11m/s. Final velocity would be 57.87m/s, average of 39.49m/s, time of 3.75s + 2.36s = 6.11s.

CurtC

18th January 2007, 09:55 AM

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.That paper saysIt was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds. Could this possibly happen as aresult of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?And then goes on to show that a top-down collapse, such as what happened in the Twin Towers, can't explain the 6.5 second collapse of WTC7.

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

Belz...

18th January 2007, 10:27 AM

that image is consistent with the expected column damage.

Indeed. And this brings up an interesting question. If the building was so damaged that firefighters thought it would collapse, why was there any need to detonate explosives ?

Belz...

18th January 2007, 10:33 AM

Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ?

No, I said this:

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

And it happened to be a question, which you didn't answer.

they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical.

Contradiction.

Also speculation, since you are yet to provide any evidence to support that claim.

But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum.[/QUOTE]

You have forgotten a very important and CONSTANT source of momentum.

Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream.

Yeah. Please do so.

Belz...

18th January 2007, 10:35 AM

Well no duh! It clearly didn't collapse top-down! Why did he even bother to write this paper up?

Because winning is easier when you're fighting a strawman.

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 10:49 AM

It is 8.3 seconds from the top

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf

Kuttler used Greening's model.

Interesting. So why did they blow it up?

There must have been a really, really good reason, considering the financial bath taken by the building owners, the loss of the Con Edison substation, and damage to the surrounding infrastructure caused by the collapse. There must have been some massive payoff, one having nothing to do with propoganda, since its collapse went almost unnoticed in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 11:17 AM

Patently ridiculous. It takes months to rig a building like 7 with complete, unobstructed access.

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 11:22 AM

I submit that indeed rigging a huge, occupied building with explosives and/or exposing and cutting columns (even at man minutes per column this would take quite a while) with nobody noticing or even more significant nobody commenting on it even in passing in the subsequent 5 years since the event, while not impossible, is so much more unlikely than the prevailing explanation as to safely be ignored.

Indeed (and once I hit 15 posts, I think, I can show the forum some photos I took of a *real* controlled demolition's prep work). A CD involves months and months of very, very conspicuous prep work. The idea that it could be "hidden" in a building *still in use* is absurd.

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 11:28 AM

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas.

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is! (http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/oldftw/medartsburnettpark.jpg)

MortFurd

18th January 2007, 11:34 AM

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 11:36 AM

My home town!

Interestingly, my wife and I were cleaning the garage this weekend when she found an old brick and tried to throw it away (women!). It was a brick from the Medical Arts Building in Fort Worth, which was demolished in the mid-seventies. I was one of the many witnesses of the event, and they let us in afterwards to collect souvenirs (not sure if they would still do that today, what with liability and all).

ETA: And here it is![/url]

Heh - the guy who runs fortwortharchitecture.com is a friend of mine!

The Medical Arts Building is my favorite "lost" Fort Worth building. It was gorgeous, and Burnett Plaza (the replacement) is...not so much. I should know - without getting too specific on location, I live across that park from the Medical Arts/Burnett Plaza site.

jaydeehess

18th January 2007, 11:49 AM

What it increasingly comes down to is that there are two ways WTC 7 could have been brought down.
Mode 1) Impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 weakened the structure and the subsequent fires further weakened key columns such that the column structure below the east penthouse was completely compromised. The collapse began there and falling debris and shifting load then compromised the ability of nearby columns resulting in a horizontal progression of the collapse ending as the perimeter frame also started to collapse. (the screenwall and west penthouse sink as the perimeter frame starts to fail and disappear from sight indicating that the column structure beneath them failed before the perimeter frame)

Mode 2) Explosives were loaded in such a way as to mimic 1) meaning that they were placed on the same columns that failed as per the NIST computer sims (barring any finding of a problem with the original simulations)

As to determining which of these is true we have two camps.
Camp 1) states that there was indeed damage to WTC 7 including damage in the vicinity of those key columns, AND that due to the obvious fire in the building, the presence of deisel fuel in the building and that one floor in the region involved is a mech floor with no windows, it is completely within reason to assume that there could easily have been fire in the vicinity of those key columns.

Camp 2) states that there is no definitive evidence of damage to those key columns and no definitive evidence that there was a substantial fire in the vicinity of those key columns and therefore Mode1 above cannot be said to have occured and therefore it is as likely to have been explosive demoltion.

Now Camp 2 manages to simply ignore the fact that Camp 1 has evidence of damage and evidence of fire while they have absolutly no evidence of explosives. No flahses of explosives going off, no loud crack of explosives going off. Furthermore Camp 1 often cites the NYFD as being involved in the supposed explosive demolitions yet it has never been the pervue of any municipal fire dept to use explosives in any manner.

jaydeehess

18th January 2007, 11:54 AM

What the hell is this "Random damage"? Perhaps the genius means "minimal damage". It is indeed somewhat random in that one could not have predicted where the damage would precisly occur while of course there is some pattern to it in that it all occurs on the southen part of the building that being the area closest to and facing WTC 1&2.

I would have thought that a physicist would actually understand the meaning of the word "random".

Randomly positioned heavy damage impacted Banker's Trust but owing to the differences in what was damaged, how the building was constructed, and the amount/duration of fires, it managed to remain standing.

Belz...

18th January 2007, 01:06 PM

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Welcome to the forum, Atomic.

Coritani

18th January 2007, 01:54 PM

Hi all, first post here.

If I had the required number of posts to do so, I would love to show you all the photos I took of the prep work for the implosion of Landmark Tower here in Fort Worth, Texas. I live just a couple of blocks from where Landmark stood (2nd tallest building ever imploded), and had a great opportunity to photograph the prep work in detail. Let me tell you - it's NOT something that could even *possibly* be hidden from view.

Hi mate. You've reached the 15 post mark, which means you can now post links and the like. Could you please post those pictures? I'm very interested in seeing them.

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 01:58 PM

Aaaah, there we go! Out of 15 Post Pergatory! :)

Anyway, here's some photos I took of a *genuine* controlled demolition and its prep work - the implosion of Landmark Tower in downtown Fort Worth, TX, the second-tallest building imploded ever. As I mentioned, I live just a couple of blocks away from this site, so I had a great opportunity to observe the work being done to the building in preparation for its date with the ground. These photos are hosted on my own web server.

The prep work took *months* of time, and involved the removal of the building's base, removal of several steel columns in its frame, the gutting of the interior, etc. etc. etc. These two photos show the crew from Midwest Wrecking hard at work on the exposed base of the tower's structure. It's not the work of a few "guys in hard hats," but a small army of them with heavy equipment and months of time, not to mention an exposed structure to play with.

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark1small.jpg

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark2small.jpg

Nobody would notice that sort of work in an office, right? Not to mention how it'd be, I'd say, impossible to do all this in an active office building with nobody noticing, or even do it at all - how long would all this take without being able to get at the whole frame like that? The mind boggles.

This shot was taken just a day or two before implosion:

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark3small.jpg

As you can see, the building has been draped with protective netting, and further netting is going on the base. A lot of cables were strung around the columns on the base as well, to help control the collapse of the columns after the charges blow. The mount of dirt was a wall built around the trench dug around the building - Landmark Tower was surrounded by several restored historic buildings, and the drop had to be precise to minimize the chances of damage to the other buildings (more on that later). I believe (trying to remember exactly when this photo was taken) you can see some of the many, many charges on the columns in the foreground, and this is after they removed a lot of columns to weaken the building. I think you can even see how much wider some of the column spacing looks, thanks to the removal of so many columns. Speaking of which...

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark4small.jpg

After they removed a lot of columns, they had to keep the building stable while charges were placed and the last bits of demo work were carried out. This is just one of several large wood block columns erected to stabilize the tower as work finished.

All this work brought us to this:

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark5small.jpg

http://fortworthology.com/blogpics/landmark6small.jpg

Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty. It was a dark, dreary, rainy day when the implosion occurred, so the photos I took then aren't all that attractive. I was on the 13th floor of the Burnett Plaza office tower to get the implosion shots.

2nd Note: I saw a thread here where somebody posted footage of the Landmark implosion, and somebody commented on the lean the building executed before coming down. That was intentional. The implosion was designed to lean Landmark north and west a bit before dropping it straight down into the trench dug around it. The plan worked perfectly, as it dropped really nicely into the trench and the only notable damage to the historic buildings around it was a handful of broken windows. You can really see the lean in that first shot!

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

aggle-rithm

18th January 2007, 02:02 PM

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

JonnyFive

18th January 2007, 02:02 PM

So, there you go. I seriously doubt any work of this nature could be carried out in an occupied, active office building, let alone having it done and *nobody remembering it or noticing.*

Nice pictures, very well done.

As has been pointed out, the act of demolishing a building is a very involved process. You don't just stick a couple blocks of C4 on it and hit a button.

But wait, you've failed to disprove that the evil Jooz used their Joo magik to plant magical explosives to bring down the towers from the top down, and also the WTC7 for some reason, possibly without demolishing the towers for some reason I don't know I'm just asking questions.

JonnyFive

18th January 2007, 02:04 PM

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 02:17 PM

It's funny how troofers downplay the amount of explosives it would take to bring down the WTC towers, yet at the same time believe they were invulnerable to fire and/or high-energy collisions.

No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

uk_dave

18th January 2007, 02:19 PM

Alt+F4

18th January 2007, 02:31 PM

CurtC

18th January 2007, 02:56 PM

Note: downtown Fort Worth is actually really pretty.Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.

jaydeehess

18th January 2007, 03:10 PM

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Or have parts of a bloody tall building fall on it and have subsequent fires burn for 7 hours.

I'll also add;
Welcome to the forum Atomic Glee!

rwguinn

18th January 2007, 03:26 PM

Seconded. Downtown Fort Worth is a great place. It's pretty much an ideal city in my opinion.
Too D**n many foks in there for me.
I only go ther when we got visitors who insist. Otherwise To the Imax or S. on University to the zoo is as close as I get.

CHF

18th January 2007, 03:35 PM

c6gunner

18th January 2007, 03:53 PM

Hey "einsteen", you get a link to those videos yet?

jaydeehess

18th January 2007, 04:34 PM

einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

Oh and explain to me why the conspirators blew up WTC7 at 5:20 pm. Why not blow it up at 10:35 after the second tower came down? All the dust everywhere...

Why blow it up 7 hours later? Just so that it would stand out?

I might add that if they blew it shortly after WTC 1 went down they could also have had it fall to the south towards WTC 1 and cause less damage to surrounding buildings than it did when it actually did collapse 7 hours later.

Now einsteen or others will likely bring out that old saw that the collapse of WTC 7 did not kill anyone and that had WTC 7 collapsed shortly after WTC 1 then many more would have been killed. In posts above it was shown that the personell from the OEM office were still evacuating when WTC 1 fell and so they'd have been killed if #7 went with it. However, the supposed perpetrators of this supposed crime had absolutly no compunction about killing people. 3,000 did die! That the personel in #7 might have been OEM , or other gov't agency people would mean nothing. These same perpetrators killed people at the Pentagon, they killed police officers, they killed firefighters, no one's life meant anything to them and to argue otherwise is to truly fictionalize matters.

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 06:53 PM

Unless you choose to do it in a totally uncontrolled, chaotic way by flying a bloody great fuel laden passenger aircraft into it and then let the subsequent fires burn unchecked for nearly an hour.

Right. I figured that went without saying, but when dealing with woo I guess it's a good idea to make things clear. :)

Atomic Glee

18th January 2007, 07:08 PM

einsteen,

can you please explain why the CD of WTC7 was so quiet?

No kidding. To use the Landmark implosion as an example again, well, just listen to the amount of charges that can be (very clearly) heard, and seen.

(And believe me, they could be *felt* too. I was down the street in a 40-story office tower and I felt the blasts.)

6yK9XLRb1u8

uk_dave

18th January 2007, 10:33 PM

(CT Mode on)

But...but....but.... you DO realise that the Landmark implosion (if indeed there is such a thing) was staged by the government to produce the very evidence you official theory conspiracists are now depending on? I mean, it's SO obvious!!

In fact every controlled demolition in the last 50 years has been an overly elaborate staged event leading to this moment when they can claim that the WTC towers did not look like the previous staged CD events.

So there!!

(CT mode off)

Damn it's too easy to think like a woowoo.

Christopher7

18th January 2007, 11:12 PM

This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years?
Dumb question

By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media.Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"

This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links.Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.

uk_dave

18th January 2007, 11:51 PM

Before calling someone a liar you should take a minute and view the evidencd provided.

Can you post that statement over on the LC forum too?

Coritani

19th January 2007, 12:07 AM

Dumb questionWhy?

Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link provided.
I was quoting a government report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"Lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure"

pg 27

"Nist possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"You obviously didn't read his question:

I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence.note: I know it's technically not a question. You know what I mean...

He asked if any 9/11 investigators were unsatisfied with the access they had to the evidence. Do you have any or do you not?

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 12:17 AM

Did I ever say it was a 'certainty'?

Methinks you're getting me confursed with someone else.
I think not

post #160
C7
"No one can justifiably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty"

Post #190 starts with
C7 [responding to uk_dave post #183]
"Who are these experts who say it's a certainty?"
and ends with
"You didn't name any experts"

To which you replied
post #191
quote C7: "You didn't name any experts."

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandeler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
etc.
etc.

If you are looking for plausible denyability here......

fagedaboudit

Meanwhile, back at the point:

Do you know of any experts who have investigated the collapsed of WTC 7 that say:

"WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire"

Not possibly or aparently, but for sure, 'with certainty'

LashL

19th January 2007, 12:25 AM

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 12:28 AM

Why?
Dumber

You obviously didn't read his question:

note: I know it's technically not a question. You know what I mean...

He asked if any 9/11 investigators were unsatisfied with the access they had to the evidence. Do you have any or do you not?You are avoiding the point which is:

NIST didn't have any steel from WTC 7 and therefore it did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 to see what caused the collapse.

Since the physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed, all NIST or anyone else has in the way of evidence is eyewitness testimony, pictures and videos.

Coritani

19th January 2007, 12:42 AM

Dumber

Stop dodging the question.

You are avoiding the point which is:

NIST didn't have any steel from WTC 7 and therefore it did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 to see what caused the collapse.

Since the physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed, all NIST or anyone else has in the way of evidence is eyewitness testimony, pictures and videos.You are avoiding his question: Were any 9/11 investigators unsatisfied with their access to the evidence?

Also, NIST may have steel to examine for their final report. They did say that "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7". It's certainly within the realm of possibility - even probability - that further investigation could remove the ambiguity and/or turn upn more steel.

Like all CTs, you know your stuff when it comes to dodging questions. You also seem to be drawing your conclusions from the preliminary report.

uk_dave

19th January 2007, 12:47 AM

C7,

This is getting silly.

You commented that NIST could only say that collapse due to fire and structural damage was a 'possibility'. You then asked for the names of experts who said this was a 'certainty'

I never claimed any experts who said it was a certainty, because no experts would until the investigation is completed. It's only in woowooland that experts in humanities, social studies and the ancient mayan conclude with any certainty about things they have no evidence for.

Talking of which, where are the experts who claim with a certainty that WTC7 was brought down by CD? Are we going to hear from Jowenko again?

Jowenko is held up as a champion of the 'truth' movement, despite the fact that he categorically stated that the WTC towers did not appear to be CD, but that he has studied footage of the WTC7 collapse and appears to state with certainty that the collapse of that building was CD.

Well thank god NIST doesn't claim such certainties until they have investigated properly.

Now, as for certainty as opposed to probability, we could also argue that it's possible WTC7 was brought down by an invisible foot belonging to the mysterious vegetarian pugsplatter beast of artemis 12 as it was grazing on category Delta 5F planets in the oooompah system. And since NIST did not go looking for evidence of pugsplatter toenail clippings then woowoos could argue that NIST cannot rule this scenario out.

Likewise, a building which has sustained damage (to a variable degree depending on the eyewitness accounts) and is on fire (to a variable degree based upon eyewitness accounts) is no longer a pristine, stable structure. To look for another reason for collapse is quite frankly rather silly. It's like the car which skids on a patch of ice, crashes and kills the driver, and then you asking for a full reconstruction of the car to rule out the possibility that someone tampered with the brakes.

WTC7, which sustained damage and was on fire, collapses.

Normal, rational people see it and say "Oh well, there goes another one" given the events of that day. Only desperate CTers who have seen their cherished theories about the WTC towers debunked over and over again, cling on to the last vague hope that WTC7 might provide them with the smoking gun which will validate their lives and justify all the time they have wasted since 2001.

Let's just wait for the final NIST report. We know you wont accept it, but until it comes out we're just going around in circles.

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 01:12 AM

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?
How many times have i answered:

I KNOW THAT!

Will you please STFU about that GD final report

We can discuss it when it is released

I'm pointing out a serious flaw in NIST progress report June 2004 Appendex L

OTers used to be so proud of this report. They would refer to it all the time. Gravy insisted that i read it. Now, you don't want to talk about it because you just can't bring yourself to admit that there is a serious flaw in it. You pretend that it doesn't matter any more so we should just wait for the final report and let bygones be bygones.

That may work for you but not for me.
Refrences to this non existant 100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep gouge and the damage atributed to it should be removed from the hypothesis and the debate, here and elseware on weather or not WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire.

And it answer is very much still in question.

It is NOT, as many here believe, a 'certainty'.

NIST concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"

That's a long way from certainty.

Without any physical evidence or the 10 story gouge [and the damage to the core columns that it may have done] it is highly unlikely that they will be able to say anything difinative.

But you keep your hopes up.

uk_dave

19th January 2007, 01:27 AM

But you keep your hopes up.

As do you.

Tell me, if NIST produces a report as detailed as that for the WTC towers, describing the mechanism for collapse along with pretty diagrams etc, will you accept their conclusions?

If so, will you then accept the official account of 9/11?

LashL

19th January 2007, 01:29 AM

blah blah blah - see above

Can you really be as obtuse as your post suggests? The interim NIST report is the best evidence to date. It remains the best evidence to date. Your claims to the contrary do not change that, and never have. I suspect that the final report will be more finetuned than the interim report but will not be fundamentally different.

I'm certainly not backing off of the interim report and I don't think anyone else is, other than you, who thinks it's all a whitewash in the first place, so unless you're hellbent on debunking yourself, your comment is silly. Unlike you, we recognize that it is an interim report and we recognize that the final version will be different - but not likely fundamentally different - that's what real investigations are about, after all.

The fact that you cannot seem to wrap your mind around reality is not a big issue to anyone but yourself and your immediate family. But it's probably something that you should deal with.

We've been round and round the quote you keep harping back to, and again, I'll say that you are tilting at windmills for the reasons I've set out in detail in prior posts. The fact that you have ignored them and chosen not to repond to them doesn't negate their existence, and shows that you haven't been able to refute them.

And since you brought it up, speaking of "STFU", to use *your* vernacular (because I personally never resort to that particular childish tactic but since it appears that you got your tutoring on your knees bowing to the demigods of tinhat lunacy and therefore resort to such a lame tactic) yeah, maybe you should STFU, at least until you learn how to carry on a rational conversation with rational and critical thinking adults.

uk_dave

19th January 2007, 01:33 AM

I wanna know, is the collapse of WTC7 the cornerstone of the 9/11 CT?

I mean, we've had the crap about steel having to melt before it fails and freefall time which are faster or slower or maybe a bit of both, and we've had the raging infernos which couldn't bring down the towers but a small amount of explosives could etc etc. All this crap is history. Only a few galapagos woowoos still cling on to it.

Now they all focus on WTC7 (apart from the ones who focus on eyewitness testimony gathered five years after the event at the pentagon)....so, if NIST can produce an explanation which satisfies the worlds architects, engineers etc etc....will the woowoos give it up?

Firestone

19th January 2007, 01:39 AM

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 02:11 AM

Were any 9/11 investigators unsatisfied with their access to the evidence?
I don't know. It does not matter if they say they are happy as pigs in space.

They did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 as so many OTers have cliamed.

Also, NIST may have steel to examine for their final report. They did say that "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7". It's certainly within the realm of possibility - even probability - that further investigation could remove the ambiguity and/or turn upn more steel.Even if they could identify a few pieces as belonging to WTC 7, it would not help much. To determine the cause they would need steel from many key places.

A proper investigation should have been done at the time but it was not done.

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 02:39 AM

Can you really be as obtuse as your post suggests?
Yes [my friends call me Ob for short]

The interim NIST report is the best evidence to date. It remains the best evidence to date.We agree

Your claims to the contrary do not change that, and never have.We disagree

I suspect that the final report will be more finetuned than the interim report but will not be fundamentally different.We agree

I'm certainly not backing off of the interim report and I don't think anyone else is, other than you, who thinks it's all a whitewash in the first place, so unless you're hellbent on debunking yourself, your comment is silly. Unlike you, we recognize that it is an interim report and we recognize that the final version will be different - but not likely fundamentally different - that's what real investigations are about, after all.So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

The fact that you cannot seem to wrap your mind around reality is not a big issue to anyone but yourself and your immediate family. But it's probably something that you should deal with.Right. It's just lil' ol' Ob all by his lil' ol' lonesome.
Pay no attention to the thousands of people view this and other CT vs OT forums.

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 02:45 AM

As do you.

Tell me, if NIST produces a report as detailed as that for the WTC towers, describing the mechanism for collapse along with pretty diagrams etc, will you accept their conclusions?

If so, will you then accept the official account of 9/11?
No

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

MortFurd

19th January 2007, 02:52 AM

Yes [my friends call me Ob for short]

Snip...

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

Right. It's just lil' ol' Ob all by his lil' ol' lonesome.
Pay no attention to the thousands of people view this and other CT vs OT forums.
I begin to see why your friends call you "Ob."

Two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed next to WTC7. There are photos showing massive damage to the building. There are witness reports of massive damage ("The building was leaning.") There are witness reports of extensive fires in WTC7. The NYFD called all of their people out of the building because it was too dangerous to be in.

No one else in the world thought it necessary to do an atom-by-atom forensic examination of WTC7 because WTC1 and WTC2 farking COLLAPSED right next to it. People knew it was damaged by the collapse of the other two buildings. No one heard demolotions charges going off. No one saw armies of suicidal cutting torch armed demolitions crews rushing in to finish off WTC7.

You have yet to present a single coherent suggestion as to why WTC7 would have been brought down by controlled demolition.

BTW:
OB is a brand of tampons here in Germany. I couldn't help chuckling when Christopher said his friends call him that.

MortFurd

19th January 2007, 02:57 AM

No

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?
Are you just begging for someone to whip out the Google-Fu and prove to you how ignorant that claim is?

twinstead

19th January 2007, 03:58 AM

C7 it is obvious that unless it proves an inside job, you will never accept the findings of ANY investigation of 911, government or not.

You are anathema to real investigators.

Oh, and your little comment about the government investigating itself was silly. American history is FULL of the government investigating itself and finding evil doings, and full of discovered conspiracies.

Iran Contra... Watergate... The list is pretty long.

Belz...

19th January 2007, 05:30 AM

You also seem to be drawing your conclusions from the preliminary report.

No, I think his conclusions were drawn well in advance.

Belz...

19th January 2007, 05:36 AM

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

No proof ? That's funny. We have plenty of visual evidence, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence, that it happened as the "official" story says. What does "proof" mean to you, then ?

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

That's why we have courts.

twinstead

19th January 2007, 05:40 AM

No proof ? That's funny. We have plenty of visual evidence, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence, that it happened as the "official" story says. What does "proof" mean to you, then ?

I fear, like most CTs, that the definition of 'proof' is any evidence, even if it is uncorroborated, and any conjecture no matter how unlikely, as long as it fits with his predisposed opinion.

I wonder why that is?

Just asking questions.

aggle-rithm

19th January 2007, 07:08 AM

I don't know. It does not matter if they say they are happy as pigs in space.

They did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 as so many OTers have cliamed.

Even if they could identify a few pieces as belonging to WTC 7, it would not help much. To determine the cause they would need steel from many key places.

A proper investigation should have been done at the time but it was not done.

When you say "cause", you mean something different from what the experts mean. They mean "the reason the building fell, given that it was hit by debris from a collapsing 110-story building."

The ultimate cause, the 110-story building falling on it, is not in doubt by any sane person.

While troofers find it suspicious that not ALL buildings hit by debris collapsed, NIST sees this as an opportunity to learn why some buildings are better able to withstand heavy damage than others. (The obvious answer, in the case of the Verizon building, is that older buildings were over-engineered in comparison to newer buildings like WTC7.)

Maybe this isn't as exciting as your fantasy (you know it as THE TROOF), but it's real life and it's how things work in the real world.

jaydeehess

19th January 2007, 07:09 AM

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support this opinion. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Do you argue as vociferously on CT forums against the opinion that CD brouight down the building? If not , why not?

aggle-rithm

19th January 2007, 07:18 AM

No kidding!

And remember, this was a 30-story skyscraper, 2nd-tallest imploded building ever, and it took massive amounts of work and a large number of charges. The amount of work required to bring down something like the WTC, significantly larger, would be frightening I bet.

Do you know anything about the old Fort Worth National Bank building, which is now known as The Tower?

I understand it was slated for demolition, but the cost was prohibitive so they ended up just remodeling it.

Since it was so big (36 stories, if I remember correctly) they couldn't just implode it, they were going to dismantle it floor-by-floor.

I bring this up as an example for the troofers who say that the World Trade Center was a financial disaster and it was cheaper to just destroy it than to clean up all the asbestos, etc.

aggle-rithm

19th January 2007, 07:20 AM

Are you just begging for someone to whip out the Google-Fu and prove to you how ignorant that claim is?

Claims aren't ignorant.

People are.

Belz...

19th January 2007, 08:03 AM

I bring this up as an example for the troofers who say that the World Trade Center was a financial disaster and it was cheaper to just destroy it than to clean up all the asbestos, etc.

Yet another proof that ignorance brings about certainty, while knowledge results in doubt.

Funny that.

Cuddles

19th January 2007, 09:16 AM

Belz...

19th January 2007, 10:04 AM

Wouldn't be surprising, at this point.

Coritani

19th January 2007, 01:07 PM

Does anyone else find it quite funny that the tags for this thread are "wtc 7" and "did it exist"? I keep expecting to find people claiming that WTC7 was actually just a hologram, probably generated by a space-based laser cannon operated by elves.

That's ludicrous.

Everybody knows that Pixies would operate it, rather than elves. I mean, come on, Cuddles.

Atomic Glee

19th January 2007, 03:02 PM

Do you know anything about the old Fort Worth National Bank building, which is now known as The Tower?

I understand it was slated for demolition, but the cost was prohibitive so they ended up just remodeling it.

Yep - The Tower was going to be demolished, and there had been talk of an implosion, actually, though I don't think that was the likely path. As I recall, it was going to be quite expensive to demolish, however they did it. At the time, the building's owners were the Bass family, the local billionaires who own significant bits of downtown including the wildly successful Sundance Square entertainment/shopping district. While the name doesn't mean much to out-of-towners, let me just put it this way: if the Bass family thought it was going to be prohibitively expensive, then it must have been pretty freakin' expensive.

Fortunately, new developers arrived with a proposal to remake the building into Fort Worth's first highrise condo tower, and the rest is history, sparking off the current downtown housing boom here.

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 09:06 PM

Two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed next to WTC7. There are photos showing massive damage to the building. There are witness reports of massive damage
The word 'massive' is what's in question here.
There are 4 statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.
Therefore:
It didn't exist.

Either you believe that the '10 story gouge' statement was a misinterpretation of the damage

or
you believe the firefighters who said there was
"no heavy debris in the lobby" were mistaken

and the person who reported

"debris damage across 1/4 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." was mistaken

and the firefighter who

"walked the 9th floor along the south side folowing the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner." was mistaken

and Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesy,
doesn't know the difference between:

"ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors"
and
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out [30 to 40 feet deep] from floor 10 to the ground"

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 09:16 PM

Are you just begging for someone to whip out the Google-Fu and prove to you how ignorant that claim is?
My bad

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 09:44 PM

No proof ? That's funny. We have plenty of visual evidence, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence, that it happened as the "official" story says. What does "proof" mean to you, then ?
We do not have physical evidence

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

pg 5

"lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on the actual material from the building"

pg 27

"NIST possesses 236 structural elements from the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings"

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7"

CHF

19th January 2007, 09:52 PM

Chris,

WTC7. Was. Leaning.

How does a CD lean a building?

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 10:08 PM

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support this opinion. There is no evidence to the contrary.
In this thread i am pointing out that some of that evidence is incorrect.

Do you argue as vociferously on CT forums against the opinion that CD brouight down the building? If not , why not?
No. Because i believe WTC 7 was a CD

Before you ask again, This thread is about the '10 story gouge', NOT CD.

Christopher7

19th January 2007, 10:13 PM

Chris,

WTC. Was. Leaning.
Source?

Dog Town

19th January 2007, 10:14 PM

Source?

Dare ya... double!

CHF

19th January 2007, 10:19 PM

Source?

Here's one: (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html) Quote:
"Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

Note the part about the "transit." That's a device that shows if something is moving. WTC7 WAS MOVING.

Please explain how demolition charges make a building lean like that before knocking it down.

Here's another: (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DR55ooKZ3nQJ:www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf+%22was+leaning+over+more+or+even+if+ it+was+leaning+the+other+way%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2) Quote:
"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was go- ing on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did." –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.

CHF

19th January 2007, 10:20 PM

And Chris:

WHY WAS THE DEMOLTION OF WTC7 SO DAMN QUIET?

Exactly what kind of explosives do you think were used?

beachnut

19th January 2007, 10:22 PM

No

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

WaterGate!

Darn. You have not checked it out. The government is always finding itself guilty you just have to check it out.

You have to research and understand. Like you have already presented enough information to support your 10 story hole in the WTC7.

Do you always argue both sides and loose? You seem to ignore the fact you have presented more than enough information to support damage in excess of a 10 story hole being in WTC7.

Did you hear the steel in WTC 1 and 2 was numbered. Did you know WTC7 was not designed by the same people who did WTC 1 and 2? Just wondering what you are up to.

So why are you still asking about the big hole in WTC7 after proving it is there with all your stuff you presented. You did a good job convincing me there is a big 10 story or better hole in the WTC7. Good job! Thanks.

Alt+F4

19th January 2007, 10:54 PM

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

In no particular order:

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

There’s just ten. Need I go on?

Christopher7

20th January 2007, 12:17 AM

Here's one: (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html) Quote:
"Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
A visible bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning.

It means the SW corner is sagging.

Deputy Chief Hayden did not say the building was leaning.

For the building to lean, the bulge would have to run all the way across the west and south sides at a minimum.

Here's another: (http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DR55ooKZ3nQJ:www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf+%22was+leaning+over+more+or+even+if+ it+was+leaning+the+other+way%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2) Quote:
"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was go- ing on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did." –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.So that's your case? Some guy thought it was leaning.

Look at all the photographs of WTC 7.

Can you see the building leaning in any of them ?

Christopher7

21st January 2007, 02:09 AM

Dare ya... double!
Respond to post #388
Who is mistaken?

post #399
Where's the 'lean'?

uk_dave

21st January 2007, 02:46 AM

If the corner of a framed structure 'sags' what do you suppose that does to the remainder of the structure?

CHF

21st January 2007, 08:34 AM

A visible bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning.

It means the SW corner is sagging.

Deputy Chief Hayden did not say the building was leaning.

For the building to lean, the bulge would have to run all the way across the west and south sides at a minimum.

So that's your case? Some guy thought it was leaning.

Look at all the photographs of WTC 7.

Can you see the building leaning in any of them ?

Chris, do you know what a transit reading is?

jaydeehess

21st January 2007, 03:53 PM

In this thread i am pointing out that some of that evidence is incorrect.

No. Because i believe WTC 7 was a CD

Before you ask again, This thread is about the '10 story gouge', NOT CD.

A point you have made several times and yes, I get it.

However your continued attack on this minute detail should have you also just as concerned with the very large detail that the CD theory has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief. Your one sided attack on niggling detail show you to be insincere about finding out any 'truth' about the events of 9/11.

jaydeehess

21st January 2007, 04:07 PM

The word 'massive' is what's in question here.
There are 4 statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.
Therefore:
It didn't exist.

That is a leap of logic not backed up by anything other than your preconceived belief in CD.

you believe the firefighters who said there was
"no heavy debris in the lobby" were mistaken

Which was reported by FF's who can be placed at the western end of the building but cannot be shown to have gone east along the south side. I also gave a senario in which heavy debris need not be in the lobby but still have caused significant damage to perimeter columns. Deeper damage may well have occured on higher floors while other floors only received perimeter column damage.

"debris damage across 1/4 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." was mistaken

Since there is the internally inconsistent statements that the atrium was heavily damaged and that the glass was intact we can assume that the person meant that some of the glass was intact. This person does indeed state damage down to the ground floor accross a wide part of the building actually partially backing up the other claim.

"walked the 9th floor along the south side folowing the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner." was mistaken

Which only calls into question the 10th storey part of the other claim. There is no reason to expect that the 10th storey part of the statement was meant to be exact is there?

and Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesy,
doesn't know the difference between:

"ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors"
and
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out [30 to 40 feet deep] from floor 10 to the ground"

Again I point out it depends on how well he could see the damage and where he was at the time and exactly what he was getting at.

Andúril

21st January 2007, 06:08 PM

Something about the damage to the south face:

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q246/Wilfred_Ivanhoe/WTC7SouthDamage.jpg

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q246/Wilfred_Ivanhoe/WTC7_South_damage.jpg

Christopher7

21st January 2007, 06:57 PM

If the corner of a framed structure 'sags' what do you suppose that does to the remainder of the structure?
The load is transfered to the surrounding columns, but the building does not lean.
In order for the biulding to lean, most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns must become shorter. ie: buckle.

Christopher7

21st January 2007, 07:00 PM

Chris, do you know what a transit reading is?
Yes.
Deputy Chief Hayden used a transit to confirm the bulge in the SW corner.

Christopher7

21st January 2007, 07:21 PM

A point you have made several times and yes, I get it.

However your continued attack on this minute detail
The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

"The building was leaning" is not a minute detail.

"None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected" is not a minute
detail.You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief.Wrong.
My attack on the amount of debris damage based solely on statements from official government documents.

jaydeehess

21st January 2007, 10:01 PM

You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief.

Wrong.
My attack on the amount of debris damage based solely on statements from official government documents

WRONG,

You begin with "it was CD". You were careful to only state that when it was dragged from you but it is patently obvious that was your starting point.
From there you attempt to mine any detail that even hints that the impact and fire damage theory is not quite as supposed. To this end you attack a preliminary report. You attack the idea that the NIST requires a 10 storey, 30 foot deep gouge starting at ground level when in fact NIST's probable collapse sequence does NOT require it. You mine any comment by anyone that suggests that there could not be any damage to the core columns in question choosing to deliberatly ignore all those that do corroborate the idea of such column damage. You attempt to minimize the debris damage and the fire damage.

You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.

On the other hand if you could come up with any evidence at all that suggests CD as a better solution to the collapse of WTC 7 I would like you to show it. There simply is no equally good evidence of CD to match that of debris impact/fire having caused the collapse.

FACT is that all you can do is pick at details and then claim that CD makes more sense without having any evidence FOR CD.

The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

Fact is that such is the extent of reported damage. NIST does not state that it was as extensive as that , just that it was reported.

Now you wish to move away from appendix L it seems.

_________________________-

Bulge or lean, however you wish to characterize it, it is quite apparent that the loss of the SW corner would put a great deal of stress on the structure and that the SW corner offered no support to the structure. It is also quite apparent from witness accounts that there were other perimeter columns severed on the south face. That given, it is would be highly unlikely that portions of the south wall of the building would not in fact lean. It can be noted that although the western part of WTC 7 collapsed down to the south, the eastern portion went down to the west and north, a fact that may be addressed in the final WTC 7 report. To my mind it illustrates that the greater damage was done to the central and western portion of the south face. When the collapse progressed the east portion separated from the western portion along the 'kink' line. The building perimeter east of that kink was intact and this may have played a role in that portion damaging buildings to the north. The east section's perimeter would be weakest only on its western extent, the core of the building, and the eastern section would be mostly predisposed to fall to the west. The western portion was very weak on the south side and thus that section of the building was already predisposed to go southward when it collapsed.

Christopher7

21st January 2007, 10:40 PM

That is a leap of logic not backed up by anything other than your preconceived belief in CD.
4 statements in conflict with 1 statement is not a leap.

Which was reported by FF's who can be placed at the western end of the building but cannot be shown to have gone east along the south side.They didn't need to go east, just a few steps to the south from the stairs to see the debris from the gouge.
[see pg 6 for location of stairs & pg 31 for location of debris damage]

I read, in a government report, that the stairs exited directly to the outside. ie: a hallway. The firemen would have to exit this hallway to enter the lobby.

Your senario is, they didn't take these few steps and look at the whole lobby, they reported on what they saw from the stairway [or hallway door]
Possible, but unlikely.

"no heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed" [NIST Apx L pg 18]

I also gave a senario in which heavy debris need not be in the lobby but still have caused significant damage to perimeter columns. Deeper damage may well have occured on higher floors while other floors only received perimeter column damage.The debris from that huge gouge would have ended up in the ground floor lobby.
If it took out the south wall 60' to 80' wide, any floors attached to it would have been taken down with it.
The pile would be 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep [into the building] and would contain the huge piece or pieces that made the alleged gouge along with the stuff it ripped out.

Since there is the internally inconsistent statements that the atrium was heavily damaged and that the glass was intact we can assume that the person meant that some of the glass was intact. This person does indeed state damage down to the ground floor accross a wide part of the building actually partially backing up the other claim.Damage to a wall and the wall was gone are quite different
The damage in this statement says "5th floor to the ground"
Totally inconsistant with the "10 story gouge"
[The graphic on pg 23, 31 & 32 shows a gouge 60' to 80' feet wide and 30' to 40' deep]

Which only calls into question the 10th storey part of the other claim. There is no reason to expect that the 10th storey part of the statement was meant to be exact is there?Good point
If it were only 8 stories high, then it would not be in conflict with the "only damage to south side of the 9th floor was at the SW corner."

Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesy,

Again I point out it depends on how well he could see the damage and where he was at the time and exactly what he was getting at.Part of Chief Fellini's job was to assess the damage to WTC 7.
Do you think he missed the most serious damage to the south side ?
[a gouge 100' high by 60' to 80' wide by 30' to 40' deep]

Christopher7

22nd January 2007, 12:07 AM

WRONG,

You begin with "it was CD". You were careful to only state that when it was dragged from you but it is patently obvious that was your starting point.
My starting point has been patently obvious all along.
My 'attack' on the 'evidence' OTers state in these debates is based on statements in government reports.

From there you attempt to mine any detail that even hints that the impact and fire damage theory is not quite as supposed.There's not quite a 10 story gouge that took out columns 69, 72 & 75.

To this end you attack a preliminary report. You attack the idea that the NIST requires a 10 storey, 30 foot deep gouge starting at ground level when in fact NIST's probable collapse sequence does NOT require it.In the graphic on pg 31 they show columns 69,72 and 75 as being damaged by the larger damage area [80' wide by 40' deep]
In the summary, statement 3) they list the failure of the columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A as possible components in the initiating event.

Without the 10 story gouge, none of this damage would have occuerd.
ie: Debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

You mine any comment by anyone that suggests that there could not be any damage to the core columns in questionYes
choosing to deliberatly ignore all those that do corroborate the idea of such column damage.No
You attempt to minimize the debris damage and the fire damage.Just the debris damage

You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.The sequence is not in question.

uk_dave

22nd January 2007, 12:40 AM

The load is transfered to the surrounding columns, but the building does not lean.
In order for the biulding to lean, most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns must become shorter. ie: buckle.

hmmmm interesting. I wonder if you really understand what load transfer actually means?

Let's say you have a horizontal beam which is supported by columns at either end and in the middle.

Now take away that middle column.

The load which was being shared by three columns is now being shared by two.

If the corner of a building sags, it means the loading capacity of that corner is compromised.

The remaining structure has a degree of redundancy which allows it to retain structural integrity, provided that the load which is now being carried by it does not exceed those design parameters.

But the sagging of the frame is introducing new stresses on the remianing structure, in that it is now being asked to not only accept an increased share of the load, but is also restraining that part of the structure which is sagging.

So the remaining framed structure, acting as a whole, is :

1. Weakened by some amount of structural damage

2. Weakened by some amount of fire

3. Under greater loading now that part of the structure has failed

4. Under greater loading now that part of the structure has moved

Transfer of load isn't a mechanical operation whereby some device calculates that a structural element is failing and so somehow transfers that load to adjoining members.

It is a natural progression similar to the beam supported by three columns.

twinstead

22nd January 2007, 03:52 AM

All I see here is the standard "chip away at the official story with real or imagined inconsistencies and declare a theory with no evidence the winner by default" technique.

What I'd like to see is less nitpicking to death a preliminary report and a few inconsistent eye witness accounts, and more evidence of CD.

JonnyFive

22nd January 2007, 06:48 AM

The idea that the NIST report is wrong about the gouge is totally irrelevant if your idea of CD doesn't hold water.

I'd love to know why no one heard the charges if it was CD. On every video I've seen of a real demolition, the charges are extremely loud and easily heard even on a crappy camcorder microphone. The sound is absolutely nothing like anything heard at the time of the WTC7 collapse.

Given all that, what kind of charges were they using, and what evidence do you have to support that?

I'm just asking questions.

jaydeehess

22nd January 2007, 06:59 AM

C7 writes
The sequence is not in question.

I did not say you questioned the sequence. Perhaps you'd care to read the whole sentence.
You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.

Belz...

22nd January 2007, 08:08 AM

The word 'massive' is what's in question here.
There are 4 statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.
Therefore:
It didn't exist.

Non sequitur.

We do not have physical evidence

You're right. WE don't.

jaydeehess

22nd January 2007, 11:44 AM

WTF I seem to have an entire post missing.

jaydeehess

22nd January 2007, 12:11 PM

Good thing I back up some of my posts. This is the one that went missing

C7 writes:
My starting point has been patently obvious all along.
My 'attack' on the 'evidence' OTers state in these debates is based on statements in government reports.

That is your stated starting point for this thread. Are you now denying that you entered into this particular discussion without the original bias that it was CD that caused the collapse?

Personally I could indeed accept a theory of CD if there were any evidence but there isn't. In fact the empirical evidence argues against CD. No sounds or sights of cutting charges going off for instance.

On the other hand there is a computer sim to show which columns were involved and circumstantial evidence for debris/fire induced collapse that corroborates the simulation.

There's not quite a 10 story gouge that took out columns 69, 72 & 75.

Possibly. There may not be debris damage as extensive as a 10 storey 30 foot deep gouge in the building. There were reports of other damage such as the hole at the 14th floor as well.

In the graphic on pg 31 they show columns 69,72 and 75 as being damaged by the larger damage area [80' wide by 40' deep]
In the summary, statement 3) they list the failure of the columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A as possible components in the initiating event.

I don't have access to my own computer right now but IIRC the graphic on pg 31 simply shows ,again, the extent of the reported damage which does extend to those columns but the damage to those columns is NOT associated solely with the report of a 10 storey gouge.

No

Well then where's the beef? There is corroborating evidence of debris damge that would place structural damage at the columns in question.

The debris from that huge gouge would have ended up in the ground floor lobby.
If it took out the south wall 60' to 80' wide, any floors attached to it would have been taken down with it.
The pile would be 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep [into the building] and would contain the huge piece or pieces that made the alleged gouge along with the stuff it ripped out.

As I said before the damage may well have been greater on some floors than others and indeed may well have been less extensive on lower floors than higher up. 5th floor was a heavy mech floor and debris could easily have ended up there or in the street rather than in the lobby. It is also very likely that all the windows for 60 -80 feet accross the face of the building were gone and that on a few floors it could be seen that the damage went in for several tens of feet which prompted the FF to characterize it as a 60 - 80 foot wide 30 foot deep gouge. Once again the literal reading of this statement is included in the report because to do otherwise would require a parsing of the statement that is not called for given that it is NOT required to be exact in order for the sequence to be as discovered via the sims.
Your characterization of where the debris should be assumes that the report has to be 100% accurate and that NIST requires that it be 100% accurate.
(there's the minute detail)

Your senario is, they didn't take these few steps and look at the whole lobby, they reported on what they saw from the stairway [or hallway door]
Possible, but unlikely

IIRC they also had civilians with them who they were evacuating. Seems to me that it would not be SOP for them to abandon these civilians at the door and go and investigate the lobby. Possible but unlikely.

Part of Chief Fellini's job was to assess the damage to WTC 7.
Do you think he missed the most serious damage to the south side ?
[a gouge 100' high by 60' to 80' wide by 30' to 40' deep]

Was it Fellini's job to report an accurate description of the damage to the building? If so then this must be only part of a much larger statement. In all the hub-bub I may have missed that. Do you have a link to his full report?

Once again I can say that Fellini's account is one of several accounts.

Belz...

22nd January 2007, 01:09 PM

The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

"The building was leaning" is not a [I]minute detail.

Again: why did they have the area evacuated and a perimeter set up if they didn't expect the building to collapse ?

jaydeehess

22nd January 2007, 03:53 PM

Again: why did they have the area evacuated and a perimeter set up if they didn't expect the building to collapse ?

Why obviously because the higher ups in the New York City Fire Dept. were in on the insurance fraud perpetrated in bringing down this building by controlled demolitions and they knew it would be coming down. Therefore they cleared people back from it, and lied to the regular firefighter as to why.

After all it is soooo very common for fire dept's to
a ) use explosives to bring buildings down
b ) be complicit in covering up for insurance frauds

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 12:15 AM

hmmmm interesting. I wonder if you really understand what load transfer actually means?

Yes.

Do you understand that in order for the building to 'lean', most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns would have to become shorter ie: buckel.

This would creat a bulge in the east and west walls, that would get larger as it approached the south side.

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

east wall in shadow = afternoon

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/5269/copyofnw12xy.jpg

west wall in light = afternoon

All the photographs and videos of WTC 7, some from late in the afternoon, clearly show that
WTC 7 is not leaning.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/7825/sw47uw.jpg

Note the edge of the Vorizon building [on left]

WTC 7 is not leaning!

The leaning tower is based on a statement of a single bystander.

There is no mention of this 'lean' in the NIST report.

Arus808

23rd January 2007, 12:19 AM

why would wtc 7 need to lean?

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 12:38 AM

We do not have physical evidence

You're right. WE don't.
Neither does NIST [or anybody else]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

pg 2
"no steel from the building [WTC 7] was recovered"

pg 9
"No steel was recovered from WTC 7"

Contrary to what some here believe, NIST did NOT inspect the steel from WTC 7 because they did not have any!

Belz...

23rd January 2007, 05:27 AM

[B]Do you understand that in order for the building to 'lean', most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns would have to become shorter ie: buckel.

Most ?

WTC 7 is not leaning!

Because you can't see it in pictures ?

Neither does NIST [or anybody else]

Isn't that a report about the towers, not 7 ?

jaydeehess

23rd January 2007, 10:17 AM

Do you understand that in order for the building to 'lean', most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns would have to become shorter ie: buckel.

You mean like in the towers?

Well, buckled and/or severed.

aggle-rithm

23rd January 2007, 10:58 AM

Neither does NIST [or anybody else]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

pg 2
"no steel from the building [WTC 7] was recovered"

pg 9
"No steel was recovered from WTC 7"

Contrary to what some here believe, NIST did NOT inspect the steel from WTC 7 because they did not have any!

No, they didn't. That's because the team lacked two important qualities needed to see through the "official story":

1. Ignorance
2. Paranoia

The report also doesn't mention any steel recovered from WTC 6. Why don't you find THAT suspicious? Or do you?

njslim

23rd January 2007, 01:53 PM

The FDNY uses surveyor transits to check buildings where they suspect the
structure is unsound and may collapse. According to all accounts from the
FDNY - a transit was set up to monitor WTC 7 at approx 2PM on visible
bulge on the south/west sides of the building. By 3PM a collapse zone
had been established around WTC 7 and everyone was warned to stay clear
(I heard the radio warnings going out from my firehouse in New Jersey)
6 months after at a seminar concerning operations during 9/11 heard from a
FDNY chief who set up and monitored the transit that they could see the
building moving which is why the collapse zone and warnings were issued.
The FDNY at this time realized that WTC 7 was coming down - it waas only
a matter of when it collpased, which it did at 5:20.

jaydeehess

23rd January 2007, 07:38 PM

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:08 PM

I did not say you questioned the sequence. Perhaps you'd care to read the whole sentence.
This thread was started to find out if OTers believed the '10 story gouge' in the middle of WTC 7, not how it effected the collapse sequence.
So far, you are the only one who has been honest enough to acknowledge that existance of the '10 story gouge' is unlikely.
5 or 6 people have said they believe the '10 stoty gouge' did exist in spite of the 4 statements to the contrary.

Arus808

23rd January 2007, 10:17 PM

well, I believe that there was a BIG hole.. as to its size, its anybody's guess. that the report of "10 story" size is a combination of several reports by eyewitnesses..

WHICH WAS STATED IN THE NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT!

jaydeehess

23rd January 2007, 10:20 PM

,,,,, and several others said they were unsure.
At any rate by my count few, if any, believe as you do, that NIST requires it to be so for the preliminarily derived sequence to have occured.

If you believe you have 'won' something so be it. I'll buy you a coffe if we ever meet.

Now that that is over then, perhaps you'd care to outline the evidence of a controlled demolition. Start by taking on one question, did the NYFD play any part in an explosive demolition of WTC 7?

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:25 PM

Most ?

Because you can't see it in pictures ?

Isn't that a report about the towers, not 7 ?
Yes. Virtually all except the north wall.

Yes. And: It was NOT part of the NIST collapse senerio.
If the building was leaning, it would have been noted in the report.

Read it. It's about WTC 1, 2 & 7.
It clearly states [pg 2 & 9] that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:26 PM

You mean like in the towers?

Well, buckled and/or severed.
No

Yes

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:28 PM

No, they didn't. That's because the team lacked two important qualities needed to see through the "official story":

1. Ignorance
2. Paranoia

The report also doesn't mention any steel recovered from WTC 6. Why don't you find THAT suspicious? Or do you?
No

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:30 PM

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 10:35 PM

What more need be said? FDNY saw the building moving and deduced it was unstable at or shortly after 3PM!!!
End of story.
None of the Chief's who thought the building was coming down said anything about the building moving in the the Oral Histories or the Firehouse interviews.
They all sited debris damage/fire as their reasons.

Gravy

23rd January 2007, 10:38 PM

WTC 7 is not leaning!

The leaning tower is based on a statement of a single bystander.Whether or not is was leaning, it appeared to be to some people.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.

Christopher7, in October, NIST revised its south face damage assessment. What is their new assessment?

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 11:24 PM

,,,,, and several others said they were unsure.
At any rate by my count few, if any, believe as you do, that NIST requires it to be so for the preliminarily derived sequence to have occured.
I do not believe the damage allegedly done by the '10 story gouge' is required for the sequence to have occured.

If you believe you have 'won' something so be it. I'll buy you a coffe if we ever meet.It's not a mater of wining or losing.

I'm just pointing out, using the same official documents that OTers quote as evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis, that some of their strongly held beliefs are wrong:

The gouge, floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7 did not exist

NIST did not inspect the steel from WTC 7

WTC 7 was not leaning

Now that that is over then, perhaps you'd care to outline the evidence of a controlled demolition. Start by taking on one question, did the NYFD play any part in an explosive demolition of WTC 7?Once again, This thread is about the incorrect statements in support of the debris damage/fire hypothesis.
I am not going to debate CD's in this thread.

We still have the movement claim to clear up.
Then we can discuss the fires.

I do not think that FDNY had anything to do with, or knowledge of, the explosives.

Arus808

23rd January 2007, 11:39 PM

again, what is the POINT you're trying to get at Chris?

Why are you so stuck on what a preliminary report states?

Why dont you WAIT until the final version comes out.

Because debating about 'possibles" and "not possibles" is pointless.

Why dont you just list what you think happened to WTC 7 and not worry about what the NIST report states?

Christopher7

23rd January 2007, 11:43 PM

Whether or not is was leaning, it appeared to be to some people.
One person.
Do you know of any one else who thought WTC 7 was leaning ?

Christopher7, in October, NIST revised its south face damage assessment. What is their new assessment?The only document i have from October '06 is the Technical Summary and they don't mention the damage to the south face.
Your source ?

apathoid

23rd January 2007, 11:50 PM

One person.
Do you know of any one else who thought WTC 7 was leaning ?

The only document i have from October '06 is the Technical Summary and they don't mention the damage to the south face.
Your source ?

..Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Gravy

24th January 2007, 12:04 AM

One person.
Do you know of any one else who thought WTC 7 was leaning ?FDNY auxiliary member Paul Isaac Jr., who posted as "Sentinel" here, but I don't believe he is a credible source in general. His account is, at least, exaggerated:
I was ther at proximity to see the 20 floor gash in WTC 7. The WTC building was listing south about 20 degrees. Source (http://smithmag.net/2006/08/10/korey-rowe-the-loose-cannon-of-911/)The only document i have from October '06 is the Technical Summary and they don't mention the damage to the south face.
Your source ?Then you have some homework to do. It's your issue. I've given you a big hint. Proceed.

Christopher7

24th January 2007, 02:46 AM

FDNY auxiliary member Paul Isaac Jr., who posted as "Sentinel" here, but I don't believe he is a credible source in general. His account is, at least, exaggerated:
I agree.
20 degrees? i don't think so

Then you have some homework to do. It's your issue. I've given you a big hint. Proceed.If you have something to offer to this debate

Offer it

Don't make a claim and refuse to give the source

ETA: There are pictures and videos of WTC 7, some taken late in the afternoon.
There are no pictures if this 'lean'

Christopher7

24th January 2007, 02:59 AM

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

Gravy

24th January 2007, 03:58 AM

If you have something to offer to this debate

Offer itYou may want to read my 109-page paper on WTC 7. There's a revised version up that has some more information and corrects a bad formatting error that caused the previous version to be much too long. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (.doc file) or PDF http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Don't make a claim and refuse to give the sourceYou've got some nerve. I already did your work for you by sending your findings to NIST when you were afraid to do so. Now it's time for you to become involved in finding answers about your issue.

Gravy

24th January 2007, 04:07 AM

uk_dave

24th January 2007, 04:11 AM

If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos.

We'll have a whip round.

BTW, Christopher 7:

Do you not see any contradictions in your theory and your statements....

Do you understand that in order for the building to 'lean', most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns would have to become shorter ie: buckel.

and

He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

......?

Belz...

24th January 2007, 05:46 AM

Belz...

24th January 2007, 05:50 AM

Read it. It's about WTC 1, 2 & 7.
It clearly states [pg 2 & 9] that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"

Yes. I was asking about that because, were it only about 1 and 2, it might explain the quote.

I do not believe the damage allegedly done by the '10 story gouge' is required for the sequence to have occured.

Irrelevant.

It's not a mater of wining or losing.

That made me chuckle. Mater of wining.

He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

By your own admission these should go hand-in-hand.

aggle-rithm

24th January 2007, 08:10 AM

Off topic a bit, but tonight on the news I saw a brief clip of WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11, apparently shot from the balcony of WTC 2. It was high quality and easily the clearest view I've seen of the smoke pouring out of the building. I'd like to see more of that footage. Unfortunately I only saw it in passing and don't know what network carried it. That's the kind of thing NIST has access to. If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos.

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?

Coritani

24th January 2007, 03:31 PM

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?

Possibly because it's EVIL GUBMINT FALSIFIED AND DOCTORED FOOTAGE.

Well, that seems to be the general mindset of twoofers.

Christopher7

24th January 2007, 11:45 PM

You may want to read my 109-page paper on WTC 7. There's a revised version up that has some more information and corrects a bad formatting error that caused the previous version to be much too long. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (.doc file) or PDF http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

I read the part about WTC 7.
There is no mention of the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground." [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

You've got some nerve. I already did your work for you by sending your findings to NIST when you were afraid to do so. Now it's time for you to become involved in finding answers about your issue.I looked, couldn't find anything from NIST for Oct '06
If you have something you would like to share, please do so.

NIST revised its south face damage assessment.

What is their revised assessment ?

Gravy

25th January 2007, 12:02 AM

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?Sorry, I meant WFC2: World Financial Center.

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?Because the rights for commercial use aren't included. Also because they don't give a damn about research.

What is their revised assessment ?Where should you go for that information?

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 12:11 AM

#447
BTW, Christopher 7:

Do you not see any contradictions in your theory and your statements ?
There is no contradiction.
If the building were leaning, the bulge would extend all the way down the west and south sides.

Hayden said "we saw a bulge in the SW corner......You could actually see, there was a visible bulge, it ran up 3 about floors"

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.
Thats why they had to put a transit on it to be sure.

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 12:18 AM

Where should you go for that information?
I went here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

uk_dave

25th January 2007, 12:33 AM

There is no contradiction.
If the building were leaning, the bulge would extend all the way down the west and south sides.

Hayden said "we saw a bulge in the SW corner......You could actually see, there was a visible bulge, it ran up 3 about floors"

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.
Thats why they had to put a transit on it to be sure.

If a vertical straight line turns into a vertical curved line, would the distance between the top and bottom points of that line be....

a. The same whether it is straight or curved
b. Shorter
c. Longer

If your answer is (b) then you have to concede that for the framed structure to 'bulge' the height of that part of the structure has decreased.

If the height of one part of the structure has decreased, then the structure will have moved.

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 12:49 AM

If a vertical straight line turns into a vertical curved line, would the distance between the top and bottom points of that line be....

a. The same whether it is straight or curved
b. Shorter
c. Longer

If your answer is (b) then you have to concede that for the framed structure to 'bulge' the height of that part of the structure has decreased.

If the height of one part of the structure has decreased, then the structure will have moved.
No

The structure above the bulge has sagged, the rest of the building has not.

The walls cannot bow [become curved] because they are attached to all the floors which will not compress inward or expand outward.

For a building to lean, the walls must buckle.

uk_dave

25th January 2007, 01:21 AM

No

The structure above the bulge has sagged, the rest of the building has not.

The walls cannot bow [become curved] because they are attached to all the floors which will not compress inward or expand outward.

For a building to lean, the walls must buckle.

I love your certainty about the behaviour of a steel framed structure.:D

If the structure has 'sagged' above the bulge in the wall, it follows that the wall supporting that structure has shortened. Therefore the loads of that part of the wall are no longer being adequately supported by the bulging wall.

Since the sagging structure above the bulge is also connected to the remainder of the upright structure, it further follows that the sag is pulling on this remaining structure. Since the movement has not been resisted by the remaining structure (in other words the structure above the bulge is not acting like a cantilever because its weight has caused the bulge in the first place) then it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining structure has also moved.

If the remaining structure had remained resolutely upright, there would be no sagging and bulging witnessed.

But, of course with your certainty that things 'cannot' and 'must' do the things you imagine, I suspect everything I just wrote will be lost on you.

Gravy

25th January 2007, 05:35 AM

I went here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/I said where should you go for that information?

Belz...

25th January 2007, 05:41 AM

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.

So first you needed a bulge, now you need a bigger bulge ?

Change the rules of the game often ?

JimBenArm

25th January 2007, 05:44 AM

So first you needed a bulge, now you need a bigger bulge ?

Change the rules of the game often ?
Only everytime he evades another question.

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 08:30 PM

So first you needed a bulge, now you need a bigger bulge ?
Just noting that they had to put a transit on it to be sure there was a bulge

Change the rules of the game often ?No

Pardalis

25th January 2007, 08:33 PM

Is it me or this thread is looking more and more like the never ending "realistice" thread?

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 08:44 PM

Only everytime he evades another question.
The question posted in the beginning of this thread is:
Have you read the NIST Appendex L, and if so,
do you believe that the

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

in spite of 4 other statements that are in conflict with that statement.
[see post #94]
Will you answer or evade ?

JimBenArm

25th January 2007, 09:00 PM

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

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

Ah, trying to change the parameters again. This is the opening post, dude.

There was only one question posed, not two.

The answer is "no". I don't think it was 10 storeys. Probably bigger or smaller, but not exactly 10 storeys. Happy?

Also don't think it makes a rat's patootie how big it was. This thread is the biggest waste of time, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (27 if you're curious)

Why do you expend all this energy on this? Do you think if the hole is proven to be smaller, it's going to prove it was brought down by CD? Really? If so, you've got a 10-storey hole that needs filled!

So give it up!

Anything else I can mock you for?

Coritani

25th January 2007, 09:04 PM

Is it me or this thread is looking more and more like the never ending "realistice" thread?

Well, both of them have 'Christopher' in their name...

JimBenArm

25th January 2007, 09:07 PM

Well, both of them have 'Christopher' in their name...
And they both have their pet delusions. The only things missing is a make-believe documentary, and C-4 coated rebar.

How about it, Chris? Going to make it another 10,000 post thread with nothing inside?

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 11:14 PM

Ah, trying to change the parameters again. This is the opening post, dude.

There was only one question posed, not two.

The answer is "no". I don't think it was 10 storeys. Probably bigger or smaller, but not exactly 10 storeys. Happy?
Not quite. Was it a gouge, floor 10 to the ground [30' to 40' deep at the bottom] ?
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?

Also don't think it makes a rat's patootie how big it was. This thread is the biggest waste of time, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.This particular rats patootie is credited with 'possibly' taking out columns 69, 72 and 75, which were then mentioned as 'possible' componets that may have led to the iniating event.

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

(27 if you're curious) I knew that

beachnut

25th January 2007, 11:26 PM

That's an evasive answer.
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?

This particular rats patootie is credited with 'possibly' taking out columns 69, 72 and 75, which were then mentioned as 'possible' componets that may have led to the iniating event.

I knew that

JamesB reminded me that it all boils down to the following basic fact.
Cartman: They aren't going to find out who did it, but they will make up a scapegoat, send him to detention, and make us all believe it. It will be 9/11 all over again.

Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really, well did you know that over 1/4th of the people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes, I am saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards.

Stan: At least 1/4th.

Kyle: Let's take a test sample. There's 4 of us, you're a retard. That's 1/4th.

So I bet the hole was bigger than 10 stories and the fire was giant. (I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC7. I can watch you solve the CT which never happen; You could just use building fire failure. Very simple, and you are still getting no where after 5 years.)

Christopher7

25th January 2007, 11:56 PM

So I bet the hole was bigger than 10 stories
To the ground, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep ?
This is the key point.
Was it that massive or was this a misinterpretation of damage described by others.

Belz...

26th January 2007, 05:33 AM

Just noting that they had to put a transit on it to be sure there was a bulge

So ? You said there should be a bulge, and now you're saying it should be more obvious. Exactly HOW obvious would it have to be to satisfy you ?

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

Well, unless you've been living under a rock since 9/11 you might have seen pictures that clearly show SOME amount of damage to the south face, and it wasn't just broken windows.

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

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f46e6103d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3827)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f49226817.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3828)

Not quite. Was it a gouge, floor 10 to the ground [30' to 40' deep at the bottom] ?
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?

What's this obsession with "belief" ?

twinstead

26th January 2007, 05:43 AM

I'm still waiting for Christopher7 to stop trying to chip away at the official story with irrelevant discussions about semantics and minutiae, and actually describe an alternate theory and provide compelling evidence to support it.

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.

Belz...

26th January 2007, 05:49 AM

Yeah, we don't get many CTers who actually change their minds. Must be a medication problem.

JonnyFive

26th January 2007, 06:55 AM

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.

Well, I think at this point we're at "small, enclosed room stuffed with rotting pig carcasses" bad, so yeah, that would be nice.

aggle-rithm

26th January 2007, 07:04 AM

I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC7.

That's a good point. Christopher7, how many people who were at WTC7 on 9/11 have you spoken with? If the answer is "none", I would ask: Why? Don't you really WANT to know what happened?

A W Smith

26th January 2007, 10:02 AM

What is it about people named Christopher and their obsession with a singular detail?

jaydeehess

26th January 2007, 10:24 AM

Once again, This thread is about the incorrect statements in support of the debris damage/fire hypothesis.
I am not going to debate CD's in this thread.

We still have the movement claim to clear up.
Then we can discuss the fires.

I do not think that FDNY had anything to do with, or knowledge of, the explosives.

No, we've covered the original topic of this thread. Time to move on. The point about the amount of lean/bulge is not part of the NIST appendix L and so not part of the original thread topic.

Therefore you have already allowed yourself to move beyond the original topic. That being the case and it also being just another bit of minutiea (how much did it bulge? .... 27! ) I'd prefer that you get equal time to defend your belief.

I'd like to know what evidence you would cite as corroborating the contention that this was an explosive demolition.

jaydeehess

26th January 2007, 10:27 AM

I do not think that FDNY had anything to do with, or knowledge of, the explosives.

Well its good to know then that at least you don't buy into the CT characterization of Larry Silverstein's "pull it".

Christopher7

26th January 2007, 10:00 PM

So ? You said there should be a bulge, and now you're saying it should be more obvious. Exactly HOW obvious would it have to be to satisfy you ?
The point is: The small bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning as some try to imply.

Well, unless you've been living under a rock since 9/11 you might have seen pictures that clearly show SOME amount of damage to the south face, and it wasn't just broken windows.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f40b1821b.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f46e6103d.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f49226817.jpg
There was damage to the south side of WTC 7
The SW corner and the roof and upper level.
[as depicted on pg 31 {see post 468} and in the photographs you posted]
There was also a large hole near the center of the south face around floor 14 and steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors

however, the most serious damage mentioned in the NIST report:

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

DID NOT EXIST

There are 4 statements in direct conflict with that statement

see post #94

What's this obsession with "belief" ?This incorrect statement on pg 18, it's depiction on page 31 and 32 as approximate region of impact damage by large debris from WTC 1, and it's inclusion in the summary, has led many people to believe this misinterpretation of the actual damage.

Do you believe the 1 statement or the 4 statements ?

Christopher7

26th January 2007, 10:30 PM

I'm still waiting for Christopher7 to stop trying to chip away at the official story with irrelevant discussions about semantics and minutiae
The 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7 is the most serious damage in the NIST report.

and actually describe an alternate theory and provide compelling evidence to support it.

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.Don't hold your breath.
Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's on this thread"

I know that many of you would like to avoid acknowledging that this 10 story gouge did not exist by changing the subject.

Do you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 existed

or: [after reading post #94]

do you think it is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses ?

twinstead

26th January 2007, 10:44 PM

Don't hold your breath.
Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's

And I know why. The vast preponderance of evidence supports the 'official story' no matter what you spew on this forum, and you know it. The only way for you to deal with that is:

1. Chip away at insignificant things to try to bring doubt down on it
2. Not discuss CDs at all, or any alternative theory at all, on this thread (CT 101)

I submit that your disagreement with the official story of 911, and WTC7 in particular is not based on scientific study, or witness accounts, or even common sense.

It is based on ideology pure and simple. Ideology hidden under the guise of 'finding the truth'.

Dude. You have already found your truth, and no amount of evidence or science will dissuade you.

Fair enough. But at least call a spade a spade.

Christopher7

26th January 2007, 10:50 PM

I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC 7
Easy to say but impossible to verify

twinstead

26th January 2007, 10:51 PM

Easy to say but impossible to verify

LOL Sound familiar?

Arus808

26th January 2007, 11:33 PM

Christopher7

26th January 2007, 11:34 PM

And I know why. The vast preponderance of evidence supports the 'official story' no matter what you spew on this forum, and you know it.
I disagree

The only way for you to deal with that is:
1. Chip away at insignificant thingsThe 10 story gouge is NOT an insignificant thing.

to try to bring doubt down on itYes

2. Not discuss CDs at all, or any alternative theory at all, on this thread Right.

I submit that your disagreement with the official story of 911, and WTC7 in particular is not based on scientific study, or witness accountsDude, my disagreement is based on 4 eyewitness accounts.
Please read post #94

Dude. You have already found your truth, and no amount of evidence or science will dissuade you.Talk to yourself much ?

Fair enough. But at least call a spade a spade.I would call 4 statements that are in direct conflict with 1 statement, a preponderance of evidence.

Christopher7

27th January 2007, 12:02 AM

.. i dont know why people continue to argue with someone who refuses to even understand the report that he is trying to argue against.

the NIST report clearly states that it had conflicting reports as to the size of the hole, and they dETERMINED that size based on testimony from eyewitnesses, video and photos taken of the damage. ALL are subjective.

What you call a BEST freaking GUESS.
That guess includes a large gouge that did not exist.

Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris
[matches the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out"]

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

Christopher, would please take a course in reading comprehension 101, basic scientific investigation (taught to most 5th graders) and come back when you've demonstrated that you can at least understand what you are reading.There are 4 statements in conflict with the 10 story gouge statement
Have you read them ? [see post #94]
If you have, do you think the 4 eyewitness statements are incorrect,
or is the 1 statement a misinterpretation of the damage described by others ?

Arus808

27th January 2007, 12:12 AM

with every post, you again show you do not possess reading comprehension.

They did their BEST GUESS on how big the hole was based on:
EYEwitness testimony,
VIDEO footage and
PHOTO evidence.

Please repeat that to yourself 21000000 times until you understand what that means. NO where in that list, is an "or".

apathoid

27th January 2007, 12:30 AM

I would call 4 statements that are in direct conflict with 1 statement, a preponderance of evidence.
Just out of curiosity, how many statements are there that describe a 10 story gouge(from floors 18 to 8) in the SW corner?
What if there was no photo of this particular gouge(there is but a single photo that shows it), would you be denying its existence as well, Chris?

Christopher7

27th January 2007, 12:49 AM

with every post, you again show you do not possess reading comprehension.

They did their BEST GUESS on how big the hole was based on:
EYEwitness testimony,
VIDEO footage and
PHOTO evidence.
Talk to yourself much ?

pg 17
"The following information about the damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building."

pg 18
"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals."

Christopher7

27th January 2007, 01:03 AM

Just out of curiosity, how many statements are there that describe a 10 story gouge(from floors 18 to 8) in the SW corner?
What if there was no photo of this particular gouge(there is but a single photo that shows it), would you be denying its existence as well, Chris?
So many questions

So few direct answers

I will be glad to answer your question if you will just take a few minutes and read post # 94.

Then state weather or not you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, exists.

beachnut

27th January 2007, 01:48 AM

So many questions

So few direct answers

I will be glad to answer your question if you will just take a few minutes and read post # 94.

Then state weather or not you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, exists.

What is your conclusion over all? What made WTC7 fall?

You should ask some people from 9/11 what they saw; I cheated, someone told me the hole was bigger than 10 stories; I will sell you the name. I have to send my kids to college so they are not as dumb as CTers.

It is going quick hurry and buy the info! (you could learn about FDRs before you take the word of those CT pilots; BTW why are only a few pilots looking for truth? you know the pilots like the scholars are liars)

Arus808

27th January 2007, 08:55 AM

Talk to yourself much ?

pg 17
"The following information about the damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building."

pg 18
"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals."

OMG, you're being purposely obtuse.
Arguing with someone who is arguing the semantics of a preliminary report is unproductive. Why dont you wait till the final report is released? Why spend all this energy on what is contained in a "first" draft report?

Christopher7

27th January 2007, 09:17 PM

What is your conclusion over all? What made WTC7 fall?
Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

You should ask some people from 9/11 what they saw; I cheated, someone told me the hole was bigger than 10 stories; I will sell you the name. I have to send my kids to college so they are not as dumb as CTers.Do you really think that everyone debating this issue should track these people down and ask them what they saw ?
Someone told you. BFD. Easy to say, impossible to verify.
Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

Christopher7

27th January 2007, 09:22 PM

OMG, you're being purposely obtuse.
Arguing with someone who is arguing the semantics of a preliminary report is unproductive. Why dont you wait till the final report is released? Why spend all this energy on what is contained in a "first" draft report?
Because it contains a major error that has led many people to believe that the debris damage to the south side of WTC 7 was far worse than it actually was.

This is not a mater of semantics. The 4 statements are clearly in conflict with the '10 story gouge'.

apathoid

27th January 2007, 11:11 PM

Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

"....the atrium glass was still intact"

How about NOT quote mining, Chris. Here is the full quote:

NIST:"-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."

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"

Given the description of damage above, the lobby was below the damage point. Makes sense...also note the word heavy. That would indicate that there was some damage in that area.....see the bottom of this post.

"Acording 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 occured at the south west corner."

Fair enough, but I haven't seen this account mentioned anywhere else or corroberated to any extent, by your logic - we must throw it out. Besides, even if this account is accurate, it says nothing about the South facade from floors 8 to the lobby.

And here is the whole section, in context. Remember Chris - context is important..

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

-middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
-large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
-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
-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[/LIST]
Note that they freely admit there are conflicting descriptions of the damage.

And what about these statements?

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

.....

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Is Captain Boyle a liar?

http://johnii2.tripod.com/wtc7.jpg

Have a look at the photo above and explain to me why you are having such a hard time believing there was a sizable hole in WTC7. I dont think you appreciate how close 7 was to 1.

And theoretically speaking, if there was a 50-ish story building in close proximity to WTC2 (perhaps the distance WTC7 was to WTC1) that had a noticable gouge scooped out of it - would you be more inclined to believe that there was a similar gouge in WTC7, given the similarity of the Towers collapses, the similar sizes of the 2 buildings, and similar proximity to said buildings with a WTC Tower ?

If yes, I give you the Bankers Trust:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/BTflyingcolumns.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

Furthermore, how would you characterize the debris in the lobby of this building? Heavy?
I wouldn't say so, but that's me...
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_B.Trust_lobby.jpg

beachnut

27th January 2007, 11:53 PM

Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

Do you really think that everyone debating this issue should track these people down and ask them what they saw ?
Someone told you. BFD. Easy to say, impossible to verify.
Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

Sad to think you can not even state your conclusions and how it ties to the hugh hole in WTC7 where all the smoke from fires feed from 20,000 gallons of fuel was coming out for hours past the safety factor of the steel.

I have read your post over and over about NIST and find we can have what NIST said and a big hole with no problem. But I am just a simple Engineer, professional soldier, pilot, and computer nerd.

Why are you unable in a few post to learn that you are not able to prove a conclusion you fail to make known past your idea you have already failed to prove as the theme to this thread.

If you can not prove your thread topic, how can you prove anything?

I do not want to change your failed thread idea; I wanted to know where you were trying to go? As most CTers you are unable to work with witness statements and come to a reasonalbe conclusion or relate where you want it to go. You keep going back to post 94 as your proof all other statements are false or faulty based on the very information we keep feeding you and you ignore.

You failed to make me see why your evidence makes a large hole in WTC7 false. As you go on it becomes easier to see how a big hole could be hidden in the smoke yet seen by those fleeing on the ground in the very area. Yet even if a big hole is not in the WTC7, there were hugh areas where tons of smoke were leaving due to giant fires which destoryed the building. I can see hugh amounts of smoke from WTC7 all day until it fell.

So your CT final conclusion which remains a mystery has been false for 5 years before you even state it here. Proven wrong before you post it by the real event 9/11. Woke up got out bed... jlpm

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 12:40 AM

How about NOT quote mining, Chris. Here is the full quote:

NIST:"-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."
Debris damage across the face is quite different from a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep.
Damage, ground to 5th floor is quite different from a gouge floor 10 to the ground.

Given the description of damage above, the lobby was below the damage point. Makes sense...also note the word heavy. That would indicate that there was some damage in that area.....see the bottom of this post.What part of 'floor 10 to the ground' don't you understand ?

according to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west cornersource: FEMA Report, pg 20

Fair enough, but I haven't seen this account mentioned anywhere else or corroberated to any extent, by your logic - we must throw it out.
Wrong
The FEMA Report is an official government document, just like the NIST Report.
All the statements are only mentioned once, including the '10 story gouge'

Besides, even if this account is accurate, it says nothing about the South facade from floors 8 to the lobby.Good point [previously made by jaydeehess]
That cuts the gouge down to 8 stories and creates doubt as to the accuracy of the statement.

And here is the whole section, in context. Remember Chris - context is important..

Note that they freely admit there are conflicting descriptions of the damage.Right, but then they proceed to ignore the 2 statements on the same page that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge', and the statement from the FEMA Report [they may not have had the Oral Histories but they should have]

Then they show the damage described in the '10 story gouge' statement, in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32.
Then, in the Summary, they mention that damage as "possible components" in the initiating event.

And what about these statements?

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Is Captain Boyle a liar?Captain Boyle's statement is in conflict with 5 official government and FDNY statements, including the '10 story gouge'.
He either misinterpreted what he saw or he overstated what he saw.

http://johnii2.tripod.com/wtc7.jpg

Have a look at the photo above and explain to me why you are having such a hard time believing there was a sizable hole in WTC7. I dont think you appreciate how close 7 was to 1.Do you enjoy deceiving yourself with photographic perspective?

WTC 1 and WTC 7 were approximately 350 feet apart! [NIST Apx. L pg 3]

And theoretically speaking, if there was a 50-ish story building in close proximity to WTC2 (perhaps the distance WTC7 was to WTC1) that had a noticable gouge scooped out of it - would you be more inclined to believe that there was a similar gouge in WTC7, given the similarity of the Towers collapses, the similar sizes of the 2 buildings, and similar proximity to said buildings with a WTC Tower ?WTC 7 was about 100 feet further away. It is possible but.......
there are 4 statements that say it didn't happen.

If yes, I give you the Bankers Trust:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/BTflyingcolumns.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

Furthermore, how would you characterize the debris in the lobby of this building? Heavy?
I wouldn't say so, but that's me...
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_B.Trust_lobby.jpgNo. I would describe steel beams and large sections of WTC 1 framework as heavy debris.

beachnut

28th January 2007, 01:13 AM

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 01:38 AM

It is likely some exterior columns crashed into WTC7. It is very likely lots of exterior clading smashed into WTC7.

But then the thread has no conclusion; it just has an answer of, YES I believe there was a big hole.

Done; so why do you ask this really dumb question? Teachers lied to you there are stupid questions. (I know questions are not really stupid but you know what I mean; or not)

So do most say big hole? What did you say again? And why is this worth a hill of beans in the first place?
There were several 'big holes' in WTC 7, but there was NOT a 100 foot high by 60 to 80 foot wide by 30 to 40 foot deep gouge.

I think i have mentioned this before but, this gouge was the most serious damage to wtc 7 that was reported. It's inclusion in the damage graphic and the Summary has led a lot of people to believe it existed.

Gouged out means gone, not there any more.
Not just the south wall but all the floors attached to it and held up by it.

beachnut

28th January 2007, 01:51 AM

Now you are defining what other people said; can not be done; your gouge has to be defined by those whose gouge it is.

Hole in the exterior from the top to the bottom allowed the building to breath and the fire to destroy the strenght of the steel. WTC7 failed due to fire; had there been concrete cores or extra concrete for fire protection; WTC7 may of partially stood like the building in Madrid.

But WTC7 is all steel, no vertical concrete support. Steel is very bad in fire. Fell due to fire. Questions; the answer to your thread is really it does not matter.

YES or NO on a big one hole has no meaning since there was plenty of hole to liberate the smoke and keep the massive fires burning all day. 20,000 gallons of fuel helped the contents burn.

Gee the building in madrid with no holes fell in a couple hours; the steel portions collapse explosively as the building in madrid burned. Fell in a few hours.

WTC7 must of had better steel and protection than Windsor building in Madrid.

So your hole is a does not matter fact. Kind of like a non smoking guy type CT smoke screen. And as JamesBond said; "were there is smoke, there is..." need I go on!

My new answer to the thread now becoming your concrete core is; it just does not matter!

Does not matter! Clear and simple; everyone needs to say yes, no, or does not matter and you can get to your next useless CT point. Sorry but you have beat this poor dog or horse too much. I bet the hole is now 46.9 stories after all this beating.

Remember my simple answer is now;

It just does not matter. On topic, on target, on this thread.