10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 3

aggle-rithm

28th January 2007, 04:36 PM

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]

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.

Eyewitness statements are unreliable. I know it, you know it, NIST knows it, everybody knows it.

Apparently, you believe that if two or more eyewitness accounts are in conflict, then you can arbitrarily pick one that you want to be true. That isn't the case.

What NIST did, as any good investigation would do, is to pick out those accounts that can be CORROBORATED by other evidence. Any testimony that is wholly consistent with verifiable facts about the WTC7 collapse has a high probability of being accurate. (Note: I do not say it IS accurate. Nobody pretends that it is possible to know for sure what happened. However, with what is known about the collapse, it would take a HUGE amount of evidence to overturn NIST's findings.)

If any eyewitnesses were found who described demolition teams moving into the building and setting charges, then that would be a viable avenue of investigation. Unfortunately for your worldview, there were no such witnesses. Controlled demolition is not the sort of thing you can simply infer because there is conflicting testimony. If that were the case, you could infer controlled demolition from ANY event where eyewitness accounts are recorded.

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 04:44 PM

Geez Chris there is one report by a NIST engineer in which he comes up with a probable senario that has strictly the fires taking the building down.

Why is it that others can find these but you can't?
If my research abilities don't meet with your aproval, then so be it.
ICCL

You are the only one here that is willing to acknowledge that the '10 story gouge' and the core damage atributed to it, was unlikely to have occured.

This is why you have moved on to "strictly the fires taking the building down"

apathoid

28th January 2007, 04:58 PM

In case you still havent found it Chris..

Apparently, NIST has acquired some new photos of the south face. I'll wager that there isn't a 10 storey gouge, but heavy damage to the South face nonetheless..

2. Lack of information about impact damage to the south face of WTC 7

��Obtained data from witnesses and mapped reported observations
��Mapped south face damage using photo analysis of available images (obtained new images 8/06)

....

��Inspection of the Banker’s Trust building for fireproofing damage
debris impact by exterior panels as WTC 2 collapsed (WTC 7 suffered similar debris impacts by exterior panels as WTC 1 collapsed)

Also, this caught my eye:

��Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
��Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance
��Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 05:09 PM

Eyewitness statements are unreliable. I know it, you know it, NIST knows it, everybody knows it.

Battalion Chief Frank Fellini was in charge of operations at West and Vesy.

Do you think his statement is unreliable?

Do you think the firefighters who reported;

"no heavy debris in the lobby area" and
"only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner"

are unreliable?

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 06:43 PM

In case you still havent found it Chris..

[NIST 12/06]

Apparently, NIST has acquired some new photos of the south face. I'll wager that there isn't a 10 storey gouge, but heavy damage to the South face nonetheless..
I agree

I have a copy of the 12/06 Summary
pg 6
Mapped south face damage using photo analysis of available images (obtained new images 8/06)

Gravy said Oct. [2006 implied] #437

So they have had these images since 8/06 and they haven't released them to the public.
These images belong to "We the people"

They are NOT the property of NIST or the 'government'

They can analyze them all that want but there is no reason why they should be withheld from the public.

jaydeehess

28th January 2007, 09:18 PM

If my research abilities don't meet with your aproval, then so be it.
ICCL

You are the only one here that is willing to acknowledge that the '10 story gouge' and the core damage atributed to it, was unlikely to have occured.

This is why you have moved on to "strictly the fires taking the building down"

I didn't say I wanted to move on to strictly fires. just pointing out that for all your talk you don't seem all that committed to actually keeping up with this.

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago. you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73444)?

Christopher7

28th January 2007, 10:14 PM

I didn't say I wanted to move on to strictly fires. just pointing out that for all your talk you don't seem all that committed to actually keeping up with this.
My focus has been on the '10 story gouge', not the collapse senerio.

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago.Correct,
but njslim hasen't gotten back with a source for the building was 'moving' statement and

Gravy has chosen to shut up rather than put up

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

apathoid: The 12/06 Summary says they "maped south face damage" but it didn't say what the 'revised' assessment was.

arus808: Are you refering to the 12/06 Summary or are you and Gravy playing 'hide the monster' ?

you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73444)?I stated that i believe WTC 7 was a CD but that's not what this thread is about

beachnut

28th January 2007, 10:36 PM

NIST did say, you missed it, but it can wait...

true in more ways than one

apathoid

29th January 2007, 12:55 AM

So they have had these images since 8/06 and they haven't released them to the public.
These images belong to "We the people"

They are NOT the property of NIST or the 'government'

They can analyze them all that want but there is no reason why they should be withheld from the public.

They'll be included in the WTC7 final report, if you cannot wait - it wouldn't hurt to ask them.

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: wtc@nist.gov

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 01:54 AM

NIST did say, you missed it, but it can wait...

true in more ways than one
Do you mean pg 16 of the 12/06 Approach Summary:

"10/06 Updated south face damage" ?

They don't state what if anything was changed.

Belz...

29th January 2007, 05:53 AM

The point is: The small bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning as some try to imply.

So, you said there should be a bulge if the building was leaning, but now that there is a bulge it doesn't mean the building was leaning. So you talking about a bulge was just a diversion ?

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

Ah, yes. Statements. The end-all of "serious" investigations.

Do you [B]believe the 1 statement or the 4 statements ?

Again: what's this obsession with "belief", and what does it have to do with anything ?

I would call 4 statements that are in direct conflict with 1 statement, a preponderance of evidence.

Right. How are those four statements in conflict with the report, please ?

That guess includes a large gouge that did not exist.

Hey, if you keep saying it, maybe it'll become true.

WTC 7 was about 100 feet further away. It is possible but.......

Don't forget that 1 didn't collapse quite like 2 did.

jaydeehess

29th January 2007, 07:08 AM

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago. you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73444)?

C7 responds:
I stated that i believe WTC 7 was a CD but that's not what this thread is about

Obviously you did not click the link Chris. It takes you to another thread meaning you do not have to discuss CD in this one.

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 10:14 AM

C7 responds:

Obviously you did not click the link Chris. It takes you to another thread meaning you do not have to discuss CD in this one.
I did click the link but i have not responded yet as i am busy here.

You have consistently debated honestly and i will post a reply tonight on your new thread.

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 10:29 AM

They'll be included in the WTC7 final report, if you cannot wait - it wouldn't hurt to ask them.

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: wtc@nist.gov
YOUDAMAN!

I called NIST and talked to Steve Caufman.

He said that NIST has not released any updates to the damage assessment of WTC 7.

Gravy was just blowin smoke

He also said that the WTC 1 debris damage on pg 31 & 32 NIST Apx. L,
did refer to the 10 story gouge statement on pg 18.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 11:35 AM

jaydeehess

29th January 2007, 11:47 AM

YOUDAMAN!

I called NIST and talked to Steve Caufman.

He said that NIST has not released any updates to the damage assessment of WTC 7.

Gravy was just blowin smoke

He also said that the WTC 1 debris damage on pg 31 & 32 NIST Apx. L,
did refer to the 10 story gouge statement on pg 18.

Did I miss something? Someone claimed that the diagrams do not represent the reported damage area?

The diagram is based upon the extent of damage as reported by various witnesses who, as NIST makes very clear several times in the report, offer differring accounts some of which are contradictory.

I find it odd that you pick away at ONE of these accounts. You brush off the account of a 6 storey (ground and up) account in which the atrium glass is said to be intact. How is that possible Christopher 7? How can there be damage to the first 6 floors but the glass is intact? Shall we throw that one out too then?

Now you might come back saying that the 10 storey gouge is required to have the columns in question be damaged except it most certainly is not, a point which has been made several times to you.

Now I did read a report that made the case for fire alone bringing down WTC 7 but I don't recall where it was in NIST and did not save the url. I'll keep looking.

aggle-rithm

29th January 2007, 11:53 AM

Battalion Chief Frank Fellini was in charge of operations at West and Vesy.

Do you think his statement is unreliable?

Do you think the firefighters who reported;

"no heavy debris in the lobby area" and
"only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner"

are unreliable?

"Unreliable" doesn't mean "untrue". It just means it would be foolish to take them at face value without corroboration.

Human beings aren't video recorders. What they see and later recall is subject to a great deal of subjective interpretation.

Belz...

29th January 2007, 01:47 PM

And even video recorders don't always produce acceptable quality.

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 02:23 PM

Did I miss something? Someone claimed that the diagrams do not represent the reported damage area?

The diagram is based upon the extent of damage as reported by various witnesses who, as NIST makes very clear several times in the report, offer differring accounts some of which are contradictory.
It has been suggested that the "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" was a combination of different reports of damage.
Such is not the case.

I find it odd that you pick away at ONE of these accounts. You brush off the account of a 6 storey (ground and up) account in which the atrium glass is said to be intact. How is that possible Christopher 7? How can there be damage to the first 6 floors but the glass is intact? Shall we throw that one out too then?On the contrary, i have mentioned the 5 story damage as evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.
Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.
Therefore it is possible that there was "debris damage across 1/4 the width of the south face.....ground to 5th floor" [pg 18] but the wall is still there and the "atrium glass was still intact"

Now you might come back saying that the 10 storey gouge is required to have the columns in question be damaged except it most certainly is not, a point which has been made several times to you.You are refering to the elevators cars being ejected from their shafts and landing in the hallway north of the elevator shaft.
Look at the location of the core columns and the elevators [NIST Apx. L pg 6]
The ejection the elevators into the hallway would only have taken out 1 core column.
It is not known which elevators were ejected or which core columns may have been damaged.

*******************************************
FWIW
The firefighter account of "only damage to 9th floor facade occured at the SW corner" is very specific and cannot be dismissed as an unreliable eyewitness account.

"Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building." [pg 18]

"...another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the 8th floor"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage
[1st listing - 'new footage' - start at 6:21]

Therefore the elevators were on the 8th floor.

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

Now I did read a report that made the case for fire alone bringing down WTC 7 but I don't recall where it was in NIST and did not save the url. I'll keep looking.In this way, we learn from each other.

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 02:32 PM

"Unreliable" doesn't mean "untrue". It just means it would be foolish to take them at face value without corroboration.
It would indeed be foolish to believe that there was a

10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide by 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7,

based on a single eyewitness account.

Human beings aren't video recorders. What they see and later recall is subject to a great deal of subjective interpretation.

twinstead

29th January 2007, 03:06 PM

It would indeed be foolish to believe that there was a

10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide by 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7,

based on a single eyewitness account.

BUT, remove the exactness of the gouge, and simply ask who witnessed a substantial gouge in WTC7, and who determined that the building was in imminent danger of collapse, well...then you pretty much have the majority of eye witnesses covered, right?

beachnut

29th January 2007, 09:53 PM

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 11:20 PM

BUT, remove the exactness of the gouge, and simply ask who witnessed a substantial gouge in WTC7, and who determined that the building was in imminent danger of collapse, well...then you pretty much have the majority of eye witnesses covered, right?
Wrong.
Read Gravys list.
How many actually said "I thought WTC 7 was going to collapse" ?
[just a few]

How many said they heard or they were told it was going to collapse. ?
[all the rest]

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 11:34 PM

beachnut:

You forgot the initiating event

Christopher7, in October, NIST revised its south face damage assessment. What is their new assessment?
The new assessment has NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC!

Gravy was just blowin smoke!

Christopher7

29th January 2007, 11:55 PM

Did you happen to mention to Steve that you think the NIST is full of crap, and the WTC7 was brought down by CD? ;)
I told him that i was debating the damage to WTC 7 with Mark Roberts who supports the official view, and that i have a different view.
He continued to be pleasant, polite and helpful.

twinstead

30th January 2007, 03:40 AM

Wrong.
Read Gravys list.
How many actually said "I thought WTC 7 was going to collapse" ?
[just a few]

How many said they heard or they were told it was going to collapse. ?
[all the rest]

And how many exactly said they heard loud bangs and/or flashes just before it collapsed? How many said they noticed odd wiring, unusual activity, or any evidence whatsoever of CD?

twinstead

30th January 2007, 03:45 AM

I told him that i was debating the damage to WTC 7 with Mark Roberts who supports the official view, and that i have a different view.
He continued to be pleasant, polite and helpful.

He would probably change his tone if he realizes that indirectly you are accusing him or his colleagues, of at best not knowing what they are talking about, and at worst being liars.

But, maybe not. What is your position on why, if in your opinion the NIST is so terribly and obviously wrong about what happened that awful day, do they say what they do?

Belz...

30th January 2007, 10:01 AM

Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.

Trade Center-proof, maybe ?

jaydeehess

30th January 2007, 11:16 AM

On the contrary, i have mentioned the 5 story damage as evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.
Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.
Therefore it is possible that there was "debris damage across 1/4 the width of the south face.....ground to 5th floor" [pg 18] but the wall is still there and the "atrium glass was still intact"

Oh come now C7. What dark recess did you pull that one from?
If there was such visible damage for 5 floors AND the glass was blast/bulletproof and therefore intact just what did this visible damage consist of? The steel beams and columns would not be bent or broken and adjacent glass, no matter the type, intact.
If the wall isn't there, neither is the glass.

I have already given a senario for this comment. I re-iterate, the witness sees the damage from ground to the 5th floor and this is located to the east of the entranceway on the south face but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact. I can pardon a person for not being exact in their statements.

beachnut

30th January 2007, 12:06 PM

beachnut:

You forgot the initiating event

The new assessment has NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC!

Gravy was just blowin smoke!

Face it you can not read and come away with meaning. Gravy knew what NIST said and let you find out. But you only prove you can not read; you needed the help of a phone call. (do not take this bad or as an attack; I almost asked gravy but decided I would try and find out what the update was and I read the trail of crumbs left by those trying to help you learn how to read. I was lucky and figured out the new study would be released in the future; that was the update.) Am I wrong?

But since you know CD blew up WTC7, I think you know that as well as you can read the NIST update. You have no ability to make a conclusion that is clear to most but eludes you.

This problem you have with comprehension is reflected in all your research. Not that I could do better but you fail to see your limitations and you will continue to believe 9/11 lies or even make them up.

njslim

30th January 2007, 03:17 PM

Don't know if this posted before - its an oral history interview from Dec 2001
with Richard Banaciski, FDNY Ladder 22 concerning WTC 7

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on

Christopher7

30th January 2007, 07:34 PM

Oh come now C7. What dark recess did you pull that one from?
If there was such visible damage for 5 floors AND the glass was blast/bulletproof and therefore intact just what did this visible damage consist of? The steel beams and columns would not be bent or broken and adjacent glass, no matter the type, intact.
If the wall isn't there, neither is the glass.

I have already given a senario for this comment. I re-iterate, the witness sees the damage from ground to the 5th floor and this is located to the east of the entranceway on the south face but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact. I can pardon a person for not being exact in their statements.
We are both speculating, trying to make sense of a somewhat ambiguous stement.
My scenario assumes bullet/blast proof glass. The steel is battered and bent but still somewhat intact.
Your scenario is reasonable but still in conflict with a 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' gouge in the middle of the south wall.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/949/copyof3ov2.jpg

This is a rough approximation of the gouge [purple]
Imagine this gouge 30 to 40 feet deep [the wall and the floors attached to it, gone]

Chief Fellini's "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade" [red] I put this damage in the center because i think the 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses.

Christopher7

30th January 2007, 07:44 PM

jaydeehess

31st January 2007, 11:35 AM

My scenario assumes bullet/blast proof glass. The steel is battered and bent but still somewhat intact.

Unfortunatly Chris there isn't a type of glass on this planet that would survive if subjected to forces sufficient to bend the steel next to it.

Besides wasn't the command center on the 23rd floor? If one is to assume that all the glass on that floor and below were armoured then it would require that all the glass on those floors be armoured. Such armouring would be to prevent a blast lifting the floor pans(which requires suprisingly little overpressure) and causing floor collapse on the lower floors and to prevent flying glass within the offices. Much glass was shattered in the building even by the collapse of WTC 2 making it obvious that such armoured glass was not in place.

This is a rough approximation of the gouge [purple]
Imagine this gouge 30 to 40 feet deep [the wall and the floors attached to it, gone]

Chief Fellini's "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade" [red] I put this damage in the center because i think the 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses.

Your characterizations require two assumptions.
1) that the gouge reported be 30-40 feet deep throughout the entire approx 10 floors.

This intent in the original description is not in evidence. It is the widest interpretation of the statement and thus is shown in the NIST diagrams

2) that Cheif Fellinni is reporting on the condition of the entire face of WTC 7 and not just what was visible to him through dust and/or smoke.

I also note that the disvision between floors is not readily apparent for the first several floors of WTC 7. This is made obvious in your picture above and in the height of the confusion, dust, heat and extreme emotional distress of the day the expectation that witnesses get the details correct just isn't right.

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 12:36 AM

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/949/copyof3ov2.jpg

Unfortunatly Chris there isn't a type of glass on this planet that would survive if subjected to forces sufficient to bend the steel next to it.
OK, leave out the bent. My bad.

They don't mention bent steel, but they do say the damage starts above the atrium, which is in between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right. [see NIST Apx. L pg 8]

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground floor to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact." [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Your scenerio needs a little work too.
Damage from ground to the 5th floor to the east of the entranceway on the south face.
[the atrium is over the entranceway]

"but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact"
[on the other side of a 60' to 80' gouge ? I think they were talking about one area]

In either case, the gouge 'floor 10 to the ground' [even the 60' wide gouge]* would have taken out a sizeable portion of the atrium glass.
*gouge depicted is roughly 80'

Your characterizations require two assumptions.
1) that the gouge reported be 30-40 feet deep throughout the entire approx 10 floors.No. I made the gouge smaller at the top which indicates [i thought] that the gouge was bigger, and therefore deeper, at the ground floor. [as one would expect from debris falling at an angle]

2) that Cheif Fellinni is reporting on the condition of the entire face of WTC 7 and not just what was visible to him through dust and/or smoke. Hayden: "....it took a while for that fire to develop."

NIST Apx. L pg 22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas."

The breeze was to the south, blowing the dust and the smoke from WTC 5 & 6 away from WTC 7.

I also note that the disvision between floors is not readily apparent for the first several floors of WTC 7. This is made obvious in your picture above and in the height of the confusion, dust, heat and extreme emotional distress of the day the expectation that witnesses get the details correct just isn't right.We're not talking about details here.
In this case we have 4 statements that are in conflict with 1 statement and those statements, some clear on details, some not, are enough to conclude that the 1 statement, was overstated.

Gravy

1st February 2007, 12:48 AM

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 03:26 AM

Fourth time, Chris: NIST reassessed the south face damage. What is their new assessment? You've had plenty of time to work on this, but you seem to only want to rehash the same argument.

Is there any reason you aren't interested in finding this out?
Cut the s*it Gravy.

Had you bothered to read a little before posting, you would know that i called NIST and they told me that:

THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THE NEW ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC

Kindly stop blowin smoke up my ass please.

twinstead

1st February 2007, 03:33 AM

Cut the s*it Gravy.

Had you bothered to read a little before posting, you would know that i called NIST and they told me that:

THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THE NEW ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC

I'm curious, however, as to how you can tell us how wrong NIST is when you don't even know what their revised assessment is.

Belz...

1st February 2007, 08:01 AM

I must admit that I'm confused about this, too.

jaydeehess

1st February 2007, 10:31 AM

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/949/copyof3ov2.jpg

OK, leave out the bent. My bad.

They don't mention bent steel, but they do say the damage starts above the atrium, which is in between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right. [see NIST Apx. L pg 8]

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground floor to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact." [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

So its to be damage that is remarkable but not enough to break the glass(blast resistant or not)? Is that it? what kind of damage would that be then, the paint was sratched? Chris, you are really reaching with this one , give it up.

Your scenerio needs a little work too.
Damage from ground to the 5th floor to the east of the entranceway on the south face.
[the atrium is over the entranceway]

"but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact"
[on the other side of a 60' to 80' gouge ? I think they were talking about one area]

In either case, the gouge 'floor 10 to the ground' [even the 60' wide gouge]* would have taken out a sizeable portion of the atrium glass.
*gouge depicted is roughly 80'

On pages L-8 and L-9 you see the atrium separated into two sections. BTW, notice anything else about these two pages?

No. I made the gouge smaller at the top which indicates [i thought] that the gouge was bigger, and therefore deeper, at the ground floor. [as one would expect from debris falling at an angle]

Sure your characterization makes it larger at the ground floor.

Why do you assume that it would be so?

Take a look at Banker's Trust
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzbt1.html
That gouge ended before the ground floor and had the debris that caused it not gotten hung up in the side of the building it certainly looks as if would have ended up in the street.

Hayden: "....it took a while for that fire to develop."

NIST Apx. L pg 22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas."

What's that, below 6th floor Chris?

The breeze was to the south, blowing the dust and the smoke from WTC 5 & 6 away from WTC 7.

Well that clinches it. It was perfectly clear, no dust falling off WTC 7, no smoke from WTC 7, no smoke from #5 & #6 swirling in Vesey Street.

We're not talking about details here.
In this case we have 4 statements that are in conflict with 1 statement and those statements, some clear on details, some not, are enough to conclude that the 1 statement, was overstated

Yes, we are talking details. You refuse to grasp the concept that the NIST report is illustrating the extent of the worst case reported damage and that to not do so would be an error. It is NOT a major tenet of the conclusions in even this preliminary report that this greatest extent of damage to the south face be the reality that day.

jaydeehess

1st February 2007, 10:37 AM

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
Progress to Date
12/05 Completed table of initiating events for WTC 7.
1/06 Completed review of 80 boxes of data and drawings held by SOM.
4/06Awarded contract to ARA for global analyses.
5/06 Completed ANSYS analysis of WTC 7 floor sections with inclusion of temperature-dependent material properties, composite floor behavior, and creep.
6/06Completed preliminary simulations of fire progress and thermal heating of structural elements.
6/06 Completed evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance for review.
7/06Completed information gathering on building layout and contents.
8/06 Inspected Banker’s Trust building for fireproofing damage from debris impact by exterior panels as WTC 2 collapsed. Discussions to perform the inspections started in 3/06 and were not approved until 7/06.

8/06 Completed preliminary analysis of WTC 7 global response to initiating events using a SAP model developed earlier in the investigation,including design of connection details and development of failure criteria.
8/06 Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) for analysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events.
8/06 Completed analysis of visual evidence: fire progress andbuilding damage.
8/06 Completed analysis of seismic data.
10/06 Completed FDS fire models and analyses for floors.
10/06 Updated south face damage.
11/06 Completed video analysis of building vibration.
12/06 Developed ANSYS model for thermal analyses, initiated analyses.
12/06 Completed LSDYNA floor and global models; initiated flooranalyses.
12/06 Developed hypothetical blast scenarios for analysis of overpressures.

jaydeehess

1st February 2007, 10:50 AM

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

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

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 11:42 AM

I'm curious, however, as to how you can tell us how wrong NIST is when you don't even know what their revised assessment is.
I'm pointing out the error in the report that has been released.
NIST Appendix L [progress report]

Hopefully, they will correct this mistake in the final report but until they release it, we won't know.

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 11:50 AM

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
Been there, read that

Gravy's question was: "What is their new assessment"

As you can see, that information is not in the report you posted.

So why did you post it ?

Gravy was just blowin smoke.

Are you guys all hooked up to the same Hooka ?

aggle-rithm

1st February 2007, 12:04 PM

jaydeehess

1st February 2007, 01:45 PM

Been there, read that

Gravy's question was: "What is their new assessment"

As you can see, that information is not in the report you posted.

So why did you post it ?

Gravy was just blowin smoke.

Are you guys all hooked up to the same Hooka ?

I believe that the point was that you are argueing a small point contained in a preliminary report even though you know that there is a revised report coming out this year. Why are you so hooked on it then? and if I am correct about what Gravy was getting at , then what flight level was it at when it went over your head?

I haven't pulled on a hooka, a pipe or a spliff for 25 years now. You?

Now have you noticed that the figures on page L-8 are reversed? The ground floor lobby is not on the second floor. Do you see that the atrium glass extends most of the width of the building? Do you see that it is defined in the diagrams as two separate sections to the east and west of the entrance?

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 10:23 PM

Yeah, but it's pretty weak. I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!
:cool:

Christopher7

1st February 2007, 10:56 PM

I believe that the point was that you are argueing a small point contained in a preliminary report
small? did you say SMALL?

A 10 story gouge, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

is BIG

even though you know that there is a revised report coming out this year. and when it comes out we can review and discuss it.

In the mean time, I'm pointing out a mistake in the NIST Apx.L report that has led a lot of people to believe there was a

"10 story gouge, 60 to 80' wide and 30 to 40' deep in WTC 7.

Such is not the case.

Now have you noticed that the figures on page L-8 are reversed?Yes
Do you see that the atrium glass extends most of the width of the building? Do you see that it is defined in the diagrams as two separate sections to the east and west of the entrance?Yes.
The statement was about the east atrium.

LashL

1st February 2007, 11:36 PM

Christopher7,

I know that I've asked you about this several times and I know that you have never responded in any meaningful fashion, but I'll mention it again in hopes that you might actually address the issue.

You keep claiming that certain witness accounts of the damage are/were inconsistent with each other, but you still haven't addressed your mind to the locations and the opportunity to observe of the very people whose accounts you claim to be inconsistent with each other.

Until you do that, I do not see how you can legitimately claim that the various accounts from various persons are inconsistent with each other. Frankly, it appears that you haven't any concept of the physical layout of the building, haven't any concept of the size of the building, haven't any concept of the reality of the situation on the ground that existed on September 11, 2001, and that you are just plucking thinigs out of thin air to suit your purposes several years after the fact.

I'll gladly stand corrected if you can provide any evidence to support your theories, but so far, you have not done so.

Unless and until you can provide evidence of the locations of the various witnesses, and unless and until you can establish that their opportunties to observe were such that their accounts are inconsistent with each other, I cannot and will not accept your bald assertion that they are inconsistent.

It appears, by your failure to address this point even though you have been asked to do so several times, that you do not understand the simple concepts of location and opportunity to observe, but I can assure you that in the real world, it matters. Every day, in real live court cases, it matters.

twinstead

2nd February 2007, 03:44 AM

and when it comes out we can review and discuss it.

In the mean time, I'm pointing out a mistake in the NIST Apx.L report that has led a lot of people to believe there was a

"10 story gouge, 60 to 80' wide and 30 to 40' deep in WTC 7.

Such is not the case.

This would be accepted by us a lot better if it weren't so apparent that you are questioning NIST not only in an irrelevant, pedantic way, but that you are implying something nefarious.

If NIST corrects its 'mistakes' in the revised edition, you will go on probably with little comment to some other 'anomaly' in the official story surrounding 911.

If not, NIST will probably describe in minute detail why they came to their conclusions, but you just won't believe them and rely on your own flawed 'investigation'.

I hope I'm wrong.

Belz...

2nd February 2007, 08:02 AM

small? did you say SMALL?

A 10 story gouge, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

is BIG

Now you're playing with words which is a dishonest way of arguing.

You're arguing about the exact size of the hole itself. The fact that it may be smaller than reported is a small point.

jaydeehess

2nd February 2007, 11:45 AM

Now you're playing with words which is a dishonest way of arguing.

You're arguing about the exact size of the hole itself. The fact that it may be smaller than reported is a small point.

Beat me to it.

The statement was about the east atrium

What causes you to believe that both parts of the statement reffered to only the east atrium? It is simply improbable in the extreme to expect that damage to the face of the building in a specific loaction (center of the face, ground to 5th floor) was remarkable to a witness and that it did not invovle the windows being broken even IF one accepts your contention, with absolutly no corroborating evidence, that all the windows of this building were blast resistent(there is no such thing as blast-PROOF).

Belz...

2nd February 2007, 01:14 PM

there is no such thing as blast-PROOF

Of course there is. Haven't you seen the latest Bond flick ?

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 08:56 PM

Christopher7,

I know that I've asked you about this several times and I know that you have never responded in any meaningful fashion, but I'll mention it again in hopes that you might actually address the issue.
NIST Apx. L pg 18
1) "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south side was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

2) "no heavy debris in lobby area"

These firefighters rescued 2 people who were trapped on the 8th floor by an explosion, and then [or before] found another person [or persons] on the 7th floor.
They were checking the entire floor for people.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8"
"Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on floor 7 just before leaving"
This indicates that they most likely left by the west stairway.
As they exited the building, they checked the lobby.
"Both exit stairways discharged directly to the exterior at the ground level."
[FEMA Chap. 5 pg 10]
The stairs were in the core of the building [see NIST Apx. L pg 6]
The firefighters had to exit the hallway [from stairs to street] to see the lobby.
They were looking for people as they had on floors 7 & 8.
[the first people they rescued had to wait while the firefighters searched another floor, so there was no rush to get out]
Their statement was very clear and the suggestion that they didn't walk a few steps from the hallway door and look in the lobby is not credible.

3) debris damage across 1/4 width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from ground to 5th floor) noted that the atrium glass was still in tact."

It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

FEMA Chap. 5 pg 20
4) "According to an 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 occurred at the south west corner"

His location is clear.

Oral Histories NY Times
5) "...ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade on Vesey Street."
Battalion Chief Frank Fellini [in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

His location is not known [to us]

The suggestion that he didn't notice the most severe damage to WTC 7 is not credible.

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 09:04 PM

What causes you to believe that both parts of the statement reffered to only the east atrium? It is simply improbable in the extreme to expect that damage to the face of the building in a specific loaction (center of the face, ground to 5th floor) was remarkable to a witness and that it did not invovle the windows being broken even IF one accepts your contention, with absolutly no corroborating evidence, that all the windows of this building were blast resistent(there is no such thing as blast-PROOF).
It's what they said that matters.

What makes you think they would describe damage starting above the atrium and continuing to the ground and then say the atrium glass on the other side of a 60 to 80 foot gouge was intact?
That doesn't make any sense. You are grasping at straws.

LashL

2nd February 2007, 09:13 PM

<snip>It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

<snip>"no heavy debris in lobby area"

<snip>It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

<snip>His location is clear.

<snip> His location is not known [to us]

So, it appears that you are - finally - addressing the first half of my repeated query to you, and that you are acknowledging that you do not know where the witnesses were located.

I note that you did not even address the second part of my repeated query, which is just as important as the first - i.e. the witnesses' opportunity to observe. (To be fair, perhaps you do not know what the term "opportunity to observe" means when it is used in reference to eyewitness testimony but it has a particular meaning in court. If you require explanation for the term and what it means to those whose job it is to assess and weigh eyewitness testimony every day, just ask.)

In any event, since you have shown that you do not, in fact, know where the witnesses were located and since you have not addressed at all their respective opportunities to observe, I will simply reiterate that you, therefore, have not demonstrated - and cannot demonstrate, without more - that those particular statements are contradictory to each other.

It is not enough to pick out a few lines from various witnesses and declare them to be contradictory without knowing where the people making those statements were located and without knowing anything at all about their opportunities to observe. This is Evidence 101. Before you can declare their statements to be contradictory, the minimum you need is to establish where they were located, at what times, at what vantage points, what their opportunities to observe were, and what factors were impacting upon their opportunities to observe.

You have done nothing of the sort. It appears that you have simply picked out a few sentences and declared them to contradictory, based upon only your own preconceptions and, as yet, unfounded assumptions.

But at least you are starting to admit that, finally.

Edit to add: Also, your ad libbing with respect to the firefighters who were on the 8th floor and 7th floor and who eventually saw "no heavy debris in the lobby area" is a bit disingenuous.

Gravy

2nd February 2007, 09:18 PM

Cut the s*it Gravy.

Had you bothered to read a little before posting, you would know that i called NIST and they told me that:

THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THE NEW ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC

Kindly stop blowin smoke up my ass please.BRAVO! After being pushed and pushed, you finally decided to DO something. It's beyond me why you have to be embarrassed into getting information about your own claim.

Now are you going to continue to whine, or are you going to wait for NIST's report?

I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

east and north sides. east side in shadow = afternoon

west side in sunlight = afternoon

This building is NOT anything close to being 'fully involved'Sheer genius!

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 09:26 PM

This would be accepted by us a lot better if it weren't so apparent that you are questioning NIST not only in an irrelevant, pedantic way, but that you are implying something nefarious.
What's irrelevant and pedantic about quoting government documents?

If NIST corrects its 'mistakes' in the revised edition, you will go on probably with little comment to some other 'anomaly' in the official story surrounding 911.Yes. There are lots of anomalies in the official story.

If not, NIST will probably describe in minute detail why they came to their conclusions, but you just won't believe them and rely on your own flawed 'investigation'.That depends on what they say.

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 09:38 PM

BRAVO! After being pushed and pushed, you finally decided to DO something. It's beyond me why you have to be embarrassed into getting information about your own claim.
Actually, i did something right away.
I made the mistake of believing you, and looked for something that did not exist. ie: 'The new assessment', which hasn't been released to the public.

You are truly a master at avoiding the subject of this thread.

twinstead

2nd February 2007, 10:00 PM

Yes. There are lots of anomalies in the official story.

Do you mean normal, expected anomalies that exist in EVERY major investigation of any complex event in the history of Man, extraordinary anomalies that you have legitimate evidence should not exist, or simply what you consider anomalies, which may or not may actually BE anomalies?

LashL

2nd February 2007, 10:04 PM

I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

east and north sides. east side in shadow = afternoon

west side in sunlight = afternoon

This building is NOT anything close to being 'fully involved'

Sheer genius!

That's nomination-worthy for the 2007 Twoofer Posts of the Year (to date) even. Where did you find it? Is it part of an edited post or is it from somewhere else? I can't find a link to it but I'd love to nominate it :)

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 11:27 PM

That's nomination-worthy for the 2007 Twoofer Posts of the Year (to date) even. Where did you find it? Is it part of an edited post or is it from somewhere else? I can't find a link to it but I'd love to nominate it :)
He found it over at the LC forum.
I was answering someone who thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'

Ever notice how Gravy avoids answering the question posed in this thread by talking to and about me.

Ignore the facts you cannot dispute and talk about the messenger.

Way to go Gravy.

He even implied that Craig Bartmer was a liar.

[post # 88]

Craig was a 9/11 hero until he said "I know an explosion when i hear one"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218&q=Craig+Bartmer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=)

If clicking on link doesn't work, copy and paste URL

Redtail

2nd February 2007, 11:34 PM

He found it over at the LC forum.
I was answering someone who thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'

Ever notice how Gravy avoids answering the question posed in this thread by talking to and about me.

Ignore the facts you cannot dispute and talk about the messenger.

Way to go Gravy.

He even implied that Craig Bartmer was a liar.

Craig was a 9/11 hero until he said "I know an explosion when i hear one"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218&q=Craig+Bartmer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=)

If clicking on link doesn't work, copy and paste URL

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 11:38 PM

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?
No
Sometimes it's part of a CD.

Gravy

2nd February 2007, 11:43 PM

No
Sometimes it's part of a CD.So there were no explosions at the WTC on 9/11 that were not bombs or demolitions charges? Are you sticking with that story?

Oh, by the way, Chris, it wasn't me who called Craig Bartmer a liar, it was someone who claimed to be an ex-girlfriend of his. And the many experts who were on the scene do not corroborate his story.

Redtail

2nd February 2007, 11:51 PM

No
Sometimes it's part of a CD.

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.

ETA: Wouldn't said charge be (in effect) a bomb?

Christopher7

2nd February 2007, 11:55 PM

So there were no explosions at the WTC on 9/11 that were not bombs or demolitions charges? Are you sticking with that story?
Where did that come from?

Oh, by the way, Chris, it wasn't me who called Craig Bartmer a liar, it was someone who claimed to be an ex-girlfriend of his. And the many experts who were on the scene do not corroborate his story.You were just the one who posted it here.
Are implying that he is a liar again?

LashL

3rd February 2007, 12:23 AM

He found it over at the LC forum.
I was answering someone who thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'

I see. So, now you're also a self proclaimed expert in firefighting, too? Ask a firefighter whether WTC7 was fully involved - I have.

Ever notice how Gravy avoids answering the question posed in this thread by talking to and about me.

I've certainly noticed how you avoid answering posts directed specifically to you in this thread - as evidenced by the fact that I had to put the same query to you several times already and you still haven't responded to it properly, as set out above.

I've noticed that Gravy doesn't necessarily respond to the same, old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts such as yours, and I don't blame him for that. One can only answer the same old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts so many times before one starts to simply ignore them.

Ignore the facts you cannot dispute and talk about the messenger.

I agree that you have ignored the facts that you cannot dispute and that you instead talk about the messenger. You really should try harder to address the facts and you really should try harder to address the questions posed to you about the non-facts that you posit. You should also learn some critical and logical thinking skills, as you will find them most helpful in future.

Way to go Gravy.

Gravy does a darned fine job of calling you and other twoofers on their BS, doesn't he? I quite agree.

He even implied that Craig Bartmer was a liar.

Did he?

I'm not sure that he did. And whether he did or not, personally, I do not find Mr. Bartmer's account to be internally or externally consistent and I do not find it to be particularly credible as a result.

Craig was a 9/11 hero until he said "I know an explosion when i hear one"

I don't know that "Craig was a 9/11 hero" as you put it, either before or after his comments, but if he was, he still is. That is irrelevant to the fact that "knowing an explosion when you hear one" hardly supports the conspiracy fantasist view of controlled demolitions, bombs, etc. I do not understand why you think that someone saying there was an "explosion" in a burning building is surprising or unusual, and I certainly do not understand why you think an explosion in a burning building means controlled demolition or pre-planted explosives. It does not.

Edit to add: And when, oh when, are you ever going to get around to addressing my repeated query about the opportunity to observe of those witnesses whose statements you've unilaterally declared to be inconsistent without ever addressing any of the elements required to make that assessment?

Christopher7

3rd February 2007, 12:46 AM

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.
What part of 'sometimes' don't you understand?

ETA: Wouldn't said charge be (in effect) a bomb?No

Gravy

3rd February 2007, 01:03 AM

Where did that come from?
Ahem.
So "explosion" always involves a bomb?
No Sometimes it's part of a CD.
Second time: were there any explosions at the WTC on 9/11 that weren't a bomb or a CD?

You were just the one who posted it here.
Are implying that he is a liar again?And why did I post it, Chris? I told you why: as an example of an unsubstantiated claim. Short memory you have. What is it with you people calling anyone who is wrong a liar? Why can't people be mistaken without lying?

Christopher7

3rd February 2007, 01:23 AM

I see. So, now you're also a self proclaimed expert in firefighting, too? Ask a firefighter whether WTC7 was fully involved - I have.
Good grief. Do you think WTC 7 was fully involved?
What part of 'fully' don't you understand?

I've certainly noticed how you avoid answering posts directed specifically to you in this thread - as evidenced by the fact that I had to put the same query to you several times already and you still haven't responded to it properly, as set out above.I don't always have time to respond to every post.

I've noticed that Gravy doesn't necessarily respond to the same, old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts such as yours, and I don't blame him for that. One can only answer the same old, tired, lame, repetitive tinhat posts so many times before one starts to simply ignore them.He had time to make a lot of non responsive responses.

Gravy does a darned fine job of calling you and other twoofers on their BS, doesn't he? I quite agree.Gravy does a fine job of avoiding the substance of this thread.

Did he?
I'm not sure that he did. And whether he did or not, personally, I do not find Mr. Bartmer's account to be internally or externally consistent and I do not find it to be particularly credible as a result.You are entitled to your opinion.

I don't know that "Craig was a 9/11 hero" as you put it, either before or after his comments, but if he was, he still is. That is irrelevant to the fact that "knowing an explosion when you hear one" hardly supports the conspiracy fantasist view of controlled demolitions, bombs, etc. I do not understand why you think that someone saying there was an "explosion" in a burning building is surprising or unusual, and I certainly do not understand why you think an explosion in a burning building means controlled demolition or pre-planted explosives. It does not.The 'clap like thunder' along with a shock wave through the building and all the windows blew out sounds a hellofalot like a CD.
Craig heard explosions. It could have been something other than demolition charges, but then, it could have been demolition charges.

Edit to add: And when, oh when, are you ever going to get around to addressing my repeated query about the opportunity to observe of those witnesses whose statements you've unilaterally declared to be inconsistent without ever addressing any of the elements required to make that assessment?I responded to your question in post # 558

A W Smith

3rd February 2007, 01:36 AM

there were multiple back up generator fuel tanks on upper floors. Do you doubt that these could explode in a fire?

Christopher7

3rd February 2007, 01:43 AM

Second time: were there any explosions at the WTC on 9/11 that weren't a bomb or a CD?
What part of 'sometimes' don't you understand?

And why did I post it, Chris? I told you why: as an example of an unsubstantiated claim.Einstein posted Craig Bartmer's video and you response was to infer he was a liar.
This is what you people do to anyone who says something to burst your bubble.
Trash the messenger and ignore the message.
Stephen Jones is a mild mannered Physics Prof. from a very conservative University. He wouldn't be there in the first place if he were a nut or a radical.
You people have slandered him relentlessly, as you do anybody who says something you can't deal with.

Short memory you have. What is it with you people calling anyone who is wrong a liar? Why can't people be mistaken without lying?Talk to yourself much?

uk_dave

3rd February 2007, 01:56 AM

Stephen Jones is a mild mannered Physics Prof. from a very conservative University. He wouldn't be there in the first place if he were a nut or a radical.
You people have slandered him relentlessly, as you do anybody who says something you can't deal with.

Talk to yourself much?

huh? So you agree with jones's thoughts on jesus and the mayans?

How about Judy wood? Isn't she worthy of a little ridicule?

How about the 'truth' movement's ridiculing of the 'Official Account'? How bad is it that you people are quite happy to accuse others of corruption, even murder, but start crying when so called 'experts' in your own movement are revealed to be whackjobs?

Chris, you are being lied to every time you visit a CT website or listen to the musings of the CT leaders. Simple as that: THEY are the liars.

But so long as people such as yourself will continue to accept their lies without question, then there is nothing to stop them lying to you.

Christopher7

3rd February 2007, 01:56 AM

there were multiple back up generator fuel tanks on upper floors. Do you doubt that these could explode in a fire?
Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Christopher7

3rd February 2007, 02:10 AM

huh? So you agree with jones's thoughts on jesus and the mayans?
I don't know what they are, but thanx for making my point.

How about Judy wood? Isn't she worthy of a little ridicule?I don't know who she is but thanx for making my point.

How about the 'truth' movement's ridiculing of the 'Official Account'? How bad is it that you people are quite happy to accuse others of corruption, even murder, but start crying when so called 'experts' in your own movement are revealed to be whackjobs?Good point, but i disagree with your wackjobs evaluation.

Chris, you are being lied to every time you visit a CT website or listen to the musings of the CT leaders. Simple as that: THEY are the liars.If you believe the official BS story, then all these people would seem liars to you.

But so long as people such as yourself will continue to accept their lies without question, then there is nothing to stop them lying to you.I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job on my own.
I found out about these people when i started doing research on 9/11.

uk_dave

3rd February 2007, 02:12 AM

I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job on my own.
I found out about these people when i started doing research on 9/11.

And where did you go for that research?

A W Smith

3rd February 2007, 02:32 AM

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Oh in a fire in a closed tank it does.

R.Mackey

3rd February 2007, 10:35 AM

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Another 100% wrong statement by a Troofer.

Diesel fuel is used in diesel engines. Diesel engines differ from gasoline engines in one key aspect, namely that the fuel ignition is caused by a combination of pressure and temperature rather than a spark, which is required to ignite gasoline.

In other words, diesel fuel is selected specifically for its explosive properties.

Carry on.

LashL

3rd February 2007, 12:15 PM

Good grief. Do you think WTC 7 was fully involved?
What part of 'fully' don't you understand?

I do understand what "fully involved" means, as I specifically asked a fire captain, and specifically showed him photos of WTC7 for reference. I will take his word as an experienced fire captain and HUSAR member over yours as an anonymous internet conspiracy fantasist, any day.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Finally, something that we agree on.

The 'clap like thunder' along with a shock wave through the building and all the windows blew out sounds a hellofalot like a CD.
Craig heard explosions. It could have been something other than demolition charges, but then, it could have been demolition charges.

Except that there is zero evidence of demolition charges. Remember, the building was full of people that day. It is not as though demolition charges could have been planted there surreptitiously and nobody noticed.

I responded to your question in post # 558

You did not respond to the part about "opportunity to observe" - and you still have not, even though I pointed that out to you above, quite clearly, and asked you if you even understand what the phrase means on an evidentiary level, etc. You have not addressed that at all.

Belz...

3rd February 2007, 03:04 PM

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

You need to work on your reading comprehension:

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?

No
Sometimes it's part of a CD.

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.

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

Belz...

3rd February 2007, 03:07 PM

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

How can a person possibly be this ignorant about the real world ?

JimBenArm

3rd February 2007, 06:58 PM

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.
:dl:

Another moment of true wisdom!

twinstead

3rd February 2007, 07:09 PM

Some people shouldn't be ALLOWED to investigate anything

MaGZ

3rd February 2007, 08:03 PM

there were multiple back up generator fuel tanks on upper floors. Do you doubt that these could explode in a fire?

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

NickUK

3rd February 2007, 08:07 PM

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

Are you being paid commission per BS post or something?

JimBenArm

3rd February 2007, 08:11 PM

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.
So FDNY was in on it? They're part of the conspiracy, even though hundreds of their fellow firefighters were killed?

Is that really what you mean?

Gravy

3rd February 2007, 08:12 PM

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.
I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today. You comment is one of the stupidest I have ever seen in my life. If that's insulting to you, so be it. It's a statement of fact.

And it's "fuel." But I guess since you get everything else wrong I shouldn't expect you to pay attention to the forum software's spell check suggestions either.

twinstead

3rd February 2007, 08:25 PM

I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today.

You're just blowing smoke, Gravy. She was at my house all day and you know it...

jaydeehess

3rd February 2007, 08:53 PM

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

Hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Well guys, we are part of a vast and complicated plot to kill thousands of US citizens and destroy tens of millions of dollars worth of structures and severely damage several others and there is not a care as to how this will put the economy of the USA into a tailspin that will take years to recover from, AND now we have to take down one more building down, BUT we don't want a fuel spill causing any damage to the rubble so we gotta set fire to the fuel where it is THEN we can set the explosives off"

:boggled:

C7, this guy helping you?

jaydeehess

3rd February 2007, 08:58 PM

It's what they said that matters.

What makes you think they would describe damage starting above the atrium and continuing to the ground and then say the atrium glass on the other side of a 60 to 80 foot gouge was intact?
That doesn't make any sense. You are grasping at straws.

I already asked you what makes you think that any damage significant enough to be remarked upon could occur in the very same location as windows that were all still intact. That doesn't make sense. You are grasping at staws. You seem to be doing it because you have to be able to show this statement to be completely unambiguous and consistent in order to keep it of use in showing that the other statement is not. What you are doing is a prime example of sophistry.

twinstead

3rd February 2007, 10:13 PM

I would be interested in how Christopher7 would react to real or percieved anomalies in events that he agrees with ideologically.

beachnut

4th February 2007, 02:33 PM

The Fire Department may have set the tanks on fire in order to burn off the fule. Once the fule was gone then a CD could begin.

You are the dumbest yet; missiles and plain made up lies. How did you learn to type?

Are you the dumbest guy at the white power meetings?

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:04 PM

I do understand what "fully involved" means, as I specifically asked a fire captain, and specifically showed him photos of WTC7 for reference. I will take his word as an experienced fire captain and HUSAR member over yours as an anonymous internet conspiracy fantasist, any day.
Did you show the fire Captain the pictures of the east, north and west sides?

Except that there is zero evidence of demolition charges. Remember, the building was full of people that day. It is not as though demolition charges could have been planted there surreptitiously and nobody noticed.
The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer, the squibs, and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire, as the building collapsed.
The charges could not have been placed on 9/11.

You did not respond to the part about "opportunity to observe" - and you still have not, even though I pointed that out to you above, quite clearly, and asked you if you even understand what the phrase means on an evidentiary level, etc. You have not addressed that at all.
On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

Is the '10 story gouge' statement sufficient on an 'evidentiary level' ?
What was the 'opportunity to observe' ?

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Batallion Chief Fellini's view in the first hours.
Do you think he based his statement on a single observation, from a location where his vision was obscured?

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:09 PM

You need to work on your reading comprehension:
What part of 'always' don't you understand ?
Sometimes means 'not always'
Perhaps it is you that needs to work on reading comprehension.

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:14 PM

And where did you go for that research?
I started at wtc7.net

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:21 PM

Another 100% wrong statement by a Troofer.

Diesel fuel is used in diesel engines. Diesel engines differ from gasoline engines in one key aspect, namely that the fuel ignition is caused by a combination of pressure and temperature rather than a spark, which is required to ignite gasoline.

In other words, diesel fuel is selected specifically for its explosive properties.

Carry on.
Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

Gravy

4th February 2007, 10:32 PM

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

uk_dave

4th February 2007, 10:34 PM

I started at wtc7.net

Perhaps NIST would have been a better place to start?

LashL

4th February 2007, 10:35 PM

Did you show the fire Captain the pictures of the east, north and west sides?

Of course I did. I am not intellectually dishonest like most twoofers are. In addition, this fire Captain is the person who introduced me to a Battalion Chief who was personally at the scene on September 11, 2001.

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer, the squibs, and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire, as the building collapsed.

There were no demolition "squibs"; the statements you refer to are not credible, and you cannot - if you are honest - say categorically that there was no fire in the locations from which much smoke was emanating.

The charges could not have been placed on 9/11.

I agree that demolition charges could not have been placed on 9/11. I contend that they could not have been placed surreptitiously on any other day, either.

On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

You do not know what "opportunity to observe" means, do you?

Is the '10 story gouge' statement sufficient on an 'evidentiary level' ?
What was the 'opportunity to observe' ?

Hello? I have asked you repeatedly about the opportunities to observe of each of the four witnesses you keep citing, and now you are asking me? You really do not know what the phrase means, do you?

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Batallion Chief Fellini's view in the first hours.

Source, please.

Do you think he based his statement on a single observation, from a location where his vision was obscured?

I do not know. Have you asked him?

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:50 PM

I may have had sex with Jessica Alba today. You comment is one of the stupidest I have ever seen in my life. If that's insulting to you, so be it. It's a statement of fact.

And it's "fuel." But I guess since you get everything else wrong I shouldn't expect you to pay attention to the forum software's spell check suggestions either.
You have time to make a lot of posts here.

You have time to see what i'm posting over at the LC forum.

You have time to respond directly to this cracker box.

Why can't you find time to answer the question posed in this thread ?

Do you believe that the:

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

?

Why are you avoiding this question ?

Is it because you can see that the statement evidence in post #94 outweighs the single statement about this gouge ?

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released.

We're discussing a statement in a report that has been released.

Many people have been led to believe that this 10 story gouge actually existed. Until NIST corrects this mistake, i will continue to point it out because it is the most severe damage WTC 7.

Christopher7

4th February 2007, 10:59 PM

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?
Yes
Got any more stupid questions?

How about an answer to the question posed in this thread ?

Gravy

4th February 2007, 11:04 PM

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released.Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

:dl:

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:
I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

beachnut

4th February 2007, 11:22 PM

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

What a smart fellow;

But diesel fuel has mo energy! MORE

Diesel has 141,700 BTU/gal

Gasoline has 126,200 BTU/gal

Oops diesel does explode; jets use fuel like diesel; was that big fireball. A small explosion? I am not sure how my diesel engine ran; but it was exploding, and your gasoline engine also uses pressure to set off a big explosion of gasoline but the diesel explosion is bigger; mo energy!

So the diesel burns hotter. More energy to weaken the steel.

This is why if you make a fertilzer fuel bomb you should use diesel instead of racing fuel. It make a bigger bang!

More energy. Do you understand chemistry?.

R.Mackey

4th February 2007, 11:31 PM

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.
Non sequitur. Diesel and gasoline cannot be directly compared in terms of volatility, because diesel contains a greater range of volatile compounds, along with its higher energy density. Both diesel and gasoline will give off flammable vapors, with no significant advantage to diesel in terms of safety.

Regarding "injected in a fine spray," perhaps you are unaware that gasoline engines use devices known as fuel injectors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_injector), that also jet the gasoline in a fine spray? Yet the gasoline still requires a spark to ignite.

Nonetheless, here's what you originally said:

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.
And like I pointed out, this is totally wrong.

There is a standard known as Octane Rating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating) that decribes a fuel's resistance to autoignition, i.e. explosion. Higher octane ratings are used in higher performance engines because it makes the fuel harder to ignite -- a seeming paradox, but this allows one to use higher compression ratios. There is also a related standard known as the Cetane number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetane_number), the logical opposite describing how well a fuel autoignites, used exclusively for diesel fuel. You can think of this number as describing how quickly the diesel will ignite -- the higher the number, the quicker the ignition, and thus the longer it has to burn completely inside the engine.

Diesel fuel has a dramatically lower octane rating than any gasoline, and therefore is more likely to explode:

A high tendency to autoignite, or low octane rating, is undesirable in a gasoline engine but desirable in a diesel engine.

Thank you, and I hope you've learned something.

The relevant point for WTC 7 is that the large quantities of diesel fuel would certainly ignite, could have deflagrated in big, nasty fireballs, and definitely contributed to the structure's collapse. Your claim that "because it was diesel," it would do none of these things, is completely erroneous.

Gravy

4th February 2007, 11:54 PM

That's an informative post, as always, Mack. I had never heard of "cetane." This issue made me recall something I've heard many times about U.S. Sherman tanks: that they were considered to be deathtraps when hit because they were gasoline-powered, and burned more easily than their diesel counterparts. Well, I just looked that up, and it appears to be a myth. Here's what Wikipedia (and other sources) says:

Early Sherman models were prone to burning when struck by high velocity rounds. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" (by the Germans who referred to British soldiers as "Tommys"). The British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_lighter) with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!" and Polish Tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave". This vulnerability increased crew casualties and meant that damaged vehicles were less likely to be repairable. US Army research proved that the major reason for this was the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The common myth that the use of gasoline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline) (petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol)) engines was a culprit is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and petrol was unlikely to ignite when hit with AP shells. Further, the diesel-engined M4A2 used by the Marines was considered far less prone to burn and explode than the diesel Soviet T-34.[1] (http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html) At first a partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up".

Arus808

5th February 2007, 12:05 AM

That's not a credible resource site.

you should start with sties that are actually backed by a body of credible people:
http://www.asce.org - start here.... let us know what you find.

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 12:07 AM

Of course I did. I am not intellectually dishonest like most twoofers are. In addition, this fire Captain is the person who introduced me to a Battalion Chief who was personally at the scene on September 11, 2001.
Will this Captain go on record [give their name] as saying that WTC 7 was fully involved after seeing pictures of all 4 sides,
or do we have to take your word for it ?

There were no demolition "squibs"; the statements you refer to are not credible, and you cannot - if you are honest - say categorically that there was no fire in the locations from which much smoke was emanating.Statements made on 9/11 are the most credible.
Who are you to say which statements are credible and which are not?

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

Categorically? No.
There were no reports of fire or signs of fire in the many areas that were smoking on the way down.

I agree that demolition charges could not have been placed on 9/11. I contend that they could not have been placed surreptitiously on any other day, either.This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

You do not know what "opportunity to observe" means, do you?The phrase is self explanatory.
What do you mean by "opportunity to observe"

There was no fire and smoke coming from the lower floors of WTC 7 to obscure Battalion Chief Fellini's view in the first few hours
Source, please.NIST Apx. L pg 22
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or the lobby area."

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left the 8th floor"

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

I do not know. Have you asked him?Rhetorical question

Since he was in charge of operations at West and Vesey and it was his responsibility to assess the damage, i'm assuming that Battalion Chief Fellini is competent.
Are you assuming that he is not ?

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 12:27 AM

Please don't hide behind a report that hasn't been released

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!
Typical evasive maneuver.
Until they release their new assessment, this is the statement of record.
Maybe you would like to ignore it but i will continue to point out that is incorrect until it is corrected.

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:[/quote]

Thank you for making my point.
You keep talking to me and about me because you can't dispute the evidence in post #94 and

you refuse to answer the question posed in this thread!

Before asking any more questions, answer the one posed in this thread.

Gravy

5th February 2007, 12:57 AM

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7, resident WTC 7 expert:

"This building is NOT anything close to being 'fully involved"

Fully involved: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_firefighting_terms) "Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied."

Fully involved (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NAA9EeJDnk0J:www.marysvilleohio.org/FirePages/SOGs/SO%25201.00.pdf+fire+glossary+%22fully+involved%22 +-%22Term+-of+-size-up%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a): "A size-up report that indicates that the entire area of a building is so involved with heat, smoke, and flame that immediate access to the interior isn’t possible until some measure of control has been achieved with hose streams."

FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors."

FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers: "When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories."

FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti: "the fire was going virtually on every floor."

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

FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn: "Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down."

Chris Sarns, sitting at home, without a view of the south side: "I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Disgusting.

Gravy

5th February 2007, 12:58 AM

Before asking any more questions, answer the one posed in this thread.Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

:dl:

Coritani

5th February 2007, 01:05 AM

Will this Captain go on record [give their name] as saying that WTC 7 was fully involved after seeing pictures of all 4 sides,
or do we have to take your word for it ?

He already said it on record. Sorry, but I'll take the opinion of a fireman, who went inside the building, and spend their lives with fires and studying them because their lives depend on it, over your opinion. Sorry, but thats just me.

What are your experiences in fires and firefighting? Were you there on 9/11? Did you go inside WTC 7?

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

Gravy refuted this in the "C7 and C4" thread.

This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

False. It is not an 'escape clause'. WTC 7 has not been proved to be a CD. If you cannot explain how the building was rigged, and you can't, it is evidence against you. Another drop in an ocean of opposing evidence.

LashL

5th February 2007, 01:25 AM

words words words

You know, I was in the midst of composing a response to your pathetic post when I received a message from my fire Captain beau, who is on duty as I type, that 2 firefighters he knows (also Captains, in fact) died tonight in a flashover so your tripe is going to have to wait.

I hate to say it but I sure hope they didn't die for the likes of you and your twoofer friends.

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 01:25 AM

uk_dave

5th February 2007, 01:27 AM

You will not answer the question posed in this thread because you have no answer.

Put up or shut up!

And Neither Do YOU!

Belz...

5th February 2007, 05:33 AM

Sometimes means 'not always'
Perhaps it is you that needs to work on reading comprehension.

Oh, my. You mean I'm going to have to EXPLAIN it to you ? Okay, here goes.

So "explosion" always involves a bomb?

Meaning: are explosions ALWAYS caused by bombs.

No

Meaning: not ALWAYS

Sometimes it's part of a CD.

Meaning: when they're NOT bombs, they're CD (which means bombs, of course.)

The logical conclusion is that, even were we to accept your distinction of "bombs" and "CD", your answer is basically that explosions are ALWAYS caused by CD when they're not caused by bombs.

Ergo:

I see. Every explosion is caused by an explosive charge.

I find it odd that you can actually form sentences if you don't understand those simple words.

Belz...

5th February 2007, 05:36 AM

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer

Who said they saw and heard demolition charges go off ?

the squibs

I really wish you'd use actual terms. Squibs are used in Hollywood.

and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire

Demolition charges emit smoke for several hours ?

as the building collapsed.

Should the smoke have stopped during the collapse ?

You're making less and less sense.

On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

And it was a 47-storey building.

Belz...

5th February 2007, 05:40 AM

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

I smell a weasel.

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

Yes
Got any more stupid questions?

Not so stupid, in light of this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2310470&postcount=579):

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Hummm...

Belz...

5th February 2007, 05:44 AM

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

No explanation is needed for something that does not exist.

This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

Actually it goes more like this:
"It's physically impossible to rig the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

Gravy

5th February 2007, 05:53 AM

Put up or shut up!Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

aggle-rithm

5th February 2007, 07:47 AM

Belz...

5th February 2007, 10:34 AM

Seriously, though, I don't think that's helping, Gravy.

njslim

5th February 2007, 10:35 AM

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

Actually diesel is listed as combustible - flash point greater than 100 F, ie
not liable to produce explosive vapors at normal room temperature

diesel flash point is around 130 F. Still burns quite readily

Gasoline is flammable - flash point -40 F or lower depending on season and
blend of hydrocarbons used (less volatile in summer, more in winter)

aggle-rithm

5th February 2007, 10:48 AM

Christopher7,

Here are some responses to you question. These are taken only from the first two pages of this thread.

Yes there was a massive hole caused by falling debris. Your point?

I'm not going to get sucked into sticking with a specific number on the size of the hole.

Instead I will say that I believe it was as big as the FDNY reported it to be(wich was quite large).

You appearantly concur with FDNY's reports of secondary explosions in the WTC, do you also concur with thier reports that WTC7 was too damaged to remain standing for very long and was about to collapse?

Not sure about the exactness of the 10 story part. Might have been larger, but the FDNY guys say so, so YES!

ETA: Sword O'Truth beat me, Do'h...

Yes, there was a very large hole (http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg). It could have been larger than 10 stories, making your statement technically true. I'm not going to get into a virtual urination contest about exactly how big the hole was.

Exactly where are you going with this?

You should really actually read the preliminary NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf). Even if you think it's all lies, it has some nice photographs and diagrams of the damage done to WTC 7, among other things. It's not like it's only the claims on page 18 with nothing to back it up.

Now that is a lie.

Yes there was a large hole #7.

I didn't measure the hole but if the FDNY says it was about 10 stories, than I would say there a hole about 10 stories.

Actually C7 wishes to have us say that we all believe that there was a 10 storey or larger hole in the south face of WTC 7. What he is not stating are the particulars of the hole he is talking about, one that most probably did not exist but that one firefighter did report.

NIST included that report along with several others which report similar but less extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7.

What Chris 7 wants us to state is whether or not a 10 storey gouge in the south central face of WTC 7, that extended from the wall to the core, existed.

Thing is that NIST always puts qualifiers on any statement or graphic concerning the possible extent of damage done there. It is likely that this worst reported case is not the reality that day and anyone who actually has read the report should easily see that.

C7 wishes to suggest then that NIST deliberatly included the statements and graphics to mislead people into believeing that this massive gouge did exist. In this he hopes to cast doubt and disrepute on the authors of the report.

Sorry but anyone who does not see the report's use of this statement for what it is, simply another eyewitness report that demonstrates that there was damage to the central area of the south face but that it does not claim or mean that the worst extent of damage that was reported was a fact, is not reading carefully and is only skiming or looking just at the diagrams and pictures.

I think the size of the hole is a non-issue anyway.

The building was leaning over! Hear that, twoofers? It was leaning over!

Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm pretty sure explosive charges
don't make a building lean over hours before knocking it down. I also believe those charges make a slight bang.

Oh wait....thermite. How could I not see it?

No, you have stated that you believe that most OT's will state that a 10 storey and deep gouge existed. Perhaps the semantic problems that arise in a text only conversation rear there ugly head here....

Please do not re-write my comments. If you wish to correct me then show my statement and explain your stance separately.

You indeed would be calling into disrepute the authors of this report if you believe that they deliberatly strove to mislead readers on this or any issue. If it is a simple credibility problem then you would have to believe that it was an inadvertant error on their part. Seems to me that you have stated on other occasions that you believe it was deliberate and you have never objected to my saying you believe it was deliberate before. Have you changed your mind and now believe that it may be an inadvertant error (I don't believe it was an error at all) rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public?

NIST clearly stated that the damage to the south side was described by individuals, and that those individuals had some inconsistencies in their accounts. How could that possibly be leading people to believe that it was a statement of fact? What you should be taking away from that whole section is that there was definitely some significant damage to the south face that was not visible from afar due to the smoke.

From NIST Appdx L-18:

• 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

Why do you keep pretending that no one will answer your questions?

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 07:08 PM

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!
You are truly a master at dodging the question and changing the subject.

You insisted that i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

Now that i have pointed out a serious flaw that has led a lot of people to believe something that is not true, you don't want to talk about it.

I don't need to wait for the final report to acknowledge what i already know.

Either you believe that the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were mistaken and Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent or

You realize that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 is a misinterpretation.

Gravy

5th February 2007, 07:10 PM

You are truly a master at dodging the question and changing the subject.

You insisted that i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

Now that i have pointed out a serious flaw that has led a lot of people to believe something that is not true, you don't want to talk about it.

I don't need to wait for the final report to acknowledge what i already know.

Either you believe that the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were mistaken and Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent or

You realize that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 is a misinterpretation.Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

respublicus

5th February 2007, 07:18 PM

Believe? Is there a photo of the hole anywhere?
If there was such a hole, it had to be from an explosion.
Either in WTC7 or one of the towers ejecting girders at wtc7 LOL.

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 07:19 PM

#84 pg 3

That is a reasonible, direct answer.

Thank you very much

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 07:23 PM

#136 pg 4

You got the nausium part right

There have only been 4 direct answers so far

Everyone else has thus far refused to answer the question

Possible answers:

2 Yes
0 Likely
1 Unlikely
1 I don't know
0 No
?

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 07:28 PM

beachnut

5th February 2007, 07:33 PM

Ignore the evidence and attack the messenger.

If nothing else, you are consistent.

Have you taken your 10 story hole to LCF?

respublicus

5th February 2007, 08:27 PM

the photo Christopher refers to on page 1 of this thread is very weird - it's been photoshopped, looks very distorted and cropped, you can't see much.
I googled images on wtc 7 damage.
i'm new so i can't post urls but the best one of the SW corner of WTC 7 doesn't show a ten story gouge. It shows blackened windows near the corner on various floors - on about 5 out of 6 floors lower down, then 6 undamaged floors, then two floors with blackened windows which are 6 floors higher up.

my conclusion - There was no ten story gouge.

The photo referenced in the opening of this thread is completely useless. It shows the building flexing like in a funhouse mirror.

But if there was such a gouge (which we have no photo of) what would that mean? That the perps blew WTC 7 anyway on the spot Flite 93 was supposed to hit? So why bother with this gouge theory anyway?

beachnut

5th February 2007, 08:37 PM

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 08:56 PM

No explanation is needed for something that does not exist.
Right. There are no puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo

Actually it goes more like this:
"It's physically impossible to rig the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."And you're an expert who knows the latest technology.

jaydeehess

5th February 2007, 08:58 PM

NIST Apx. L pg 22
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or the lobby area."

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left the 8th floor"

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

So Chris, you claim that reports such as Fellini's illustrate that damage did not extend higher than the 5th or 6th floor and when it is mentioned that perhaps they could not see clearly above the 6th floor you trot out the above about no visible fires below 6th floor. Chris, that implies that there were indeed fires on the 7th and above that would have been contributing smoke to the area south of WTC 7 and in fact you also include a quote referring to a fire on the 7th floor. This illustrates quite well that there most certainly could have been smoke obscuring the view of the face of the building.

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer

Do you not recognize an incongruity then in your also stating;

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

So sitting at your computer 5 years later gives you better insight to what actually was the reality that day BUT other witnesses are 100% correct in their assesment of what they saw/heard on the same day? How does that work Chris? Seems quite clear that you are twisting things to fit your preconceived idea of how things went down on 9/11/01 rather than searching for 'truth'.

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 08:59 PM

Coritani

5th February 2007, 10:18 PM

Right. There are no puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo

Extensively debunked here. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html)

Christopher7

5th February 2007, 10:54 PM

So Chris, you claim that reports such as Fellini's illustrate that damage did not extend higher than the 5th or 6th floor and when it is mentioned that perhaps they could not see clearly above the 6th floor you trot out the above about no visible fires below 6th floor. Chris, that implies that there were indeed fires on the 7th and above that would have been contributing smoke to the area south of WTC 7 and in fact you also include a quote referring to a fire on the 7th floor. This illustrates quite well that there most certainly could have been smoke obscuring the view of the face of the building.
No signs of fire or smoke below 6th floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby area
That was a cubicle fire on the west wall of 7th floor
and no fire on the 8th floor.

Inherent in the statement "no fire or smoke below 6th floor" is:
"there was fire and smoke on the 6th floor"

However, even with smoke pouring out, a gouge 20 to 30 feet deep and 50 to 60 feet wide, would not escape his notice.

There are also the first 3 floors that would be gone, gouged out 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide.

Are you still saying that Battalion Chief Fellini didn't bother to get a good look at the front of WTC 7 ?

and the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" didn't bother to look in the lobby ?

[they had to leave the stair hallway to exterior, and enter the lobby, to see any of the lobby at all. They were looking for and finding people. They looked at the whole lobby, which is mostly open.]

So sitting at your computer 5 years later gives you better insight to what actually was the reality that day BUT other witnesses are 100% correct in their assesment of what they saw/heard on the same day? How does that work Chris? Seems quite clear that you are twisting things to fit your preconceived idea of how things went down on 9/11/01 rather than searching for 'truth'.You [all] ignored the reasoning. ie:
I have pictures of the 2 [or3] sides that they coulden't see.
I don't doubt that they saw the south corner smoking from top to bottom and thought it was 'fully involved'.
With the advantage of being able to see all 4 sides, i respectfully disagree with the 'fully involved' evaluation.
I also respectfully disagree with the Captain who has seen pictures of all 4 sides.
The Windsor was fully involved, WTC 7 was not. IMO

However, this thread is supposed to be about evidence for CD so we're getting a little off point.

respublicus

5th February 2007, 10:56 PM

Your theory is the dumbest I have heard yet; but it is a redo. How many lemming CTers have pushed this set of lies!

You do not understand steel, fire, or physics. Good luck finding a fact.

Sources and facts to prove your fantasy or you are just telling lies. Ready set go!

Beach nut is sure living up to his handle of a beached nut alright.
Cool off, Beached, before you bang too hard on the keys.

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge. But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

NIST nist.

Because the standards aren't there, even if the institute appears to be.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here - and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly.... there's a golden or at least iron opportunity for you, beached bum, to capitalize on your expertise.

R.Mackey

5th February 2007, 11:05 PM

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge.

Yes we do. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

No. The damage was caused by blunt impact from WTC 1.

Debris Damage from WTC 1

After WTC 1 collapsed:
Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
South face damage between two exterior columns -roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (And yes, there will be an update)

Please read through the very many threads here and try to educate yourself.

beachnut

5th February 2007, 11:08 PM

Beach nut is sure living up to his handle of a beached nut alright.
Cool off, Beached, before you bang too hard on the keys.

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge. But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

NIST nist.

Because the standards aren't there, even if the institute appears to be.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here - and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly.... there's a golden or at least iron opportunity for you, beached bum, to capitalize on your expertise.

Does this mean you do not think flight 93 was coming to get WTC7?

Does this mean you know fires make buildings fail when they are not fought?

So where are your facts to support what you have thinly veiled as a question but you really want to tell us your theory, or do you have the facts to garner a Pulitzer Prize?

Does this mean you think there was no damage and no 10 story hole in the WTC7 since it was waiting for flight 93?

How could a big hole get in WTC7? Steel ejected from WTC1 and 2 damaged many buildings and a 10 story gouge would be consistent with the damage to over 19 acres of area around the WTC area. Gee the energy released as the tower fell was equal to 248 tons of TNT for both towers. Did you see the bank building with a 17 story hole in it?

Sorry you are wrong about WTC7 and you think it was CD. You have no facts to back up your statement nor did you get your assumption correct about no damage to WTC7 with out CD or planes. You are missing facts.

Let your facts flow. (why do truthers avoid the unique design of WTC7, and why do they ignore the 20,000 gallons of fuel stored in WTC7? why do they ingnore the fact WTC7 fires were not fought! WHY are truthers so challenged on research? Why are truthers not able to answer these simple questions?)

You sound like Alex Jones, or something from Infowars, or a bad Steve Watson story. I thought only idiots when to those web sites of lies. Is that true? Your lack of concern for the public is evident by your lies.

Dog Town

5th February 2007, 11:16 PM

Would someone pleaaaase post, the pic of the Tower coming down! It is showering 7 with debris. Nuff said!

Myriad

5th February 2007, 11:49 PM

But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion.

Because the fact that it was hit by a collapsing 110-storey building couldn't have had anything to do with it.

"Pay no attention to that collapsing building behind the curtain!"

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

Apparently you do not remember well. At least, not according to half a dozen different online English-Farsi dictionaries, which took about two minutes to check. Since your memory (like most people's) is imperfect, it's a good idea to check the accuracy of your information before you post it, especially when it's so easy to check. Otherwise people will get the impression that you're dishonest or careless (the latter, in the literal sense of not really caring what you're writing or whether it's true or not), or both.

NIST nist.

Gesundheit.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here...

Indeed, and we're getting rather sick of it.

...and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly

I can think of a few reasons:

1. Many of the things in office buildings like WTC7 that make uncontrolled office fires burn so hot are things that are useful or valuable, such as files, reference books, furniture, servers, and (in WTC7's unusual case) large tanks of diesel fuel. These are things that the people who move out of the building prior to demolition are likely to want to take with them.

2. Lawsuits from damage to adjacent buildings from bringing the building down not quite "neatly" enough:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/fsn/b7pile1.jpg

What caused that hole in the adjacent building? Let's see, it wasn't hit by a plane...

3. Criminal penalties for arson.

Other than that, the idea would work pretty well. Heat weakens steel, so steel buildings are very vulnerable to fire.

Bonus question for the "desel fule" crowd: which contains more energy, a pound of diesel fuel or a pound of TNT?

Respectfully,
Myriad

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:14 AM

Yes we do.
url deleted

No. The damage was caused by blunt impact from WTC 1.

Source: url deleted
(And yes, there will be an update)

Please read through the very many threads here and try to educate yourself.

1. The pic you reference shows more smoke than anything else. Call it a gouge if you like.
2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from? Never mind Lihop or Mihop, it's the IHOP theory, the Infernal House of Pancakes.
Those steel girders were ejected in an explosion.

You are going round and round in circles without seeing I have cut the Gordian knot. So I am knot going to read 700 knotty threads when I can cut through the whole pile with one swoop.

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

uk_dave

6th February 2007, 12:18 AM

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

Doesn't it worry you that something so 'obvious' seems to be only 'obvious' to you and a small minority of conspiracy theorists?

Does that never give you pause for thought?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:19 AM

what did you find checking those persian dictionaries in 2 minutes?
i found that you need an arabic keyboard to go from farsi to english,

so, wise illuminary of the realms, what meaneth nist in thy lexicon?

Coritani

6th February 2007, 12:21 AM

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

No, we can't see it because it's wrong.

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:21 AM

Doesn't it worry you that something so 'obvious' seems to be only 'obvious' to you and a small minority of conspiracy theorists?

Does that never give you pause for thought?

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 12:22 AM

10,000 gallons of jet fuel or diesel would be about 315 tons of TNT, that would be about 630,000 pounds of TNT with only 60,000 pounds of fuel. Is that an order of magnitude more energy?

...and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly

Clean air act? Are you really this challenged on research mr disrespublicus?

It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. This is why WTC building falling due to fire look just like a CD; Because gravity is the real tool used by CD. You truthers are so poor at research. It is like you come without facts on purpose and you want to loose the debate, why?

Gravity does the work. You must realize there was 248 tons of TNT energy released when the WTC towers fell; 248 tons of TNT in both towers due to gravity.

WTC7 burned all day and fell. Fire alone could make WTC7 fail. Building fall all the time from fire. Where do truthers get their ideas from.

Do you think there was damage to WTC7 from the towers, mr disrespublicus?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:24 AM

No, we can't see it because it's wrong.

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

R.Mackey

6th February 2007, 12:25 AM

1. The pic you reference shows more smoke than anything else. Call it a gouge if you like.

It also shows an enormous hole in WTC 7. Your saying it isn't there is... well, one of the more extreme examples of denial I've ever heard of.

Look, you asked for a picture. I found you one. Accept it.

2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from? Never mind Lihop or Mihop, it's the IHOP theory, the Infernal House of Pancakes.

I don't know what you're talking about. Bad waffles, I guess.

Those steel girders were ejected in an explosion.
No.

You are going round and round in circles without seeing I have cut the Gordian knot. So I am knot going to read 700 knotty threads when I can cut through the whole pile with one swoop.

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.
No, we start from the premise that what we saw in no way requires nor indicates explosives.

Have you ever heard of "gravity?"

uk_dave

6th February 2007, 12:25 AM

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

lol... so predictable.

So your arrogance will not allow you to consider the possibility that it is YOU who is wrong, and that everyone else do not see the 'obvious' signs of explosions, simply because there are none to see?

I think perry has a description for people such as yourself.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 12:27 AM

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

Why are you dodging the questions? Here they are again:

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 12:28 AM

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

What is your problem? Alex Jones? PrisonPlanet?

Why are truthers so short on facts?

Who uses MSM? Why are millions of engineers not supporting the nut case ideas of 9/11 truth? Why are only .00067 percent of all US engineers in the truth movement?

MSM? So you are brainwashed by Alex Jones and Watson?

beachnut

6th February 2007, 12:32 AM

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

You are the knower?

Let us know what the knower knows now, please.

What are the specific facts you think NIST did not get right?

You agree that there was damage to WTC7 from the towers falling? Right?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:38 AM

Coritani

6th February 2007, 12:43 AM

Beachnut said
It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. Gravity does the work.

We are using the very same facts, people. You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

BTW it comes back to me now, I think nist actually means "isn't"

That's even better. NIST NIST ist, except for 9/11. Under political control, technical standards go out the window.

So on the 9/11 issue, it can confidently be formulated, that

NIST NIST nist.

Bye, kiddies.

Please explain what NIST got wrong (in their calculations etc). If it's so obvious, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm listening.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 12:46 AM

Beachnut said
It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. Gravity does the work.

We are using the very same facts, people. You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

BTW it comes back to me now, I think nist actually means "isn't"

That's even better. NIST NIST ist, except for 9/11. Under political control, technical standards go out the window.

So on the 9/11 issue, it can confidently be formulated, that

NIST NIST nist.

Bye, kiddies.

Ever see a tree that had a core of 95 percent air? You are the kid. I teach fourth and fifth graders with much more rational abilities to do real research and understand science.

You are just a Alex Jones clone, all talk and no facts.

You do not understand 9/11 and may never understand how anything in the real world works.

Your statements are real funny. The WTC has to topple? How? You have zero abilities to explain and you do not even know how the WTC stood.

No facts and doubt you will ever have any to support your errors in logic and fact.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:46 AM

i am not grist for NIST

respublicus

6th February 2007, 12:48 AM

get a brain of your own and we can talk

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 01:19 AM

2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from?

You answered your question, in your own. That is irony, done well. BRAVO!

uk_dave

6th February 2007, 01:22 AM

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

Right back atcha.

Oh, and BTW, you might want to reconsider using the tree analogy, because...well, quite frankly, it does make you look very, very silly.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 01:24 AM

get a brain of your own and we can talk

Ok. Let's sum up:

No facts
Dodging questions
Ad Hominem
Calling skeptics 'brainwashed'

Yep, full blown Twoofer!

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 01:25 AM

False. It is not an 'escape clause'. WTC 7 has not been proved to be a CD.
It has not been proven that WTC 7 collapsed cue to debris damage/fire.

If you cannot explain how the building was rigged, and you can't, it is evidence against you. Another drop in an ocean of opposing evidence.That is superb backwards logic.

I don't need to explain how they did it or when they did it.
There is no way i could know that,
It does not qualify as evidence against a CD.

I [and a lot of other people] can see by the results that someone rigged WTC 7 for demolition prior to 9/11.

This is not rocket science.

Building implosions are very distinctive.

The center falls first to bring in the outer walls in, and it falls mostly straight down in near freefall and lands mostly in its own footprint.

The exactness of 'straight down' and in 'it's own footprint' are determined by the safety precautions taken, the skill of the demolition team, and the concern for the surrounding buildings.

Maybe you believe that the failure of 1 key column, the 'initiating event' as proposed in the NIST Report, led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

I'm not buying it.

NIST could only say that it "appears possible"

What makes you so sure?

beachnut

6th February 2007, 01:37 AM

get a brain of your own and we can talk
I thought you said bye?

Why are you back? Do you have some facts yet?

No one can prove to me that WTC7 did not fall from fire. Not one person can prove it did not fall due to fire. Nobody has any facts to suppport any other thing that made WTC7 fail.

There was debris damage, this debris damage helped feed the fire with air. The fire burned all day and the building actually beat the spec by standing well past the fire rating.

You know if they had some means to fight this fire in WTC7 the building may of stood.

It is a fact fires bring down buildings.

It is a fact fires burned for hours in WTC7.

No one can prove fires did not bring down WTC7.

CTers have no facts to support anything else.

What have I missed? Now I wonder what the final report on WTC7 will say from NIST.

Funny there are not a lot of engineers jumping on this WTC7 truther story? Why are most engineer, almost all, not with the truthers?

Did you see that 17 story hole in that bank building?

How did CTers never gain the ability to research and think for themselves? How did all that smoke get out of WTC7? Was it a big 10 story hole? Why do I feel like a concrete core is just like a lack of a 10 story hole but different?

Myriad

6th February 2007, 01:42 AM

Yes, pound for pound diesel fuel yields almost ten times the energy of TNT. (Gasoline too. Think about that, next time you fill up your gas tank.)

In other words, the fuel tanks in wtc7 contained more than enough energy to lift every piece of both towers back into place, twice over.

But of course, that energy just disappeared magically during the non-fires and controlled implosion, so it had nothing to do with wtc7's collapse, right?

what did you find checking those persian dictionaries in 2 minutes?
i found that you need an arabic keyboard to go from farsi to english.

Then "nist" (note: a string of non-Arabic symbols) has no meaning in Farsi. So you remain wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Coritani

6th February 2007, 01:45 AM

It has not been proven that WTC 7 collapsed cue to debris damage/fire.

And? Wait for the NIST report to come out.

That is superb backwards logic.

I don't need to explain how they did it or when they did it.
There is no way i could know that,
It does not qualify as evidence against a CD.

Yes it does, because you haven't proved it's a CD. Because it has not been proved to be a CD, the fact that it would be impossible to wire it with explosives is evidence against the CD hypothesis. What about this is hard to understand?

I [and a lot of other people] can see by the results that someone rigged WTC 7 for demolition prior to 9/11.

This is not rocket science.

Interesting. So you, and the members of the truth movement, see it yet experts in relevant fields don't. Huh.

Building implosions are very distinctive.

The center falls first to bring in the outer walls in, and it falls mostly straight down in near freefall and lands mostly in its own footprint.

Does it involve destroying 2 penthouses 10 seconds before bringing down the rest of the building for no apparent reason? Does it involve placing charges in the top of the southwest corner (where they'd be useless), and then detonating them after detonating the charges to bring the building down? (referring to the 'squibs' you speak of in WTC 7)

The exactness of 'straight down' and in 'it's own footprint' are determined by the safety precautions taken, the skill of the demolition team, and the concern for the surrounding buildings.

Ok.

Maybe you believe that the failure of 1 key column, the 'initiating event' as proposed in the NIST Report, led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

I'm not buying it.

NIST could only say that it "appears possible"

What makes you so sure?

Because there's no evidence it was a CD, and rigging the building with explosives would be impossible.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 01:58 AM

Could this explain it?
5419

beachnut

6th February 2007, 02:04 AM

Could this explain it?
5419
Are you trying to tell me the two one acre buildings spread debris over 19 acres and some of the debris damaged that 47 story building known as WTC7.

I have to repeat that yes I believe there could be a 10 story or bigger hole in WTC7 from debris. YES

Is a 10 story hole needed for fire to bring down WTC7? NO, I think fire can destory buildings.

Nice photo.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 02:13 AM

Because there's no evidence it was a CD, and rigging the building with explosives would be impossible.

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

Tbone

6th February 2007, 02:20 AM

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

You are aware that volcano eruptions are not caused by explosives, right? How can it erupt upward if volcanos don't use explosives?

Coritani

6th February 2007, 02:25 AM

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

You're like somebody watching a volcano erupt and saying, it's from all the trees on the mountain that caught fire from the molten lava. Cause your daddy said so, so it has to be true.

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Good night to you.

You still haven't answered my question. Why? In case you missed it:

Please explain what NIST got wrong (in their calculations etc). If it's so obvious, this shouldn't be too hard. I'm listening.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 02:25 AM

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

This resembles a CD how?

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 02:30 AM

Republicus:
Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't

Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him

No one can prove to me that WTC7 did not fall from fire. Not one person can prove it did not fall due to fire.
It's impossible to prove a negative.

On the other hand, no one has proven that WTC 7 did fall due to fire.

Nobody has any facts to suppport any other thing that made WTC7 fail.WTC 7 displays all the characteristics of a CD.

You cannot rule out the possibility that it was a CD.

It is a fact fires bring down buildings.There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 02:35 AM

... but it occured over a period of time.

What doesn't?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 02:35 AM

This resembles a CD how?

Come on you must know this stuff.
WTC 7 is the classic implosion demolition, first the nick in the center, walls falling inward.

The Twin Towers were a special case. Possibly because of their great height, it was needed to explode away a lot of the mass?
Anyway, I couldn't find any examples of classic demolition of buildings that tall.
Also of course the explosion sequence started from the top down. Whether for technical reasons or to go with the IHOP theory/scam. (Prof. Eager works for MIT you know, big defence contractor.)

Have any of you Lyers (anti twoofers, right?) seen 9/11 mysteries on google video?

that's the best proof i can think of for CD.

Pwoof to you, of course.

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 02:38 AM

This resembles a CD how?
This thread is about evidence for the CD of

WTC 7

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 02:39 AM

Have any of you Lyers (anti twoofers, right?) seen 9/11 mysteries on google video?

5420

respublicus

6th February 2007, 02:46 AM

Christopher 7 wrote
"Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't
Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him"

yeah i was thinking pissed rhymes with Nist

"It's impossible to prove a negative."
Unless you are one LOL
like lil BeachNot heah

"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?
I bet you a hunner it didn't collapse straight down into its footprint did it? couldn't have been confused with a CD i'll bet.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 02:46 AM

This thread is about evidence for the CD of

WTC 7

Run Forest!

respublicus

6th February 2007, 02:48 AM

5420

hey that's real cute, self portrait of a lyer!
good dog, right on cue, you just keep lying

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 02:49 AM

Extensively debunked here. (http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html)
That's not debunking, it's just an opinion.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 02:55 AM

Come on you must know this stuff.
WTC 7 is the classic implosion demolition, first the nick in the center, walls falling inward.

The Twin Towers were a special case. Possibly because of their great height, it was needed to explode away a lot of the mass?
Anyway, I couldn't find any examples of classic demolition of buildings that tall.
Also of course the explosion sequence started from the top down. Whether for technical reasons or to go with the IHOP theory/scam. (Prof. Eager works for MIT you know, big defence contractor.)

Have any of you Lyers (anti twoofers, right?) seen 9/11 mysteries on google video?

that's the best proof i can think of for CD.

Pwoof to you, of course.

So, to clarify, the government blew up the Twin Towers in a totally unique fashion, but then got lazy and decided to blow up WTC in a 'classic implosion demolition' style? Why? Why wouldn't they try to cover it up? Why would they blow it up in such a way that it so obvious? Why would they blow it up in such a way that it, supposedly, looks clearly like a CD?

These are all serious questions by the way.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 02:56 AM

good dog, right on cue, you just keep lying

It's called laughing. As in... at you!

beachnut

6th February 2007, 02:58 AM

Republicus:
Sometimes this guy feels like a nut, sometimes he doesn't

Don't bother getting into a pissing match with him

It's impossible to prove a negative.

On the other hand, no one has porven that WTC 7 did fall due to fire.

WTC 7 displays all the charistics of a CD.

You cannot rule out the possibility that it was a CD.

There is one case of a partial collapse but it occured over a period of time.

Yes I require facts so just pissing, you would loose that contest too.

Yes you can. IF you could prove there were no fires in WTC7, then you would prove fires did not bring down WTC7. I am not sure but it works for me. Prove the fires could not weaken steel or you cd took place and you can prove me wrong. I agree you can use facts to prove me wrong bring them on! Simple. We will let you use facts to prove me wrong. I do not care if you have problems with the logic since you use no logic to come up with your ideas why quibble over proving me wrong. Bring on the facts. Please.

I still say you can not prove that fires did not bring down WTC7. If you could prove there were no fires you could shut me down. If you could prove there were explosives planted to bring down WTC7 your could prove me wrong. Simple stuff, try some facts CTer.

You lack the facts to prove anything. I have fires and damage to the WTC7 making the fact that WTC7 fell due to fires; true. I just use the simple facts. Fire, steel, building falls. If you could show me a concrete core or concrete on all the steel to protect it like the Madrid building you could prove me wrong. But WTC7 was like the steel portions of the Madrid building that failed and fell in the first hours of the fire in Madrid.

If you had proof of explosives in WTC7 then you would have proof of CD and prove me wrong. So many ways to prove me wrong about fire, where are your facts.

But there was a fire and the fire did not cook off explosives that were never place in WTC7. You have no proof of CD. You can not even prove there was not a large hole in WTC7. You failed to read the update that said we have to wait for the update on WTC7.

Plus your poor cd theory would be foiled by the fire cooking off your explosives. How did the bad guys keep the explosives from cooking off all day long?

You have to have silent explosives that are fireproof and wires and detonators devices that are fireproof. Your cd theory quickly fails the rational research test. Yes I have ruled out CD because there were no explosives used, nor would they have survived the fire as long as the building did stand. No cd sound either.

Show us the silent fireproof explosives. If you had some facts now is a great time to use them. Got facts? (are you a Jones thermite guy?)

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:00 AM

That's not debunking, it's just an opinion.

Actually it's more of a rebunking.

The clueless brainwashing victim writes:

"And #4, presumably these “squibs” are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling?"

No, Mr Magoo. That is your false asshumption.
The material is being massively ejected higher up from the big explosions.
Squibs are from placed charges that sever supporting columns. They are characteristic of implosion demolitions.

That's why "the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling" - it's the timing to bring the building down at free-fall speed. Voila.

I bought a copy of Demolition, illustrated book by the Loizeaux company on Amazon a while back. It has a lot of pix of demolitions and squibs. You know Loizeaux. Controlled Demolition Inc. That's their name. The outfit hired to clean up after the OKC and the WTC 9/11.... You can check out their website.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 03:03 AM

That's why "the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling" - it's the timing to bring the building down at free-fall speed. Voila.

One more time...
5421

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 03:04 AM

xx
(http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details)

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 03:05 AM

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:08 AM

One more time...
5421

Good dog. Good rug. You just lie there.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 03:09 AM

About the squibs:

http://www.debunking911.com/compaz.jpg

Whoops!

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 03:10 AM

This thread is about evidence for the CD of

WTC 7

There is none!
5422

beachnut

6th February 2007, 03:12 AM

C7
"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

Yes the steel only portions fell in exploding fashion in less than three hours.

WTC7 burned for many more and thus was a strong building. We must build them better; too bad there was 20,000 gallons of fuel in WTC7, not any at the Madrid building.

Look at all that bent like butter steel! I love it when CTers debunk themselves.

Got some more facts to counter your shallow theories of CD?

beachnut

6th February 2007, 03:15 AM

About the squibs:

http://www.debunking911.com/compaz.jpg

Whoops!

Those look like squibs if you use a low res video and the pixels are all messing up the view.

I think the broken windows CTer use a squibs are broken windows. Darn the squibs are debunked. Next.

Who make up the CT junk? Why do they use the same junk over and over again? Those CTers could use better leaders and lots of new material.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:18 AM

C7
"There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

Thanks. I quote

"The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial."

then there is a timeline showing the partial collapse took almost 3 hours.
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html) in 7 seconds,

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

Chris, i'm getting the picture, the guys we are bantering with have an embarrassing little problem. They don't seem to be very smart. To put it charitably.

I really got a lot of better things to do than argue with these clueless cretins. Is there some way I can get in touch with you off this list? I got something better to share with you.

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90. If there were nobody below average, there wouldn't be anybody above it either, right? Ooops, sorry, i might have confused you there too. Not trying to make it complicated, honest.
Just don't worry about it. Der Fuehrer will take care of everything.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 03:21 AM

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90.

Don't worry, that's not what we hold against you!

Mancman

6th February 2007, 03:24 AM

Actually it's more of a rebunking.

The clueless brainwashing victim writes:

"And #4, presumably these “squibs” are supposed to be throwing smoke and material out of the windows. So why is it that the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling?"

No, Mr Magoo. That is your false asshumption.
The material is being massively ejected higher up from the big explosions.
Squibs are from placed charges that sever supporting columns. They are characteristic of implosion demolitions.

That's why "the video shows the “squibs” staying in more or less the same place relative to the building, even as it’s falling" - it's the timing to bring the building down at free-fall speed. Voila.

I bought a copy of Demolition, illustrated book by the Loizeaux company on Amazon a while back. It has a lot of pix of demolitions and squibs. You know Loizeaux. Controlled Demolition Inc. That's their name. The outfit hired to clean up after the OKC and the WTC 9/11.... You can check out their website.

Could you elaborate on these 'squibs'? whe Why would explosives be placed on the 40th floor of a 47 story bulding that clearly collapsed from it's lowest floors?

Do you observe any structural disturbance around these 'squibs'? Does the building fold, bend or come apart in any way at the point where the 'squibs' are seen?

You mention the building coming down at freefall speed - could you tell us how long it should have taken? Please provide your calculations. You can have the collapse begin at any (reasonable) location. Show how much resistance the lower floors would have provided to a falling mass of upper floors. Thanks in advance.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 03:27 AM

Thanks. I quote

"The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial."

then there is a timeline showing the partial collapse took almost 3 hours.
These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html) in 7 seconds,

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

Chris, i'm getting the picture, the guys we are bantering with have an embarrassing little problem. They don't seem to be very smart. To put it charitably.

I really got a lot of better things to do than argue with these clueless cretins. Is there some way I can get in touch with you off this list? I got something better to share with you.

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90. If there were nobody below average, there wouldn't be anybody above it either, right? Ooops, sorry, i might have confused you there too. Not trying to make it complicated, honest.
Just don't worry about it. Der Fuehrer will take care of everything.

You quote a CT web site and claim victory with no facts or numbers to support you CD world of lies. With no original thoughts on 9/11, just lies you retreat to your factless world of truth made of lies.

Good job with no facts yet. Neat how you take steel frame building that failed and was too weak to use ever again as proof the WTC could not fail in fire.

Funny how there are photos of WTC steel that failed due to fire. No failures due to CD explosives found yet.

Facts will do, but you bring lies. How many time have CTers declared victory with no logic or facts?

Can I see the steel that looks bent as if it was butter again please.

You guys are too smart for me. You must both be engineers or something to be so smart and full of great CT notions and such. I know one of you guys has to get some of that smart stuff from infowars. Am I right or what?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:29 AM

Chris, i think i can post you a message via your profile.

Mancman

6th February 2007, 03:31 AM

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

- Provide video evidence that the collapses took 10 seconds.
- State how long they should have taken. Show your calculations.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 03:34 AM

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90.

Now that explains why you use CT lies for your facts on 9/11. Keep trying to improve your mind.

But when will you tell me what you find wrong with what NIST said on the WTC complex and why you think there is no damage to WTC7?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:39 AM

- Provide video evidence that the collapses took 10 seconds.
- State how long they should have taken. Show your calculations.

UH, ohkay now, let's take this real slow now, i know heavy brainwashing has deleterious effects on your brain function. So this is going to be reaaalll eeazy, now

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

Coritani

6th February 2007, 03:42 AM

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

That's not what he asked for. Is ad hominem all you can do?

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

Why would it pancake in one second? Show your calculations. Like he asked you to.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:46 AM

There is no such calculation, because the floors did not pancake. The number is infinity. Duh.

twinstead

6th February 2007, 03:50 AM

God help us if any of you 'YouTube generation' troothers are ever on a jury hearing a legal case I am involved in.

"And now, members of the jury, I present Dr. Smith, an accomplished bartender and part-time amateur internet sleuth who will be testifying about the ballistic evidence he saw from a grainy video on his computer in his mother's basement".

"Afterwards, he will give a brief discussion about why all marine biologists on Earth are paid government shills followed by a 2 hour course in thoracic surgery".

Yea. God help us.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 03:51 AM

There is no such calculation, because the floors did not pancake. The number is infinity. Duh.

Oh. Let me rewrite the question so you can understand it: how long should the collapse have taken? Show your calculations.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:52 AM

You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 03:55 AM

UH, ohkay now, let's take this real slow now, i know heavy brainwashing has deleterious effects on your brain function. So this is going to be reaaalll eeazy, now

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

Oops, the WTC core was still falling at 30 seconds. Mom said I did a good job with her watch. Wow you have debunked yourself again. Thank you CT guy, I only have a IQ of 40 wpm so I type real fast but think slow. Thanks again for proving yourself wrong. I watched the video and came up with more than 10 seconds. You were right to tell me to time it. You should have listened to yourself.

Oh by the way you could model the pancake theory which no one uses, but you could take each floor. And take the energy of the fall to collapse the next floor. And with momentum prove the there is only like 10 to 20 percent increase in the fall using an energy model and momentum.

Therefore your 110 seconds is the dumbest number every mentioned again and again (at least you have company in your madness).

10 to 20 percent would be more like 10 to 11 seconds for major portions to fail and fall to the ground. Kind of like happen on 9/11. But no one supports a pancake collapse. But I think modeling a pancake collapse with energy could help you figure out the time problem and get an idea of energy and momentum. What do you think?

You see you need to understand momentum and energy. When a floor fails due to impact the failing floor is for all intents and purposes at the new speed with respect to the new mass of the velocity base on the old momentum minus the energy of making the floor fail! The over velocity does not come to zero. Your 110 seconds makes you a failure at physics or understanding simple momentum. ( have a physics teacher help you on this to explain my mistakes)

Guess you never took physics did you? You could just be challenged with science, you can fix that with by studying more?

Coritani

6th February 2007, 03:56 AM

You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

Lets see some evidence.

eddyk

6th February 2007, 03:57 AM

Yes so you have said....now prove it.

respublicus

6th February 2007, 03:57 AM

have you seen 9/11 mysteries DVD. Proves it's CD 16 ways to sunday. let's see you debunk all that.

Coritani

6th February 2007, 03:58 AM

have you seen 9/11 mysteries DVD. Proves it's CD 16 ways to sunday. let's see you debunk all that.

We're one step ahead of ya. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72810)

Brainache

6th February 2007, 03:59 AM

respublicus, before you embarass yourself any further, I recommend you read this thread:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=70895&highlight=expertise

respublicus

6th February 2007, 04:09 AM

respublicus, before you embarass yourself any further, I recommend you read this thread:

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=70895&highlight=expertise

What is that supposed to prove?
I have seen pictures and videos of actual controlled demolitions, and ditto of the WTC. It's clear.

The arguments from Nist are anything but clear. Fema and Nist admitted they were not able to explain the WTC 7 collapse.

I have also studied a lot of other relevant information, historical, about false flag terrorism and politics.
I know an enormous amount about 911 and I'm not going to sit here writing it all down for people with closed minds.

Plus I'm not a blinking fascist foot soldier like your lot who has to wait for a bureaucracy to tell me what to think

You're so totally naive. According to you, your government is always the good fairy.

Like you never even heard of corruption.

Write Santa Claus or your congressman and ask them to send you a book about it. I am not going to try to teach you.

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 04:13 AM

What doesn't?
A CD occures over a much smaller period of time.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 04:16 AM

You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

How do you calculate that speed? So how did you figure this out? What would you do to find the speed of a free fall?

How much energy was stored in the WTC as PE?

And exactly what in NIST do you have a problem with?

And we are still waiting on your evidence of CD. Will you be able to post that soon?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 04:19 AM

jump and find out.

beachnut

6th February 2007, 04:26 AM

For respublicus - Physics is not your strong suit is it? (you are not an engineer are you?)

How did WTC7 get all that damage the morning of 9/11? Do you support a hole from debris of 10 stories?

I still like your 110 seconds WTC collapse; you are wrong out of the blocks. The 110 seconds pretty much makes you a physics challenged CTer. Ask a physics teacher to explain it to you one day. That was the worst time estimate I have seen. You are not the first to use the exact same lame time. ( almost as bad as thermite by that cold fusion guy who lost his job cause he was nuts )

Can you review that collapse time again? How did you get 110 seconds?

respublicus

6th February 2007, 04:28 AM

Who you talkin to, Steven Jones?

Brainache

6th February 2007, 04:32 AM

What is that supposed to prove?
Basically that you are not talking to a bunch of ignorant school kids. That if you are trying to prove something here it will take more than childish insults.
A lot of the people who read this forum are actual engineers who do real engineering in the real actual world. They don't live in your fantasy world of spies and lies.

I have seen pictures and videos of actual controlled demolitions, and ditto of the WTC. It's clear.
So watching a few videos on youtube trumps years of training and experience?
Where did you learn such conceit?
I bet your mum thinks you are an angel.

The arguments from Nist are anything but clear. Fema and Nist admitted they were not able to explain the WTC 7 collapse.

NIST's arguments are clear to people who have the brains to understand them. It doesn't look like you fall into that category

I have also studied a lot of other relevant information, historical, about false flag terrorism and politics.
I know an enormous amount about 911 and I'm not going to sit here writing it all down for people with closed minds.

You assume that others haven't read all that stuff too?
I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this response to you as it appears you have left your mind so open that your brain fell out.

Plus I'm not a blinking fascist foot soldier like your lot who has to wait for a bureaucracy to tell me what to think

You're so totally naive. According to you, your government is always the good fairy.

Like you never even heard of corruption.

Write Santa Claus or your congressman and ask them to send you a book about it. I am not going to try to teach you.

Again you are just so wrong. People here look at the evidence. Real evidence, not the rubbish you seem to accept at face value. Have you checked all your sources to see where the real fascists are? I'll give you a hint: The people you blindly follow are the NAZIs. (hope that wasn't too subtle for you)

Mancman

6th February 2007, 04:47 AM

NDBoston

6th February 2007, 04:56 AM

jump and find out.

I actually worked at WTC7 for Salomon (then SSB) three years up to and including 9/11 working on the 43rd floor but spent most days on anywhere between the 28th through 44th

Please explain to me how my building was wired for controlled demolition while we were packed like sardines before and after the merger with people on three floors 24/7 and most with people on it 7 days a week working long hours.

I felt the debris hit the building after the first plane hit. There was so much debris hitting the building that we were forced to go out through the back.

Have you bothered to do one shred of research or are you just stupid?

Belz...

6th February 2007, 05:50 AM

Right. There are no puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in this video:

Can't tell. The thing's blurry as hell.

Also, why would they detonate a portion of the building that's already damaged ?

And you're an expert who knows the latest technology.

I'm not willing to speculate about technology that might exist in your mind. I'm talking about reality. How much time do you think it would take to rigt 7 for demolition ?

Also, did you or did you not misunderstand Redtail about the word "always" ?

Belz...

6th February 2007, 05:59 AM

I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly....

Neatly ?

The pic you reference shows more smoke than anything else. Call it a gouge if you like.

Isn't it obvious enough ?

Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from? Never mind Lihop or Mihop, it's the IHOP theory, the Infernal House of Pancakes.
Those steel girders were ejected in an explosion.

Irrelevant. They fell into WTC7.

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

Circular reasoning and speculation.

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Appeal to ... elitism ?

Anyone can be wrong.

Including you.

You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Ah, yes, common sense. THE SAME COMMON SENSE THAT TELLS YOU THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THAT HEAVIER OBJECTS FALL FASTER.

Belz...

6th February 2007, 06:00 AM

You [all] ignored the reasoning. ie:
I have pictures of the 2 [or3] sides that they coulden't see.
I don't doubt that they saw the south corner smoking from top to bottom and thought it was 'fully involved'.
With the advantage of being able to see all 4 sides, i respectfully disagree with the 'fully involved' evaluation.
I also respectfully disagree with the Captain who has seen pictures of all 4 sides.
The Windsor was fully involved, WTC 7 was not. IMO

So... your "reasoning" is that you disagree ????

JimBenArm

6th February 2007, 06:21 AM

<snip>

Have you bothered to do one shred of research or are you just stupid?
(bolding mine)

I know what I'm voting for!

aggle-rithm

6th February 2007, 06:53 AM

You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

From your hypothetical situation where each floor of the building took 1 second to collapse, it's clear that you don't know what "free fall" means.

You don't have much going for you, do you? Not only are you apparently ignorant of the principles you are attempting to discuss, but you lack even the most basic debating skills.

I'd bail out quietly if I were you. Just a piece of friendly advice.

Belz...

6th February 2007, 08:08 AM

I [and a lot of other people] can see by the results that someone rigged WTC 7 for demolition prior to 9/11.

This is not rocket science.

Building implosions are very distinctive.

Then why are the experts in disagreement with you ?

The center falls first to bring in the outer walls in, and it falls mostly straight down in near freefall and lands mostly in its own footprint.

Wiggle room ?

Maybe you believe that the failure of 1 key column, the 'initiating event' as proposed in the NIST Report, led to the total collapse of WTC 7.

I'm not buying it.

Argument from incredulity.

It's impossible to prove a negative.

[...]

You cannot rule out the possibility that it was a CD.

:rolleyes:

That's not debunking, it's just an opinion.

Something about a pot and a kettle comes to mind.

Belz...

6th February 2007, 08:13 AM

get a brain of your own and we can talk

Ah, the typical paranoid response. They're ALL brainwashed.

Haven't you seen the video or pic of one of the Twin Towers erupting like a volcano, with tons of material being forcefully ejected outwards and UPWARDS?

You say that was not an explosion?!

This is probably going to be futile: when falling pieces of metal can't go down, where do you think they're going to go ?

I can see clearly with this pair of eyes.
You can only see what you have been told to see.

Ah, the typical paranoid response. They're ALL brainwashed.

WTC 7 is the classic implosion demolition, first the nick in the center, walls falling inward.

The Twin Towers were a special case. Possibly because of their great height, it was needed to explode away a lot of the mass?

Speculate much ?

The material is being massively ejected higher up from the big explosions.

And they placed explosives in damaged areas because... ?

Squibs are from placed charges that sever supporting columns. They are characteristic of implosion demolitions.

Not exclusively, and not in this fashion. And they're not called squibs.

Of course these dildos still havent figured out how 110 stories could pancake in 10 seconds.

Lots of people who don't drink kool-aid have.

Sorry guys. I mean, there's nothing wrong with having an IQ of 90. If there were nobody below average, there wouldn't be anybody above it either, right? Ooops, sorry, i might have confused you there too. Not trying to make it complicated, honest.
Just don't worry about it. Der Fuehrer will take care of everything.

I was wondering when the Nazis would come up.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

Perhaps you've heard before, but gravity creates something that smart people know as "acceleration".

Belz...

6th February 2007, 08:14 AM

Oh. Let me rewrite the question so you can understand it: how long should the collapse have taken? Show your calculations.

You moron. The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

Ladies and gentlemen, truther "reasoning".

stateofgrace

6th February 2007, 08:43 AM

From your hypothetical situation where each floor of the building took 1 second to collapse, it's clear that you don't know what "free fall" means.

You don't have much going for you, do you? Not only are you apparently ignorant of the principles you are attempting to discuss, but you lack even the most basic debating skills.

I'd bail out quietly if I were you. Just a piece of friendly advice.

I would take this advice if I were you respublicus, trying to promote your beliefs with nothing but insults does not help your case, or the movement who you are trying to represent.

Belz...

6th February 2007, 10:22 AM

What is that supposed to prove?
I have seen pictures and videos of actual controlled demolitions, and ditto of the WTC. It's clear.

"Gee, this picture looks kinda like this one. They must be the same."

The arguments from Nist are anything but clear.

They're not supposed to be read by ignorants.

I have also studied a lot of other relevant information, historical, about false flag terrorism and politics.

Ah, yes. The good old "it happened before, therefore it happened at time X", which I guess goes hand-in-hand with "it never happened before, therefore it didn't happen at time X."

I know an enormous amount about 911 and I'm not going to sit here writing it all down for people with closed minds.

"I have no evidence, and I know better than to completely embarrass myself in front of people who obvioulsy know more than I do."

Plus I'm not a blinking fascist foot soldier like your lot who has to wait for a bureaucracy to tell me what to think

Gotta love Godwin.

You're so totally naive. According to you, your government is always the good fairy.

Strawman argument and false dichotomy.

Like you never even heard of corruption.

Non sequitur.

twinstead

6th February 2007, 10:48 AM

Cool. We don't get many spittle-spewing ideologues round these parts.

Rock on respublicus

Gravy

6th February 2007, 10:57 AM

jaydeehess

6th February 2007, 11:46 AM

1. video evidence
get a clock or a watch. have you seen one of those before? Ask you mommy, maybe she has. Then get a video. Find somebody who can read the clock. clock the collapse.

2. Ok, this is a little bit harder but you can do it. You need to know a little bit of arithmetic and measures.

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

1) This requires that one be able to discern what is occuring within the obscuring dust cloud to a degree that allows one to be sure that the collapse has indeed reached the ground and to an accuracy of within 1 second. Since that is in itself not possible it makes your simple solution a moot point. That is unless your mother has super-dooper x-ray vision glasses on hand that work on a recorded image.

2) This is very similar to Judy Woods' ridiculous assesment of a pancake collapse.

This requires that each pancake event come to a complete halt before resulting in the failure of the next floor and initiating the next pancake event. Woods' makes no justification for this at all other than to speculate that all of the kinetic energy of the falling section must be used to fail the next floor. That speculation is simply stated, not backed up by any reasoning whatsoever let alone any calculations. It also ignores the fact that as the building pancakes in this way the kinetic energy increases with the increase in falling mass.

Why does Woods do this? Because she was too lazy or dogmatic in belief to do an assesment that would have her using the training she should have received in undergrad schooling. She should stick to designing better dentures.

There is no reason to have the collapse stop at each level.
republicus, the height of one floor in the WTC towers was 3 meters. How long is the time to fall three meters in free fall? What is the calculation that you use to figure this out? Such information is taught in high school physics so if you have even the teeniest bit of technical expertise then this should be a cakewalk. Even if you do not then all you need do is actually read any one of tens of thousands of forum postings on the internet concerning free fall in which this formula is espressly shown.

Now, wasn't this thread about WTC 7? I think so. Thank you for stopping by republicus. See you in a thread dealing with the towers sometime soon? hopefully you won't be repeating this idiocy again.

You a one trick pony and that one trick seems to be ad hom spewings.

A W Smith

6th February 2007, 12:23 PM

We'll keep it reeaaal simple. Let's say each floor pancakes really fast - say in one second flat.
There are 110 floors.
How many seconds. Take your time now.
Ok, give up?
Ok i will tell you.
It's 110 seconds.
Almost two minutes. Those are marked by the long hand on the clock, see?

Holy phchit!

yeah i tried to add a snippet of that as a sig but way too long.

So your saying if the collapse of the WTC was like.. A super bowl commercial, I could run upstairs to the bathroom, Urinate, Flush the toilet and fly back downstairs in time to see it hit the ground?

As Ben Stein (http://www.benstein.com/)would say, And with his voice even WOW!!

Belz...

6th February 2007, 01:05 PM

110 seconds...

the man's never seen anything fall, for sure.

jaydeehess

6th February 2007, 04:07 PM

The building was blown up in a controlled demolition and fell at free fall speed.

I forgot to add my thoughts on this statement.

republicus, you are , of course, aware that in order for a building to fall at exactly the rate of an object in free fall (in atmosphere since the atmospheric drag will have little effect on such dense materials anyway) that all supports on all floors must be severed all at the same time.

Please direct me to a video that illustrates that there was an explosion of all 110 floors of the towers simultaneously at the time of collapse initiation.

Since you undoubtably believe that WTC 7 also fell at a free fall rate (and since this thread is supposed to concern WTC 7) please direct me to a video illustrating that all floors had explosions severing all column simultaneously at the time of collapse initiation.

jaydeehess

6th February 2007, 04:25 PM

There is one case of a partial collapse but it occurred over a period of time."

Respublicus
Say, I hadn't heard about that one. Got a link?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

Hmmm , the 'researchers at 911research must have missed these ones then.

(thanks to Unfit4Command)

Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
Three buildings collapsed. The first collapsed after about an hour despite the fire starting small(unlike the towers in which the fire was started throughout several floors by thousands of gallons of acellerant) and the building was an intact structure at the outset of the fire(unlike any of the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01) The other two each took another half hour each past the time of the fire's outset in building.

McCormick Place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Toilet paper factory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

As for the Windsor, 911research fails to acknowledge the study done that credits the concrete columns of the core for keeping this from becoming a total collapse. This meant that only some perimeter columns failed and the floors attached did not fully impact the floors below them nor did they acheive the velocity that they would have had the core columns also failed.

911research also fails to mention that on lower floors the perimeter steel columns were supplemented with concrete columns.

911resaerch also simply ignores that the Windsor was a fully intact structure at the outset of the fire unlike any of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01

What the Windsor does do is illustrate that steel columns do fail under fire conditions.

Dog Town

6th February 2007, 04:33 PM

What the Windsor does do is illustrate that steel columns do fail under fire conditions.

Funny how the twoofer's, can't figure this out! I love it, when they debunk themselves.

Priceless!

A W Smith

6th February 2007, 06:24 PM

redicblicus;

You must realize that any explosive force or charge thats going to thrust many tons of debris outward is also going to move lots of atmosphere with it. This will create a very loud explosive sound. You physically cannot accomplish this without the corresponding sound. it is a physical impossibility.

R.Mackey

6th February 2007, 11:18 PM

You must realize that any explosive force or charge thats going to thrust many tons of debris outward is also going to move lots of atmosphere with it. This will create a very loud explosive sound. You physically cannot accomplish this without the corresponding sound. it is a physical impossibility.

Absolutely right.

Also, don't forget shrapnel. Bombs big enough to push around 100-ton chunks of steel will also be throwing tons and tons of small chunks of steel and glass at supersonic speeds. Funny that no buildings outside the collapse area were riddled with high-velocity fragments, or that bystanders several blocks away weren't cut to ribbons.

Christopher7

6th February 2007, 11:48 PM

Then why are the experts in disagreement with you ?
There are experts on both sides of this issue.

I don't have much time tonite but i'll put together a list

Wiggle room ?I used mostly because that's the word NIST used.

Re: #727

It would take a few weeks to rig WTC 7 IMO.

Christopher7

7th February 2007, 01:11 AM

Hmmm , the 'researchers at 911research must have missed these ones then.

(thanks to Unfit4Command)

Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
Three buildings collapsed. The first collapsed after about an hour despite the fire starting small(unlike the towers in which the fire was started throughout several floors by thousands of gallons of acellerant) and the building was an intact structure at the outset of the fire(unlike any of the WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11/01) The other two each took another half hour each past the time of the fire's outset in building.

McCormick Place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place

Toilet paper factory:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
You are comaring oranges and watermellons.
The factory in Thaland was 4 stories and didn't even meet the minimal local codes.
McCormic 'Exibition Hall' was wide open and the support columns were holding up the roof, not a lot of heavy floors and their live load.

You're comparing WTC 7 to this:

Toilet paper factory

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2613/42265002fireczg1.jpg

As for the Windsor, 911research fails to acknowledge the study done that credits the concrete columns of the core for keeping this from becoming a total collapse. This meant that only some perimeter columns failed and the floors attached did not fully impact the floors below them nor did they acheive the velocity that they would have had the core columns also failed.The steel columns in the Windsor biulding, 7mm - 1/4" thick C channels welded togeather to make a box.

The core coulmns in WTC 7. were rolled I beams 1" thick top and bottom, and a 1/2" thick center portion, with 1/2" cover plates or 1" web plates. see NIST Apx. L pg. 14]

The top half of the Windsor building was 'fully involved', that is, it looked like a torch, with flames on all sides.

What the Windsor does do is illustrate that steel columns do fail under fire conditions.All those buildings were much smaller and the beams were much smaller.

uk_dave

7th February 2007, 01:23 AM

All those buildings were much smaller and the beams were much smaller.

Yep, and the loads they were designed to support were much lighter.

And they failed.

You gotta keep these things in proportion, you know?

beachnut

7th February 2007, 02:16 AM

You are comaring oranges and watermellons.
The factory in Thaland was 4 stories and didn't even meet the minimal local codes.
McCormic 'Exibition Hall' was wide open and the support columns were holding up the roof, not a lot of heavy floors and their live load.

You're comparing WTC 7 to this:

Toilet paper factory

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2613/42265002fireczg1.jpg

The steel columns in the Windsor biulding, 7mm - 1/4" thick C channels welded togeather to make a box.

The core coulmns in WTC 7. were rolled I beams 1" thick top and bottom, and a 1/2" thick center portion, with 1/2" cover plates or 1" web plates. see NIST Apx. L pg. 14]

The top half of the Windsor building was 'fully involved', that is, it looked like a torch, with flames on all sides.

All those buildings were much smaller and the beams were much smaller.

Fire does not damage 1 inch steel just the little steel. WTC is special.

I see basic science does not apply to CT guys who have their minds made up.

Steel does not fail in fire if it is in the WTC. But else where steel fails.

WTC is exempt from failure as Chris said. Why do I feel like Chris is short on facts and knowledge?

Chris you need some more school time before your inability to learn is permanent.

Chris fire destroys buildings and they fall. It is a fact. You ignore facts and make up lies. Why? WTC7 burned all day, the fire protection was defeated by the fire, but the building stood well past the fire protection time it was suppose to. Therefore WTC7 was good as there was time for everyone to get out before the fire brought the building down.

I think the 20,000 gallons of fuel did not help.

I think if you continue to ignore the facts you are just another nut case pushing lies.

So to prove fire did not make the steel weaker you need to present evidence and facts or you are still pushing lies.