10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

Keep spinning, CTs. The fact remains that steel DOES fail if exposed to fire. Perhaps instead of posting crap on an internet forum you can actually ASK professional firefighters and others who make a living investigating how buildings fail.

I realize that any expert who disagrees with you in your mind is either paid off or stupid, but you have to deal with the sheer numbers of experts who are either paid off or stupid; your crack YouTube investigation aside, the overwhelming majority of them disagree with you.

[Belz...]

It would take a few weeks to rig WTC 7 IMO.

More like six months, assuming they had full, free access to the building's structure, which they didn't, and that they didn't have to hide, which they did.

Would you care to revise your estimate ?

[jaydeehess]

Yep, and the loads they were designed to support were much lighter.

And they failed.

You gotta keep these things in proportion, you know?


You beat me to it.

Yes the columns in the WTC buildings were larger than the other structures BECAUSE the structures themselves were larger.
This means that they were under much greater loads than the steel in the other structures. The other structure had smaller columns BECAUSE they did not require larger ones.
In both cases though when steel heats it loses its strength. So sorry that there is no incidence of huge buildings such as the largest buildings in the world and or a building with a non-standard construction having been involved in a situtaion such as the tower and #7 were on 9/11/01 . I guess its just that damned good fortune that such imapcts and fires have not occured on a regular basis around the world.

The toy factory involved steel that had no fire insulation(sound familiar at all).

If comparing the Windsor building to WTC 7 is apples to watermelons then why oh why do CTs keep making the comparison?

Steel loses strength and buckles under the conditions of high heat and compressive load.

[Belz...]

Steel loses strength and buckles under the conditions of high heat and compressive load.

I think at 1000C it loses 90% of its strength. That's no small portion.

[jaydeehess]

I think at 1000C it loses 90% of its strength. That's no small portion.


We see such postsings as "the building was not damaged enough by impact to cause a collapse" AND "the fires could not have caused the building to collapse" in which it is simply ignored that BOTH occured and that EACH played a role in sufficiently damaging the building to the point of collapse.

CT's bring up the Windsor and the fact that it stood for quite a while before its partial collapse even though it had a greater percentage of its floorspace on fire than the WTC buildings did. This, it has been shown is a bit of an apples and watermelons comparison given that the Windsor building had concrete core pillars as well as some concrete perimeter support(on lower levels) and that it suffered no mechanical damage prior to the fire breaking out.

Now Chris wants to note that it is an apples to watermelons comparison because the size of the steel was smaller too.

Fine, then all that we can say about the Windsor is that it illustrates that steel buckles and fails under load and heat and that concrete fares much better.

Now it is entirely true that we do not know the EXACT nature and extent of the mechanical damage to WTC 7 but we do know that there was significant damage done. Indeed we know that major damage was done to one corner of the building and that other parts of WTC 7 were in fact closer to WTC 1 than the SW corner. We have reports of significant damage done to a section of the central part of the south face. We have reports of damage heavy enough to cause two elevator cars to be ejected from their shafts. In addition to the mechanical damage there is ample evidence of major fires in the building and indeed we know that fire and/or heavy smoke was emanating from every floor or just about every floor of the building by the time of collapse.(FF quotes and photographic evidence)

Unlike other buildings that collapsed or were on fire, we also know that all three buildings suffered mechanical damage prior to collapse. Chris Sarns and others then attempt to play down, minimize or outright ignore the prior mechanical damage.

[Christopher7]

You beat me to it.

Yes the columns in the WTC buildings were larger than the other structures BECAUSE the structures themselves were larger.
This means that they were under much greater loads than the steel in the other structures. The other structure had smaller columns BECAUSE they did not require larger ones.
In both cases though when steel heats it loses its strength. So sorry that there is no incidence of huge buildings such as the largest buildings in the world and or a building with a non-standard construction having been involved in a situtaion such as the tower and #7 were on 9/11/01 . I guess its just that damned good fortune that such imapcts and fires have not occured on a regular basis around the world.

The toy factory involved steel that had no fire insulation(sound familiar at all).

If comparing the Windsor building to WTC 7 is apples to watermelons then why oh why do CTs keep making the comparison?

Steel loses strength and buckles under the conditions of high heat and compressive load.
It takes much longer to heat a beam that is 4 times as thick and has cover or web plates welded to it.

The 3 high rise buildings i listed burned longer and there was little or no structural damage to the supporting columns.

The Caracas Tower burned for 17 hours and was completely gutted on one side. You can see through the building. All that remained was the steel frame. It did not collapse.

Start at 1:35 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7

[Dog Town]

It takes much longer to heat a beam that is 4 times as thick and has cover or web plates welded to it.


Pardon?
Also those other buildings had firefighting the WHOLE TIME!

[beachnut]

It takes much longer to heat a beam that is 4 times as thick and has cover or web plates welded to it.

The 3 high rise buildings i listed burned longer and there was little or no structural damage to the supporting columns.

The Caracas Tower burned for 17 hours and was completely gutted on one side. You can see through the building. All that remained was the steel frame. It did not collapse.

Start at 1:35 in this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7

WRONG\

One Meridian Plaza was torn down, too weak.

Madrid of course was torn down, too weak. (not one of the 3? cherry picker, right?)

Steel is weakened by fire.

You forgot to tell everyone all the buildings you talked about were fought by firemen! You forgot to tell all about there was zero fires fought at the WTC1, 2, and 7.

You missed hundreds of stuctures which fell in fires, with both steel and more.

You are now off your 10 story hole which was bigger, maybe, but then you got your RDX and stuff to blow up any debunking.

Good job on missing the structural failure due to fire.

Poor research = CTers in the 9/11 truth movement.

I guess you are not using Madrid are you as your example of steel that looks like butter.

[Christopher7]

We see such postsings as "the building was not damaged enough by impact to cause a collapse" AND "the fires could not have caused the building to collapse" in which it is simply ignored that BOTH occured and that EACH played a role in sufficiently damaging the building to the point of collapse.
Hypothesis [set of assumptions] not fact.

CT's bring up the Windsor and the fact that it stood for quite a while before its partial collapse even though it had a greater percentage of its floorspace on fire than the WTC buildings did. This, it has been shown is a bit of an apples and watermelons comparison given that the Windsor building had concrete core pillars as well as some concrete perimeter support(on lower levels) and that it suffered no mechanical damage prior to the fire breaking out.

Now Chris wants to note that it is an apples to watermelons comparison because the size of the steel was smaller too.A lot thinner and therefore it would fail a lot sooner. There are no instances of heavy, 1" thick steel I beams failing that i know of.

Fine, then all that we can say about the Windsor is that it illustrates that steel buckles and fails under load and heat and that concrete fares much better.

Now it is entirely true that we do not know the EXACT nature and extent of the mechanical damage to WTC 7 but we do know that there was significant damage done. Indeed we know that major damage was done to one corner of the building and that other parts of WTC 7 were in fact closer to WTC 1 than the SW corner.Not so. The buildings were parallel.

We have reports of significant damage done to a section of the central part of the south face. We have reports of damage heavy enough to cause two elevator cars to be ejected from their shafts. In addition to the mechanical damage there is ample evidence of major fires in the building and indeed we know that fire and/or heavy smoke was emanating from every floor or just about every floor of the building by the time of collapse.(FF quotes and photographic evidence)The smoke from 'just about every floor' was at the SW corner.

Unlike other buildings that collapsed or were on fire, we also know that all three buildings suffered mechanical damage prior to collapse. Chris Sarns and others then attempt to play down, minimize or outright ignore the prior mechanical damage.I have pointed out that the 10 story gouge to the middle of WTC 7 and the damage to the core columns attributed to it didn't happen.

Why do you infer that i ignore the significant damage when i keep quoting "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and 6th floors" and "large hole around the 14th floor" as well as the damage to the SW corner ?

[Christopher7]

Pardon?
Also those other buildings had firefighting the WHOLE TIME!
So what. They burned for 19 hours, 6 hours and 17 hours respectively.

[Dog Town]

So what. They burned for 19 hours, 6 hours and 17 hours respectively.

5439


Glad mine is a projector!

[beachnut]

So what. They burned for 19 hours, 6 hours and 17 hours respectively.

Which part of fire fighting vs no fire fighting are you having problems with?

Plus the Madrid building; destoryed by fire.

Plus the building in downtown Philly, One Meridian Plaza; destroyed by fire.

Two high rise building destoyed by fire. GONE

The fires were fought but the buildings were destroyed. WTC buildings had fires that were not fought in 1, 2, and 7, these building were destroyed too.

Now take your backward logic and try to dig out of this problem you have.

Fires destroys buildings. Simple. Prove fires can not destory buildings an you have something. Prove not fighting fires has a better chance of not destroying buildings and you got a better story.

What damaged all your examples? Airplanes? NO Debris? NO

What fuel was used to start and sustain fires in your examples?

Was there 10,000 gallons/60,000 pounds of fuel in your buildings? NO

Was there 20,000 gallons to run generators to burn in the fire? NO

If this had been at night you would not be asking if there were raging fires in the WTC1, 2 or 7.

I assume you are not a thermite guy; are you?

[Christopher7]

WRONG\

One Meridian Plaza was torn down, too weak.
The weakness was primarily to the horizontal floor supports.
[correct me if i'm wrong]
In any event, the building did not collapse. None of the support columns failed.

Madrid of course was torn down, too weak. (not one of the 3? cherry picker, right?)The Windsor in Madrid was not one of the three i listed as not collapsing.
It's only significance is that the steel that failed was 1/4 the thickness of the WTC 7 support columns.

Steel is weakened by fire.Only if it is heated sufficiently.
There is no proof that the support columns in WTC 7 were subjected to fires hot enough and long enough to weaken them.
There is only speculation.

You missed hundreds of structures which fell in fires, with both steel and more.No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.

The Windsor was a hybrid where the RC core and lower floors carried most of the weight. The collapse of the lightweight outer columns cannot be compared to the heavy I beams of WTC 7.

You are now off your 10 story hole which was bigger, maybe, but then you got your RDX and stuff to blow up any debunking.Negative.

To believe the 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7 was bigger you have to believe that Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were lying, and the firefighter who said "only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner" was lying.

[uk_dave]

You know why no normal person gives a toss about wtc7?

It runs something like this.....

On 9/11 we witnessed co-ordinated attacks on the wtc towers and the pentagon, and a foiled attempt which lead to the crash of a plane in PA.

On that day nearly 3000 people lost their lives, many inside the buildings which were hit.

The wtc towers were damaged so severely that they collapsed, killing many emergency workers inside and in the vicinity.

All in all, it was a horrible and tragic day. Massive loss of life, injuries, turmoil caused in two of the US major cities, massive damage to the whole of the wtc complex.

And then wtc 7 collapsed after being on fire and sustaining damage from the tower collapse,but killing or injuring no one.

THAT is why only 'truthers' care about wtc7, while the rest of us simple folk just see it as a footnote to the tragedy of that day.

That the 'truthers' cling so desperately to it, especially now that every kook theory about the wtc towers has been debunked, just goes to show just how weak their movement is.

[Dog Town]

Hey, hey, momma... what's the matter here...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092345c841e453588.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4015)

Notice any damage happening?

[Christopher7]

5439

Glad mine is a projector!

The Caracas Tower was not fought 'the whole time'

It burned much longer than WTC7.
Huge amounts of fire were visible.

"Engineers have gone up there and inspected" the building, Briceno said, adding that "it is very solid".

"The high temperatures also stopped firefighters from reaching the towers upper floors where the fire was the strongest. ...helicopters flew over the building, dropping water on the tower"

The fire burned out of control for 26 floors when they couldn't get at it.

The helicopters were only effective after the fire broke through the top of the building.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

[mailman]

Hey, hey, momma... what's the matter here...

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092345c841e453588.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4015)

Notice any damage happening?

I think you have unwittingly rather proved the point with all that material hitting WTC7 :D

Mailman

[uk_dave]

or even wittingly?

[Gravy]

Chris, what damage had those other buildings sustained prior to the fires? I look forward to your answer.

[Belz...]

A lot thinner and therefore it would fail a lot sooner.

Wouldn't that depend on the load ?

Also those other buildings had firefighting the WHOLE TIME!

So what. They burned for 19 hours, 6 hours and 17 hours respectively.

DURING firefighting efforts...

The smoke from 'just about every floor' was at the SW corner.

Not from this picture.

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

I have pointed out that the 10 story gouge to the middle of WTC 7 and the damage to the core columns attributed to it didn't happen.

So you've missed this (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm)site ?

[Belz...]

No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.

None of them received a 110-storey building on top of them.

[jaydeehess]

Hypothesis [set of assumptions] not fact.

I don't see you presenting any 'facts' to back up controlled demolition Chris. Nothing but hypothysis and pure conjecture.

Besides in my statement what is 'hypothysis'? The fact that CT's choose to always separate mechanical damage from fire damage? Probably not since your next few statements illustrate that you choose to completely ignore the possibility of impact damage having any effect on the structural integrity of WTC 7 at all. You state again;
No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire.

So instead you must be speaking to the hypothysis that the mechanical damage did play a role. However we absolutly know that the building was affected by the impact damage. We know this because the SW corner damage produced a bulge in the building. We also know that the sounds the building was making and the way it was behaving was of grave concern to many firefighters in both command and grunt roles. From early in the day it was feared that the building may collapse because of the way it was behaving , from the get-go! To now state, 5 years later, that this was just all scare mongering on the part of the NYFD, or that it was the trauma of having seen the collapse of 1&2 and the deaths of so many friends and co-workers is pure sophistry at work. You are writing off the words and assesments of the people at the scene at that time for no better reason other than to push your own hypothysis which lacks any evidence at all, and would better be described as conjecture or, at best, speculation.

You also continue to fail to understand the role of the load in the building columns or the role of the unique system of cantilever trusses used in the lower levels of WTC 7. That or you choose to ignore them.

So what. They burned for 19 hours, 6 hours and 17 hours respectively.

Again you ignore a few 'details' such as the impact damage(which you attempt to trivialize), the lack of firefighting(which you claim is a zero difference in the other structure fires), the unique structure(which you completely ignore), the deisel fuel present at WTC 7(which you ignore because no one can say for sure it was involved).

You also might note that some aircraft crashes have people walk away from them including horrific ones such as at (IIRC ) Dallas-Fort-Worth in which the aircraft , a large Boeing, literally cartwheeled down the runway in a huge fireball, the 747 that crashed into a mountain Japan ((shortly after take-off with a large fuel load on board, in which many survivors died because it took 19 hours for rescue units to get to the scene). Your reasoning would suggest that since this was not the case in so many other air crashes that the survivors must have been plants and that all those who were really on board died.

I believe you said at one time that ***** happens, or was that someone else?

[jaydeehess]

delete

[Christopher7]

Chris, what damage had those other buildings sustained prior to the fires? I look forward to your answer.
Damage to the south face did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 [NIST Apx.L] and depicted in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 was a misinterpretation of damage described by others. The damage attributed to the core columns from this misinterpretation did not exist.

The elevator cars were not next to columns 75, 78 or 78A [see pg 6]

"damage.... of core columns is not known" [pg 51]

[Christopher7]

Wouldn't that depend on the load ?
Whatever the load, it would take a lot more time to heat a 1' thick I beam with 1/2' cover plates or 1' web plates to the failure point than a 1/4" thick box beam.

So you've missed this (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm)site ?
I've seen that site. it shows some damage to the east of the south west corner, but definately not a gouge "floor 10 to the ground"
The damage is probably the "large hole around floor 14" described in the NIST Report.

[jaydeehess]

Damage to the south face did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

Perhaps not but it would contribute to the way it fell once it started.

The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 [NIST Apx.L] and depicted in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 was a misinterpretation of damage described by others. The damage attributed to the core columns from this misinterpretation did not exist.

Says YOU. Once again Chris it is an inclusion of all reported damage. You simply cannot write off the damage reported as having had no effect on core columns just because you want it to be. I feel quite confident that damage did reach the core due to the eyewitness reports taken as a whole.

The elevator cars were not next to columns 75, 78 or 78A [see pg 6]

"damage.... of core columns(sic) is not known" [pg 51]

Gee, Chris, did you miss on page 50/51(bolding mine)

Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

Wow, you are selective aren't you!

[jaydeehess]

The damage is probably the "large hole around floor 14"

,,, and just 50-60 feet below that (below floor 14) elevator cars get bounced out of their shafts.

[Christopher7]

I don't see you presenting any 'facts' to back up controlled demolition Chris. Nothing but hypothysis and pure conjecture.
May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris demage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".

Besides in my statement what is 'hypothysis'?A set of assumptions.

The fact that CT's choose to always separate mechanical damage from fire damage? Probably not since your next few statements illustrate that you choose to completely ignore the possibility of impact damage having any effect on the structural integrity of WTC 7 at all. Not so. The debris from WTC 1 did significant damage to the south face of WTC 7 but this damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event as it was all to the west of the initiating event.


So instead you must be speaking to the hypothysis that the mechanical damage did play a role.No

However we absolutly know that the building was affected by the impact damage. We know this because the SW corner damage produced a bulge in the building. We also know that the sounds the building was making and the way it was behaving was of grave concern to many firefighters in both command and grunt roles.Can you name more than 4 firefighters who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse ? [not those who were told it was going to collapse]

Not all the firefighters thought it was going to collapse.

Battalion Chief John Norman:
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but no a lot and I'm saying that isn't going to fall."
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

From early in the day it was feared that the building may collapse because of the way it was behaving , from the get-go! To now state, 5 years later, that this was just all [I]scare mongering on the part of the NYFD,I have never said that.

or that it was the trauma of having seen the collapse of 1&2 and the deaths of so many friends and co-workers is pure sophistry at work.Not at all. Calling it "scare mongering" is sophistry.

You are writing off the words and assesments of the people at the scene at that timeNo. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.

or no better reason other than to push your own hypothysis which lacks any evidence at all, and would better be described as conjecture or, at best, speculation.What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?

There was damage, but not to the critical core columns in the 'initiating event'

There was a large body of fire but it is not known if these fires were in the area of the core columns in the 'initiating event'. [only conjecture]
Since engine rooms must be well ventilated to the exterior, any smoke from these fires would have been clearly visible as it escaped through the vents on the east side of the building.
The 2 story mechanical space is about 40' from the south face on the east side of the building. There are no reports of debris damage to the eastern part of the south face.
There is NO evidence to suggest that debris damage started a fire in the east mechanical space.

[Christopher7]

Perhaps not but it would contribute to the way it fell once it started.
Not according to NIST.
The initiating event led to a vertical collapse which led to a horizontal collapse which led to a global collapse, all from the interior core columns.
The damage to the south face columns plays no part in their hypothesis.

Says YOU. Once again Chris it is an inclusion of all reported damage. You simply cannot write off the damage reported as having had no effect on core columns just because you want it to be. I feel quite confident that damage did reach the core due to the eyewitness reports taken as a whole.There is nothing to support the 40' deep gouge that would be necessary to do any damage to the core columns. It is pure conjecture.

The elevators are located to the west of columns 75 and 78.

The east side of WTC 1 was a little to the west of WTC 7's columns 75 and 78

The debris could not have dislodged the last row of elevators [next to column 75] into the hallway to their west. [see pg 6]

The NIST report was incorrect in saying that the damage to the elevator cars was in the area of columns 75 and 78.

The ejection of the elevator cars may have damaged or severed columns 66, 69 or 72, but not columns 75 or 78 [see pg 6]

[Gravy]

Chris, when the sounds of groaning and creaking are heard in a steel-framed skyscraper that has sustained structural damage and is on fire, is that:

A) Not a cause for concern.

B) Potentially a sign of imminent collapse. When a steel-framed building makes such noises, its integrity is in peril.

C) None of the above.

[Christopher7]

Chris, when the sounds of groaning and creaking are heard in a steel-framed skyscraper that has sustained structural damage and is on fire, is that:

A) Not a cause for concern.

B) Potentially a sign of imminent collapse. When a steel-framed building makes such noises, its integrity is in peril.

C) None of the above.
B) Their concern was well founded. One might well expect the front of the building to collapse, or for the building to fall to the south, since all the damage and most of the fires were on the south side.

Battalion Chief John Norman
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

[uk_dave]

Battalion Chief John Norman
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."

ooooooooooooo suspicious!!
:woowoo

Chris, do you ever wonder if maybe you're.......
:deadhorse

?

[Belz...]

Whatever the load, it would take a lot more time to heat a 1' thick I beam with 1/2' cover plates or 1' web plates to the failure point than a 1/4" thick box beam.

Yes, but the column would tend to hold better with less load, right ?

I've seen that site. it shows some damage to the east of the south west corner, but definately not a gouge "floor 10 to the ground"
The damage is probably the "large hole around floor 14" described in the NIST Report.

The hold is definitely several stories high, and the structure around it seems uneven. Also, you might have noticed another large opening at the top of the structure.

The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 [NIST Apx.L] and depicted in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 was a misinterpretation of damage described by others. The damage attributed to the core columns from this misinterpretation did not exist.

Yes, it may actually have been larger than that.

[Belz...]

May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris demage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".

It might help if you waited for the final report.

Not so. The debris from WTC 1 did significant damage to the south face of WTC 7 but this damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event as it was all to the west of the initiating event.

You know this how ?

Can you name more than 4 firefighters who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse ? [not those who were told it was going to collapse]

Not all the firefighters thought it was going to collapse.

And since at least one of them didn't, it shouldn't have collapsed ?

No. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.

Speculation.

What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?

Lots of fire and lots of debris.

[Belz...]

B) Their concern was well founded. One might well expect the front of the building to collapse, or for the building to fall to the south, since all the damage and most of the fires were on the south side.

That's a nice way ot picking the right answer while retaining as much of your own hypothesis as possible.

You might make politician, one day.

[Mancman]

Footage of WTC7 burning shot by Steve Spak, with commentary. Note the blue flame at approx 3:30.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

[Christopher7]

Yes, but the column would tend to hold better with less load, right ?
No. The column will fail when it is heated to it's failure point. The loads are proportionate, that is, they were both under similar stress, but it would take much longer to heat the much thicker I beams with cover plates or web plates in WTC 7.

The hold is definitely several stories high, and the structure around it seems uneven. Also, you might have noticed another large opening at the top of the structure.It is NOT the 10 story gouge in question.
In the photograph, the first 7 floors cannot be seen.

Yes, it may actually have been larger than that.So you think Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the other firefighters were lying ?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
I don't see you presenting any 'facts' to back up controlled demolition Chris. Nothing but hypothesis and pure conjecture.
May i remind you that the 'collapse due to debris damage/fire' is also hypothesis and conjecture, ending in "appears possible".

I keep reminding you that there was fire and structural damage to back up the hypothesis that they caused the collapse whereas the other conjecture has "it looked like a CD" and there were loud noises. Both sides are using circumstantial evidence but yours is most obviously the weaker set.

Quote:
Besides in my statement what is 'hypothesis'?

A set of assumptions.

I, of course, meant what part of my statement were you referring to?

Quote:
The fact that CT's choose to always separate mechanical damage from fire damage? Probably not since your next few statements illustrate that you choose to completely ignore the possibility of impact damage having any effect on the structural integrity of WTC 7 at all.

Not so. The debris from WTC 1 did significant damage to the south face of WTC 7 but this damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event as it was all to the west of the initiating event.


You are telling us what the misinterpretation is. Why should we believe you?
You completely discount the idea of any damage to the core columns at all based on your own characterization of the eyewitness accounts. You cannot just say it and assume it is so. There is evidence that the core was reached. You then state unequivocally that this means that there could be no other core damage than perhaps to one column.

[I]Quote:
So instead you must be speaking to the hypothesis that the mechanical damage did play a role.

No

You just stated "damage did not contribute significantly to the initiating event ".

Quote:
However we absolutely know that the building was affected by the impact damage. We know this because the SW corner damage produced a bulge in the building. We also know that the sounds the building was making and the way it was behaving was of grave concern to many firefighters in both command and grunt roles.

Can you name more than 4 firefighters who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse ? [not those who were told it was going to collapse]

Specious arguement since the area around the building was cleared by the NYFD. That alone illustrates that the command was preparing for the distinct possibility that the building would collapse.

Not all the firefighters thought it was going to collapse.

Battalion Chief John Norman:
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but no a lot and I'm saying that isn't going to fall."
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did, 7."
, and again since the area was cleared apparently the opinion of the command at the scene must have disagreed since the area was cleared.

Indeed they cleared the area around the building for a distance equal to the height of the building. No one was hazarding a guess as to which way it would go.

Quote:
From early in the day it was feared that the building may collapse because of the way it was behaving , from the get-go! To now state, 5 years later, that this was just all scare mongering on the part of the NYFD,

I have never said that.

Ok, but you imply it by saying that others were correct in saying it would not collapse.


Quote:
or that it was the trauma of having seen the collapse of 1&2 and the deaths of so many friends and co-workers is pure sophistry at work.

Not at all. Calling it "scare mongering" is sophistry.

You state, "A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.". That is an attempt at minimizing the assesments of those men, sophistry.

Quote:
You are writing off the words and assessments of the people at the scene at that time
No. A few firefighters honestly thought WTC 7 was going to fall because of what they had just seen.

So they were traumatized into this assesment were they? their judgement was so impaired as to cause them to make a grave and erroneous statement.

Quote:
or no better reason other than to push your own hypothesis which lacks any evidence at all, and would better be described as conjecture or, at best, speculation.

What evidence is there for the debris damage/fire hypothesis ?

There was damage, but not to the critical core columns in the 'initiating event'

Gee Chris, that sounds so very absolute. How can you be so very, very sure given the statements at hand? Are you sure your prejudgement about explosives isn't affecting your conclusions?

[Christopher7]

I keep reminding you that there was fire and structural damage to back up the hypothesis that they caused the collapse whereas the other conjecture has "it looked like a CD" and there were loud noises. Both sides are using circumstantial evidence but yours is most obviously the weaker set.
There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.


Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

The only fires reported to the east end of WTC 7, where the initiating event occurred, were:

11:30 to 2:30
Signs if fire on 23rd floor on south side were heard/seen/smelled from 22nd floor. [well above the initiating event]

Looking from the south east corner of the south face:

Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above fire was covered with smoke.
Fire on floor 14 moved toward the east face.
[probably from the large hole near center of the south face]
[no fires or smoke below floor 14 on east end of south side to obscure the view]

2:00 to 2:30

fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at south east corner....fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00

Around 3 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face.
Later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

4:45

fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near middle of north face.
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Summary:

As of 2 p.m., only fire in the area of the initiating event was on floor 14 as it moved from the middle of the south face to the east.

Between 2:00 and 2:30 fires appeared at the south east corner on floors 11 and 12, around 3:00 the fire on 12 had spread to the north side.
During this time, this fire most likely spread to the area of the initiating event.
However, by 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out on the north side.

Some have inferred that the fires in the area of the initiating event burned for 6 or 7 hours.
Such is not the case.

[MaGZ]

Damage to the south face did not contribute to the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 [NIST Apx.L] and depicted in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32 was a misinterpretation of damage described by others. The damage attributed to the core columns from this misinterpretation did not exist.

The elevator cars were not next to columns 75, 78 or 78A [see pg 6]

"damage.... of core columns is not known" [pg 51]

Could a missile dislodge the elevator cars?

[MaGZ]

There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.


Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

The only fires reported to the east end of WTC 7, where the initiating event occurred, were:

11:30 to 2:30
Signs if fire on 23rd floor on south side were heard/seen/smelled from 22nd floor. [well above the initiating event]

Looking from the south east corner of the south face:

Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above fire was covered with smoke.
Fire on floor 14 moved toward the east face.
[probably from the large hole near center of the south face]
[no fires or smoke below floor 14 on east end of south side to obscure the view]

2:00 to 2:30

fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at south east corner....fires progressing north.

3:00 to 5:00

Around 3 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face.
Later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

4:45

fires on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near middle of north face.
Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

Summary:

As of 2 p.m., only fire in the area of the initiating event was on floor 14 as it moved from the middle of the south face to the east.

Between 2:00 and 2:30 fires appeared at the south east corner on floors 11 and 12, around 3:00 the fire on 12 had spread to the north side.
During this time, this fire most likely spread to the area of the initiating event.
However, by 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out on the north side.

Some have inferred that the fires in the area of the initiating event burned for 6 or 7 hours.
Such is not the case.

How does falling steel debris from WTC 1 cause fires?

The burning stories from WTC 1 fell onto WTC 6.

There were no reports of fires from other buildings outside the WTC complex perimeter--just WTC 7.

[Mancman]

There were no reports of fires from other buildings outside the WTC complex perimeter--just WTC 7.

Actually there was a small fire in the basement of 130 Liberty Street, and a larger one in 90 West Street.

[MaGZ]

Actually there was a small fire in the basement of 130 Liberty Street, and a larger one in 90 West Street.

Is 90 West Street near the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile hit?

[DavidJames]

Is 90 West Street near the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex where the second missile hit?What is wrong with your brain that causes it to make claims without evidence?

How would you like your auto mechanic to make a diagnosis regarding your head pain, because that's exactly what you are doing?

How would you like a district attorney to charge you with murder based on the lack of evidence you find perfectly acceptable?

Do you have a job or go to school? Is it okay to make crap on a job or in school?

[Belz...]

No. The column will fail when it is heated to it's failure point. The loads are proportionate, that is, they were both under similar stress, but it would take much longer to heat the much thicker I beams with cover plates or web plates in WTC 7.

Thicker but with HEAVIER LOAD. Or are you saying that a steel columns would buckle even WITHOUT a load ?

It is NOT the 10 story gouge in question.
In the photograph, the first 7 floors cannot be seen.

But you DID see the large hole at the enter of the south face, didn't you ?

So you think Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent and the other firefighters were lying ?

False dichotomy and strawman. You're saying that they were wrong about the size of the hole. I'm simply pointing out that "wrong" doesn't necessarily mean that the hole was smaller than reported.

[Belz...]

There was debris damage and fire, therefore:
That's what caused WTC 7 to collapse

Is no more valid as evidence than

WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD.

I'm starting to see what's wrong with your reasoning, here.

YES, contra what you've said, it is more valid evidence. Debris damage and fire are actual things that were observed. "All the characteristics of an implosion" is YOUR interpretation of the collapse's behaviour. It is an assumption based on observation, not the observation itself. You seem to confuse the two.

[Belz...]

Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side.

Except the 10 storey hole you claim wasn't there. And the damage seen to the top of the building.

[Christopher7]

You are telling us what the misinterpretation is. Why should we believe you?Don't take my word for it. Read the statements i have listed, come to your own conclusion.
The 10 story gouge cannot co-exist with:

no heavy debris in lobby area

only damage to south facade of 9th floor at SW corner

Steel ripped out from between floors 3 and 6 across the facade on Vesey Street.

Inherent in this statement is: steel not ripped out below floor 3.
The 10 story gouge would not only rip out the steel from floors 1 through 3, they would be gone, not there any more.
Do you really think Battalion Chief Fellini didn't notice that ?

NIST Apx. L pg 24
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the south east corner of the south face.
Fire seen on floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.

[the floors below floor 14 were not obscured by smoke]

You completely discount the idea of any damage to the core columns at all based on your own characterization of the eyewitness accounts.No. The damage to core columns attributed to the '10 story gouge' did not happen as it would have left a lot of heavy debris in the lobby.

I have said that whatever ejected the elevators probably damaged/severed 1 core column.
You cannot just say it and assume it is so. There is evidence that the core was reached. You then state unequivocally that this means that there could be no other core damage than perhaps to one column.There is no evidence of damage to more than 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to the core columns except for the elevator cars being ejected.
No mention was made of the huge piece of debris that supposedly busted through the ceiling and ripped out the wall south of the elevator shaft.
It is more likely that an explosion, described by the people trapped on the 8th floor, ejected the elevator cars.

Steve Spak's website shows the:
"large debris hole near center of the south face around the 14th floor"
as being from column 5 to 8 [counting from SW corner]
This lines up with core columns 69 and 72.

You are assuming that this huge piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 nearly 100' as it would have to do in order to eject 2 elevator cars.

Where it is possible that your hypothesis is correct, it ain't bloody likely.
IMHO

[Christopher7]

Especially when you consider that all the reported damage was to the south west corner and the middle of the south side

Except the 10 storey hole you claim wasn't there. And the damage seen to the top of the building.
Even the '10 story gouge' was said to be in the middle.
The damage to the top of WTC 7 was west of center.

[jaydeehess]

I have said that whatever ejected the elevators probably damaged/severed 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to more than 1 core column.
There is no evidence of damage to the core columns except for the elevator cars being ejected.
No mention was made of the huge piece of debris that supposedly busted through the ceiling and ripped out the wall south of the elevator shaft.
It is more likely that an explosion, described by the people trapped on the 8th floor, ejected the elevator cars.

Steve Spak's website shows the:
"large debris hole near center of the south face around the 14th floor"
as being from column 5 to 8 [counting from SW corner]
This lines up with core columns 69 and 72.

You are assuming that this huge piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 nearly 100' as it would have to do in order to eject 2 elevator cars.

Where it is possible that your hypothesis is correct, it ain't bloody likely.
IMHO

Whereas your hypothesis is possible there is absolutly no evidence to support it whatsoever.

You keep repeating "WTC 7 has all the charisteristics of an implosion, therefore:
It was a CD." but have as yet to post any evidence other than the fact that the way the building fell as constituting 'all' the characteristics of a controlled demolition.

Your 'evidence' is still only 'it looked like it to me' and some guys stated that a loud noise that hundreds of people must have also heard, sounded like an explosion to them. No one saw an explosion. No one saw anything that would indicate an explosion. Any explosive cutting of columns in WTC 7 would require greater explosive power than is normally used in CD's since in a normal cd the column and the building in general is prepped to allow the demolition to occur in a predictable way and for the building to come apart easily. this simply could not be accomplised ahead of time in #7.

-You have no evidence of any prepping of the structure which would be characteristic of a controlled demolition.
-You have no evidence of explosive use on any structural member of WTC 7
-You have no evidence of any explosives being set off except a few weak arguements that can easily be ascribed to other effects.


I see now that in one of your last posts you now use 'implosion' as meaning demolition. Did you not in another post argue that "When a building falls in on itself, that's called an implosion, whatever the cause. "

You then stated that "The sequence of the collapse is consistent with the NIST report and a building implosion."

Since you have no evidence of explosives you have made it your mission to minimize or totally discount the effect of impact damage and fire on the building in order to attempt to show that the only thing left to explain the collapse is the use of those non-evident esxplosives.

,,,,,,, and that sir, is sophistry.

There were fires and heavy smoke was indeed emanating from south face, which was the lee side of the building that day.
There was damage that in at least one case reached the core of the building.

[jaydeehess]

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



Richard Banaciski
"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........



All the heavy smoke from the SW corner???
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum1.jpg
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg

[jaydeehess]

You are assuming that this huge piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 nearly 100' as it would have to do in order to eject 2 elevator cars.

the entire building is only 140' deep from south to north face

You have a better explanation for the ejected cars? (I do hope you are not buying the craziness of magic air-to-air missiles)

[MaGZ]

the entire building is only 140' deep from south to north face

You have a better explanation for the ejected cars? (I do hope you are not buying the craziness of magic air-to-air missiles)

A missile hit would be a better explanation.

Also, why not download the NOAA aerial photo of Ground Zero and take a look at the black missile crater and the burnt vehicles in the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex. This is where the second missile hit–passing by the Woolworth building parallel to Barclay Street and hitting in the open parking area. This is what you call EVIDENCE.

[uk_dave]

This is what you call EVIDENCE.

And I can show you a neat trick with a folded $20 note.

Some people, and you're definately one of them, will see whatever it is they want to see, regardless of how stupid it is.

[MaGZ]

And I can show you a neat trick with a folded $20 note.

Some people, and you're definately one of them, will see whatever it is they want to see, regardless of how stupid it is.

Have you seen the NOAA photo?

Is there any other explanation for the black crater and burnt vehicles?

[eddyk]

Anyone seen the Craig Bartmer video?

Any explanation?

[Christopher7]

Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

'It had very heavy fire on many floors."

There were no reports of fires in the proximity of the initiating event*, that led to the collapse of WTC 7, until about 2:00 p.m.

NIST Apx. L pg. 22 - 26

2:00 to 2:30
"fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at the SW corner........fires progressing north"
"Around 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face"
"Around 4:45 p.m. ........Floor 12 was burned out by this time"

*pg 31


There were no other reports of fire near the initiating event.


Richard Banaciski:
"I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on."

jdh:
All the heavy smoke from the SW corner???Are you trying to imply that those tremendous fires were in WTC 7 ?

[respublicus]

No. I dont believe there was any such gouge, there is no evidence nor any way it could have occurred.

still hanging in there Chris? They still haven't answered the first question?

I got a reminder from Jref so I'm posting one post. Got no time for more.



Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
The E-shaped building was a four-storey structure composed of concrete slabs supported by a structural steel frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place
The gleaming white building burned down in 1967, a shocking event as it was largely steel and concrete and was thought to be fireproof. However, the exhibits at the time were highly flammable and there were inadequate sprinklers and hydrants, thus the fire spread quickly and destructively,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
Major fire at toilet paper plant
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
(Photo looks like a small, 4 storey concrete building, full of intense orange flames.)

All 3 are small buildings made of reinforced concrete with intense fire occupying the entire building interior. Not comparable at all to the WTC which were steel skyscrapers and fire only in a small part of the overall structure.
People survived in the Towers up to the moment of collapse – the insides of the buildings were largely at room temperature or thereabouts.

In the toilet paper plant fire it says steel girders buckled. OK, but in the WTC, steel girders were chopped up in short lengths and some of them were ejected upwards and outwards into the air. Buckling by itself would only lead to the building sagging, not being pulverized!

Some 9/11 Lyers have been saying there were no explosions because they are not heard by the videos broadcast by the corporate controlled media. Note that the media are owned by corporations (6 companies control 96% of the media – see http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart ) and they are controlled by the super-rich – the same powerful few who control the CFR, CIA, and the war machine. Unfortunately, we have to come to grips with the fact that this is a big conspiracy coming from the top of our society, from the Owners, and the top is totally corrupt – the fish stinks from the head. In other words, the sounds of explosions could easily have been muffled out for TV viewers.

Distortion in the media for propaganda purposes is the rule, objectivity is the exception or exists only in theory.

However, there are videos of fireman describing the explosion (bam, bam, bam – a floor at a time, you know the one) and I recently was pointed to this short one, only 17 seconds, where you can clearly hear a big explosion. The camera goes off looking for the source of the sound, pointing upwards, apparently up into the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I#C40Hv04n8GU
you can very clearly hear a big explosion coming apparently from the towers and a policeman saying, "sounds like an explosion, I know" meaning it was not the first time he is hearing this.

The essence of it is that the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 not only look like controlled demolitions, they look ONLY like CD’s. This is the only known phenomenon that even closely resembles what we saw on 9/11, and they fit all the characteristics, such as free fall speed, which clearly is only possible if the supporting columns are blown out.

This is why I say it is too obvious and I don’t have patience to discuss this with people who to all appearences are either totally brainwashed, or maybe even being paid to cover up the conspiracy this way – that is with case-hardened 9/11 Lyers.

[beachnut]

No. I dont believe there was any such gouge, there is no evidence nor any way it could have occurred.

I got a reminder from Jref so I'm posting one post. Got no time for more.


The towers did not look anything like a CD. Debunked!

What speed did the fall out? Show your work please. You should have taken physics!

The only people telling lies are from the truth movement.

There is photo evidence there was damage from the towers falling and damaging WTC7. Wrong on your nor any way idea. Debunked!

[respublicus]

A 3rd possibility, other than brainwashed or shill, is confusion or obfuscation. You bring up too many moot points and then you can't keep track of them.

Keep it simple. It fits all the characteristics of a CD, and no other known phenomenon has these characteristics.

[beachnut]

A 3rd possibility, other than brainwashed or shill, is confusion or obfuscation. You bring up too many moot points and then you can't keep track of them.

Keep it simple. It fits all the characteristics of a CD, and no other known phenomenon has these characteristics.

No explosives were used. CD debunked! You have no proof.

If you could only use physics you could calculate some of this stuff. You do not know what speed the towers fell at do you?

All you have is what your truth movement spoon feeds you. Do you have any facts?

The only people brainwashed are those in the cult movement of truth. So how did they plant the explosives? Did they use thermite or thermate?

[beachnut]

A 3rd possibility, other than brainwashed or shill, is confusion or obfuscation. You bring up too many moot points and then you can't keep track of them.

Keep it simple. It fits all the characteristics of a CD, and no other known phenomenon has these characteristics.

Are you sticking with you 110 seconds for the total time the WTC should have fallen; and can you show your numbers, your work, your calculations?

[beachnut]

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?

This is so wrong it has made the funniest post for a truther. Your lack of physics is showing on this post. You have no idea how momentum works and proved it above.

Do you want to update your time and show your calculations? (got physics?)

[respublicus]

Googling for a list of characteristics common to WTC and CD, I hit on this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

It's about the twin towers which were not classic CD but it's a good list nevertheless.

[beachnut]

Googling for a list of characteristics common to WTC and CD, I hit on this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

It's about the twin towers which were not classic CD but it's a good list nevertheless.

Gravity is the only thing 9/11 has in common with CD. Simple fact.

BTW do you stand by your 110 seconds? (simple question)

[Firestone]

The essence of it is that the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 not only look like controlled demolitions, they look ONLY like CD’s. This is the only known phenomenon that even closely resembles what we saw on 9/11, and they fit all the characteristics, such as free fall speed, which clearly is only possible if the supporting columns are blown out.

This is why I say it is too obvious ...

Googling for a list of characteristics common to WTC and CD, I hit on this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

It's about the twin towers which were not classic CD but it's a good list nevertheless.:boggled:

Please, don't debunk your claims yourself.
Leave some fun for the other people on this forum ...

[respublicus]

Here we go

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

[Firestone]

Does this picture (http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/shattered/search2.jpg) not show the extend of the fires in WTC7?

(I have not followed the whole thread, so maybe this picture is well known. If so, sorry.)

[beachnut]

Does this picture (http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/shattered/search2.jpg) not show the extend of the fires in WTC7?

(I have not followed the whole thread, so maybe this picture is well known. If so, sorry.)

The truther will say it is smoke. But it looks like about 100,000 times more smoke than my back yard fire too hot to get close to.

Smoke = fire; lots of smoke = lots of fire

Good photo!

[respublicus]

If you believe in the pancake theory, then it is up to you to come up with a calculation for how long it would take each floor to collapse according to that theory. But any number greater than .01 seconds will not fit the observed evidence of a CD.

[respublicus]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html (Twin Towers)

The tops fell at near the rate of free fall (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html). The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.

[respublicus]

but as i said b4, post # 708, pancaking was impossible, so there is no real number.

[beachnut]

If you believe in the pancake theory, then it is up to you to come up with a calculation for how long it would take each floor to collapse according to that theory. But any number greater than .01 seconds will not fit the observed evidence of a CD.

I already told you how you ignored physics and used 110 seconds and you can not back it up with numbers. And now you want the building to fall in .01 seconds? Are you sure you have this right?

You failed to even come close to explaining. You just pulled the numbers out of the air.

You can not even tell anyone how much energy was stored in the WTC towers.

There is no evidence of CD; the time the buildings fell was due to gravity alone. Sorry you failed to get any training in physics but it is required to come close to the time that the towers fell. Simple momentum and modeling can be used and has been published in journals. Your google research has failed to help you. Try this report and prove it wrong before you continue to make up stories about 9/11 without facts.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf

What is wrong with this paper?

[Christopher7]

Does this picture (http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/shattered/search2.jpg) not show the extend of the fires in WTC7?

(I have not followed the whole thread, so maybe this picture is well known. If so, sorry.)
That picture shows a lot of smoke from the west end of WTC 7 and WTC 6.

There were no raging fires on the eastern half of WTC 7 where the initiating event started the collapse.

See post #807 for details

[beachnut]

That picture shows a lot of smoke from the west end of WTC 7 and WTC 6.

There were no raging fires on the eastern half of WTC 7 where the initiating event started the collapse.

See post #807 for details

No it shows smoke from raging fires; confirmed by many people you will ignore and thus fail to understand that WTC7 failed due to fire.

Proof is WTC7 fell with no explosives. No RDX sounds. No facts. The truth is, just fire fed with 20,000 gallons of fuel.

Lots of smoke means a lot of fire. (more stuff to debunk but it is a waste of time to even try since you now have a thread like the other chris's concrete core thread.)

[MRC_Hans]

Here we go

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/demolition.html

Observing the collapse of 47-story WTC 7 shows it to have all of the features of an implosion engineered by controlled demolition.

Not all of them. The explosions are lacking.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).


You know, things do tend to fall suddenly. Now, I don't want you to hurt yourself, but try this: Go to a gymn (they must have one in your school), find a barre, and hang in it by your hands (be sure it's not at a hight where falling will hurt you). Now, slowly relase your grip. At some point you fall. Will that be all of a sudden, or will you fall gradually?

Same with buildings. Buildings tend to stand till their structure cannot hold them up any longer. Then, suddenly, they fall.

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

This apparantly comes as a surprise to you, but things, and this absolutely includes buildings, when they fall, they fall, if at all possible, down. Straight down. The reason for this is that gravity works that way. Only if some sideways force, strong enough to divert the object, is in action, will it not fall straight down. A building like the WTC buildings weigh in excess of half a billion tons, so it will take a really big force to make it fall anything but straight down.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

Despite its massive weight, the volume of a building is actually some 80% air. There is a good reason for this: We make bouldings in order to have things inside them. Things like offices, equipment, people. Now when a building collapses, these millions of gallons of air have to escape, fast! Air escaping fast is, ..... yes, a puff. The dust? Do I have to explain to you how a collapsing building can generate dust?

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

Remember I just told you about the 80% air? That rubble pile is what's left once the air is taken away.

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.


Yeah, more or less. You see, when half a billion tons start falling, it takes quite a bit to slow them down.

.....

You know, collapsing buildings, especially 7WTC, look a lot like controlled demolitions. You see, it is really only the events leading up to the collapse that are different.

In a CD, the supporting structure is weakened at strategic spots by cutting away parts of it and finally blowing parts of it away with explosives.

In a case like 7WTC, the supporting structures were weakened by debris from the towers hitting the building and from extensive fires raging unchallenged for many hours.

Those were the differences. From the fraction of a second when the supports gave way and gravity took over, there is really no difference: Bereft of support, the structure collapses under gravity.

Interestingly, conspiracy theorists are always concentrating on this last phase. Instead, you should be explaining where the enorouos column of smoke billowing from the building came from, if not from extensive fires, and you should be explaining how and when demolishing engineers managed to rig the building for demolition, without anybody noticing, and you should explain the absense of the characteristic and very noticeable sharp high-explosive blasts needed to blow out dozens of heavy steel supports.

Remember that any explanations involving only a few, strategically placed charges, or the use of thermite, are an admission that it only took a little extra nudge to make the building fall, in which case you admit the high probability that it could have fallen due to the damages it received.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

If you believe in the pancake theory, then it is up to you to come up with a calculation for how long it would take each floor to collapse according to that theory. But any number greater than .01 seconds will not fit the observed evidence of a CD.

Respublicus: What is it that happens, in a CD, once the demolition charges have been detonated, and the building starts falling? Please describe what you think is happening.

Hans

[Christopher7]

No it shows smoke from raging fires; confirmed by many people you will ignore and thus fail to understand that WTC7 failed due to fire.
Read post #807
The fires were on the west end of WTC 7

Proof is WTC7 fell with no explosives. No RDX sounds.If you disregard Daryl and Craig

No facts, just fire feed with 20,000 gallons of fuel.The 20,000 gallons of fuel were recovered in the cleanup
[FEMA pg 15]

[Belz...]

Even the '10 story gouge' was said to be in the middle.
The damage to the top of WTC 7 was west of center.

So "in the middle" must mean "EXACTLY in the middle" ?

[Belz...]

A missile hit would be a better explanation.

You still haven't explained how an air-to-air missile would create such a large hole in a building.

[Belz...]

No. I dont believe there was any such gouge, there is no evidence nor any way it could have occurred.

Ridiculous. Images of WTC7 showing the hole were shown.

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

Define "suddenly"

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Incorrect. It damaged nearby buildings.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

Ah, yes. Let's blow up the TOP floors...

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

So ?

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Again... so ?

But any number greater than .01 seconds will not fit the observed evidence of a CD.

Gotta love circular reasoning.

[GlennB]

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.


I don't know how you can have such a strong opinion when it's such a trivial matter to prove this contention wrong :

30 W Broadway -
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7localdamage1.jpg

The Verizon building -

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/verizondamagedetail-2.jpg

[GlennB]

That picture shows a lot of smoke from the west end of WTC 7 and WTC 6.



No, the bulk of it is from WTC7

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

[Brainache]

No, the bulk of it is from WTC7

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


Is it wrong of me to say I can see a face in that smoke? Looks like Gimli.

[aggle-rithm]

How does falling steel debris from WTC 1 cause fires?


How do earthquakes cause fires?

[GlennB]

Is it wrong of me to say I can see a face in that smoke? Looks like Gimli.
shhhhh .... you'll get KillClown all excited

[jaydeehess]

A missile hit would be a better explanation.

Also, why not download the NOAA aerial photo of Ground Zero and take a look at the black missile crater and the burnt vehicles in the open parking area northwest of the WTC complex. This is where the second missile hit–passing by the Woolworth building parallel to Barclay Street and hitting in the open parking area. This is what you call EVIDENCE.


A sidewinder has 20 Kg of explosives, a Sparrow has 40 Kg of explosives and a Phoenix has 88 Kg of explosives in the warhead but that last one is simply not used in close quarter firings. (normally used for hitting aircraft that are 20 Km away) nor would anyone attempt to use them from a great distance on an aircraft that is flying at rooftop level of downtown Manhattan since the possibility of a hit is so very remote for either the heat seeking missiles or the radar lock type in such an enviroment.

So what you are saying is that this warhead entered the WTC 7 building and hit nothing else until it hit a structural column and then managed to hit it in such a way as to actually sever or severely damage that column.


Go back to reading fairy tales.

[jaydeehess]

That picture shows a lot of smoke from the west end of WTC 7 and WTC 6.

There were no raging fires on the eastern half of WTC 7 where the initiating event started the collapse.

See post #807 for details

No Chris, this picture (http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg) clearly shows a major fire at the eastern part of the building . Now you will state that it isn't near the initiating event. Fact is you simply do not know if it went in that far or not and NIST states that the initiation for the collapse could have been anywhere from floor 13 and down.

There are differing senarios two of which are; the initiation of collapse came from the mechanical floor where the deisel generator was, the collapse started at floor 12 where there was a large visible fire.

You still have offered nothing to back up the contention of the use of explosives other than that the building fell down and when a building is demolished using explosives it also falls down, and sometimes does so in a similar fashion as did WTC 7. That is all you have other than two guys who say it just had to be explosives that they heard.

You have NO physical evidence whereas NIST, in its preliminary report, concentrated on the physical evidence it had at the time and that was the multiple eyewitness reports and the video/photographic evidence.

[jaydeehess]

No. I dont believe there was any such gouge, there is no evidence nor any way it could have occurred.

So you don't believe that the gouge in the SW corner occured either then? You state that there was no way a 10 storey gouge could occur when in fact a 10 storey gouge a few dozen feet to the west indeed did occur.
BT to C7. The center of WTC 7 is just as far from (not closer as I said before) WTC 1 as the SW corner of WTC 7 is.

still hanging in there Chris? They still haven't answered the first question?

In fact several have.

To my knowledge Chris has not answered the question in the other thread concerning evidence of explosive use. It hasn't been answered in this thread either other than to say that the building fell down and two guys state that they heard explosions(and that, dangnabit, it had to be explosions, just hadda be)

I got a reminder from Jref so I'm posting one post. Got no time for more.

That's too bad. I'll miss you.



Kader Toy Factory:
http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0
The E-shaped building was a four-storey structure composed of concrete slabs supported by a structural steel frame.

Gee, steel farme, concrete flooring. Yep that's different than any WTC structure,,,,not.
4 storeys, now that's a difference but it also had no structural damage prior to the outbreak of the fire. The heat did indeed cause the collapse. So much for "no steel building collapsed due to fire".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCormick_Place
The gleaming white building burned down in 1967, a shocking event as it was largely steel and concrete and was thought to be fireproof. However, the exhibits at the time were highly flammable and there were inadequate sprinklers and hydrants, thus the fire spread quickly and destructively,

Again steel and concrete, no previous structural damage, and no effective fire fighting and it collapses due to heat. So much for "no steel building collapsed due to fire".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm
Major fire at toilet paper plant
"Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."
(Photo looks like a small, 4 storey concrete building, full of intense orange flames.)

Heat and fire but no previous structural damage and it collapses.So much for "no steel building collapsed due to fire".

All 3 are small buildings made of reinforced concrete with intense fire occupying the entire building interior. Not comparable at all to the WTC which were steel skyscrapers and fire only in a small part of the overall structure.
People survived in the Towers up to the moment of collapse – the insides of the buildings were largely at room temperature or thereabouts.I

You are aware that concrete survives fire much better than steel aren't you? If the amount of concrete was a factor it should have kept the buildings upright longer.

In the toilet paper plant fire it says steel girders buckled. OK, but in the WTC, steel girders were chopped up in short lengths and some of them were ejected upwards and outwards into the air. Buckling by itself would only lead to the building sagging, not being pulverized!

(one tries not go all ad hom on your ass but you make it difficult)
The columns were broken into approx 30 foot long sections and by some happy coincidence that is also the length they were when trucked to the site to be erected. Seems longer sections just would not fit down Manahhtan streets very well. It is obvious then the columns often snapped at the connections between these sections.



More later when I have time

[jaydeehess]

In the toilet paper plant fire it says steel girders buckled. OK, but in the WTC, steel girders were chopped up in short lengths and some of them were ejected upwards and outwards into the air. Buckling by itself would only lead to the building sagging, not being pulverized!

Odd that you would characterize the columns as being both "chopped up" and "pulverised" , care to make up your mind.
I would also like to see your calculations that illustrate that column buckling could only lead to the building sagging(or the calculations of someone who has lead you to this conclusion) and I'd also like your definition of what a 'sagging' building is.

Some 9/11 Lyers have been saying there were no explosions because they are not heard by the videos broadcast by the corporate controlled media. Note that the media are owned by corporations (6 companies control 96% of the media – see http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/front.shtml#chart ) and they are controlled by the super-rich – the same powerful few who control the CFR, CIA, and the war machine. Unfortunately, we have to come to grips with the fact that this is a big conspiracy coming from the top of our society, from the Owners, and the top is totally corrupt – the fish stinks from the head. In other words, the sounds of explosions could easily have been muffled out for TV viewers .

Distortion in the media for propaganda purposes is the rule, objectivity is the exception or exists only in theory.

Paranoid ramblings do not a vast, complicated, complex and unrequired plot to kill 3000 Americans, make.

However, there are videos of fireman describing the explosion (bam, bam, bam – a floor at a time, you know the one) and I recently was pointed to this short one, only 17 seconds, where you can clearly hear a big explosion. The camera goes off looking for the source of the sound, pointing upwards, apparently up into the towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I#C40Hv04n8GU
you can very clearly hear a big explosion coming apparently from the towers and a policeman saying, "sounds like an explosion, I know" meaning it was not the first time he is hearing this.

Once AGAIN, when a building is collapsing and large , heavy pieces of steel and concrete are slamming against each other what sound is it supposed to make, a whisper, a whine, a whistle or a boom?

I just watched a doc about the collapse of the largest crane in North America , known as "Big Blue". It broke apart in Milwaukee. The witnesses state that there was the sound of an "explosion" followed by a roar like a jet taking off. There was no explosion, there was no jet. The 'explosion' was the large bolt known as the kingpin snapping and the roar was the steelwork ripping apart as the crane and the 450 ton piece it was lifting slamming into the partially completed stadium.

The essence of it is that the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 not only look like controlled demolitions, they look ONLY like CD’s. This is the only known phenomenon that even closely resembles what we saw on 9/11, and they fit all the characteristics, such as free fall speed, which clearly is only possible if the supporting columns are blown out.

Actually 'free fall' is only possible if all supports on ALL FLOORS are simultaneously blown out.(do the math or have your 12th grade physics teacher do it for you) that is certainly not in evidence here. In fact it was not free fall in any building and especially not in the building for which this thread is concerned, WTC 7, which started coming apart at least 10 seconds before the north wall collapses.

This is why I say it is too obvious and I don’t have patience to discuss this with people who to all appearences are either totally brainwashed, or maybe even being paid to cover up the conspiracy this way – that is with case-hardened 9/11 Lyers.


You don't even have the patience to do any math or learn any physics why should you bother to actually attempt to back up far fetched assertions.

[jaydeehess]

If you believe in the pancake theory, then it is up to you to come up with a calculation for how long it would take each floor to collapse according to that theory. But any number greater than .01 seconds will not fit the observed evidence of a CD.

This is not a linear event. You continue in this fallacy born of your inability to grasp one of the first lessons in high school physics, that an acelleration means that travelling a set distance will take less time for each interval.

At an acelleration of 8.8 m/s2 ( 90% the acelleration due to gravity ) an object falling an initial 3 meters will do so in 0.826 seconds.
It will fall the next 3 meters in 0.342 seconds and the next 3 meters after that in 0.262 seconds, the next 3 meters in 0.221 seconds (that's 4 floors worth so far and it has taken 1.65 seconds)

5 floors, 15 meters takes 1.846 seconds, it would take 5.661 seconds to fall 141 meters, and 418 meters takes 9.75 seconds total.


That is at 10% LESS acelleration than free fall!

Even with the most parsimonious estimates of time of collapse all three buildings fell at less than 90% the rate a free falling (dense) object would.

If WTC 7 took 6.6 seconds to fall and it was 141 meters tall then it fell at an average acelleration of 6.47 m/s2 or 2/3rds the rate of free fall!!! Like I said this ignores the fact of the previous 10 or so seconds during which the center of the building was collapsing.

[Christopher7]

jaydeehess:

I forgot to put in 'until about 2 p.m.' My bad

I also said 'see post #807' which has the quotes from the NIST report and includes the 'until about 2 p.m.'

I get a 'Forbidden' msg. when i click on the link you posted but it's probably the fires on the 11th and 12th floors on the east side at the south corner, that first appeared about 2:00 to 2:30.

There are no reports or signs of fire on the 5th or 6th floor in the eastern part of WTC 7.
A diesel fire, hot enough to weaken the built up core columns, would need maximum air flow and would produce lots of smoke.

There were no reports of debris damage to the eastern part of WTC 7 so how did this fire get started ? How did the double wall pipe get severed in the area near columns 79, 80, or 81 ?

************************************************** ******
BTW
NIST did reassess it's damage assessment on the '10 storey gouge' but not in Oct. of '06 like Gravy said.

NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15

South face Damage
middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground

Notice that the gouged out is gone ?

NIST gave up the gouge nearly 2 years ago!

Why do you guys and gals still believe it existed ?

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

According to the NIST report:

There were no reports of fires in the proximity of the initiating event, that led to the collapse of WTC 7,

until about 2:00 p.m.

NIST Apx. L pg. 22 - 26

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:

Fire seen on floor 14* on the south face
Fire on floor 14 moved toward the east

* NIST Final 4-4-05 pg 21
Fire on floor 12; area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12 moved to the east face and progressed to the north

2:00 to 2:30
"fires on east face floors 11 and 12 at the SW corner........fires progressing north"
"Around 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along north face"
"Around 4:45 p.m. ........Floor 12 was burned out by this time"

There were no other reports of fire near the initiating event.

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

You didn't answer this question yet.
Are you trying to imply that those tremendous fires were in WTC 7 ?

[jaydeehess]

jaydeehess:

I forgot to put in 'until about 2 p.m.' My bad

I also said 'see post #807' which has the quotes from the NIST report and includes the 'until about 2 p.m.'

I get a 'Forbidden' msg. when i click on the link you posted but it's probably the fires on the 11th and 12th floors on the east side at the south corner, that first appeared about 2:00 to 2:30.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html third photo down the page.



There are no reports or signs of fire on the 5th or 6th floor in the eastern part of WTC 7.
A diesel fire, hot enough to weaken the built up core columns, would need maximum air flow and would produce lots of smoke.

There were no reports of debris damage to the eastern part of WTC 7 so how did this fire get started ? How did the double wall pipe get severed in the area near columns 79, 80, or 81 ?

The fire likely started further west and spread east. It could have started several floors below and spread upward through debris damage punctures in the floor pan. Are you suggesting now that the fires were deliberatly set? Do you have any evidence of this other than you can't envision how they got started?

If there was a peircing of the floor pan above the deisel room the smoke may well be exiting out that hole while air is coming into the room via the normal path by which the room in ventilated and the deisel supplied with air. That would put the smoke exiting the building on floors above that at which the fire is.

Given that the elevator cars were ejected it is also possible that large debris came through the south wall at the 14th floor , entered the elevator shaft jamming at the 6th or 7th floor, severing the elevator cables and any safety devices and causing the cars to plummet until they hit the top of that piece of debris which forces them out at the 8th floor. The impact first of the debris and then the elevator cars hitting it bends a column or columns near the elevator shaft and punctures(but not neccessarily severs) a deisel line, the deisel is running since the power to the building went out and the pooling fuel eventually ignites and continues to be fed by the supply system.(the smoke exiting the closed deisel room via the elevator shaft and through any floor above) The ensuing fire continues to weaken the columns that have already been bent out of shape by impact. The load on them is already higher than normal due to the severing of south wall perimeter columns which places more load (catenary action) on the core columns. The columns being heated compress under the load and thus load is shifted to nearby columns but this is in an area where loads are distributed in a way unique to WTC 7. This shifting of loads also causes other stresses on the columns and transfer beams that were never designed for. At some point the loads and no longer be distributed and one column fails completely initiating a dominoe effect first vertically and then with falling debris from above , also horizontally through the south columns responsible for carrying the building bulk over the original Co-Ed building ( a cantilever system with support columns on the north and south sides of the original Con-Ed) to fail on their south end pulling the mass obove the Con-Ed building to the south into the core area.



YES, I know I just made this up. i did so with a basic knowledge of how the building was constructed and what the situation in WTC 7 was following the collapse of #1.
You, on the other hand are making your story up based soley on the fact that the building collapsed and made a big noise as it did so. period, end stop

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


There were no other reports of fire near the initiating event.

Where the smoke exits is not neccessarily where the fire is. (similar to where your ceiling is leaking is not neccessarily where the leak in the roof is.)

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

You didn't answer this question yet.
Are you trying to imply that those tremendous fires were in WTC 7 ?


Perhaps that one witness was referring to the general area of the WTC complex. It really makes no difference. There were major fires in WTC 7!!

[eddyk]

Anyone seen the Craig Bartmer video?

Any explanation?

I hate to quote myself...but anyone?

It was recently in an article on prison planet.

It's pretty much like the EMT email...except it's a real guy speaking to dylan avery.

[jaydeehess]

I hate to quote myself...but anyone?

It was recently in an article on prison planet.

It's pretty much like the EMT email...except it's a real guy speaking to dylan avery.

just a thought but more people will respond if you post a link rather than require them to look for it. I know I would be more inclined to.

[eddyk]

I thought it was a well known thing.

http://www.jonhs.net/911/speak_out_bartmer.htm

[Christopher7]

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html third photo down the page.
Thats the one thanx.

The fire likely started further west and spread east. It could have started several floors below and spread upward through debris damage punctures in the floor pan. Are you suggesting now that the fires were deliberatly set? Do you have any evidence of this other than you can't envision how they got started?I don't know how the fires got started and i don't consider it an issue.
However, i would put 'electrical short' at or near the top of the list.

If there was a peircing of the floor pan above the deisel room the smoke may well be exiting out that hole while air is coming into the room via the normal path by which the room in ventilated and the deisel supplied with air. That would put the smoke exiting the building on floors above that at which the fire is.

Smoke would also be exiting thru the diesel room vents.

The 2 story mechanical room it in the center of the east side.
There are no reports of damage or fire in this area.
To damage the mechanical room, debris would have to bust thru floors 7 & 8. The smoke would be coming back up thru the debris hole.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7

Given that the elevator cars were ejected it is also possible that large debris came through the south wall at the 14th floor , entered the elevator shaft jamming at the 6th or 7th floor, severing the elevator cables and any safety devices and causing the cars to plummet until they hit the top of that piece of debris which forces them out at the 8th floor.That's good. Put it in the 'anything's possible' file.
It is still west of the mechanical area.
In any case, it's speculation, not evidence; but i like your thinking.

The impact first of the debris and then the elevator cars hitting it bends a column or columns near the elevator shaft and punctures(but not neccessarily severs) a deisel line, the deisel is running since the power to the building went out and the pooling fuel eventually ignites and continues to be fed by the supply system.so far, so good.
(the smoke exiting the closed deisel room via the elevator shaft and through any floor above)If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

The ensuing fire continues to weaken the columns that have already been bent out of shape by impact. The load on them is already higher than normal due to the severing of south wall perimeter columns which places more load (catenary action) on the core columns. The columns being heated compress under the load and thus load is shifted to nearby columns but this is in an area where loads are distributed in a way unique to WTC 7. This shifting of loads also causes other stresses on the columns and transfer beams that were never designed for. At some point the loads and no longer be distributed and one column fails completely initiating a dominoe effect first vertically and then with falling debris from above , also horizontallyIt's about this horizontal thing.

Every floor must have shear strength in both directions.
[bracing to keep the columns from bending to the side]
The lower floors of a 47 story building must have a great deal of shear strength to handle the stresses of holding up 47 floor building in a hurricane.
Floors falling down will tear away, they will not make 15 massive support columns buckle to the side.
I'm just a carpenter, but this is an easy one.

YES, I know I just made this up. i did so with a basic knowledge of how the building was constructed and what the situation in WTC 7 was following the collapse of #1.
You, on the other hand are making your story up based soley on the fact that the building collapsed and made a big noise as it did so. period, end stop I am basing my belief on what i see in the videos of WTC 7

First, the east penthouse falls. This takes about 5 - 7 seconds.

During this time, there is a hole being created so the east and west walls will fall inward.

Next, the rest of the center falls just before the outer walls, drawing them in.

The building falls very fast, some say at or near freefall, ......whatever.

The building falls mostly straight down and lands in a pile, mostly within its original footprint.

The surrounding buildings were of no concern.


http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/33/wtc7debris3bw2.jpg

Daryl was describing what he had just seen and heard.

What he described is consistent with a building implosion.
[no two implosions are exactly the same]

"....a [I]clap of thunder.........about [B]a second later the bottom floor caved out...."

The sound of the core of WTC 7 falling would be a rumbling, like distant thunder.
An explosion [or many explosions in rapid succession] sounds like thunder near by [ 2 - 4 sec. delay], that goes Ka-boom, rumble. [imho]

[Coritani]

I don't know how the fires got started and i don't consider it an issue.
However, i would put 'electrical short' at or near the top of the list.

Hrrmm. What did start the fires? I'm not too sure myself. I thought it was the debris that hit it caused the fires; indirectly or otherwise. Anyone else want to add some input on this?

Daryl was describing what he had just seen and heard.

Oh, Daryl again. The NYU med student with no experience in any relevant fields. I refuted this in the other thread ("C7 and C4"). Strangely, you never replied to my latest post.

What he described is consistent with a building implosion.
[no two implosions are exactly the same]

"....a clap of thunder.........about a second later the bottom floor caved out...."


A clap of thunder. That's it. Are you saying that only demolition charges (or other explosive device) could create this noise? Bear in mind that the building was collapsing.

The sound of the core of WTC 7 falling would be a rumbling, like distant thunder.


What makes you say this? From memory, steel failing actually makes a very loud bang. There's certainly a few videos hanging around on youtube or something that show this.

An explosion [or many explosions in rapid succession] sounds like thunder near by [ 2 - 4 sec. delay], that goes Ka-boom, rumble. [imho]

An explosion? Where does he say anything about an explosion? He said a clap of thunder. Even if it was an explosion, it does not mean that it was caused by a bomb.

Again, are you saying that only demolition charges (or other explosive device) could create these noises (or explosions)? Bear in mind that the building was collapsing.

[Gravy]

I'm just a carpenter, but this is an easy one.Then why is it so difficult for you to understand how wrong you are about this:

The ones who said the building was fully involved were wrong.

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.

I am basing my belief on what i see in the videos of WTC 7 How about talking to the people who were there?

Daryl was describing what he had just seen and heard.

What he described is consistent with a building implosion.
[no two implosions are exactly the same]

"....a clap of thunder.........about a second later the bottom floor caved out...."

The sound of the core of WTC 7 falling would be a rumbling, like distant thunder.

An explosion [or many explosions in rapid succession] sounds like thunder near by [ 2 - 4 sec. delay], that goes Ka-boom, rumble. [imho]More arguments from ignorance. Do you ever run out?

When structural steel fails suddenly, it makes an explosive sound. http://craneaccidents.com/bigblue.mpg

And there you have it. Please stop to think. You are making a fool of yourself.

[Christopher7]

Then why is it so difficult for you to understand how wrong you are about this:
What makes you so sure i'm wrong ?

How about talking to the people who were there?Do you think we should all track these people down and ask them ?

More arguments from ignorance. Do you ever run out?
When structural steel fails suddenly, it makes an explosive sound. http://craneaccidents.com/bigblue.mpgYou are comparing a crane outside with the collapse of the core of a building but you have demonstrated that there are two possible explanations.

You did not dispute the following:

[Christopher7]

The 2 story mechanical room it in the center of the east side.

There are no reports of damage or fire in this area.

To damage the mechanical room, debris would have to bust thru floors 7 & 8.
The smoke would be coming back up thru the debris hole.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7



If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Smoke would be pouring out of the louver vents

[Christopher7]

Hrrmm. What did start the fires? I'm not too sure myself. I thought it was the debris that hit it caused the fires; indirectly or otherwise. Anyone else want to add some input on this?
Anything other than responding to the lack of damage and fire to the mechanical room.

Oh, Daryl again. The NYU med student with no experience in any relevant fields. I refuted this in the other thread ("C7 and C4"). One does not have to be an expert at anything to describe what they heard and saw.

A clap of thunder. That's it. Are you saying that only demolition charges (or other explosive device) could create this noise? Bear in mind that the building was collapsing.No.
It could have been steel breaking, as Gravy pointed out.
or
It could be a large explosion, or many small explosions in rapid succession.

[MaGZ]

Hrrmm. What did start the fires? I'm not too sure myself. I thought it was the debris that hit it caused the fires; indirectly or otherwise. Anyone else want to add some input on this?

A missile impact on the 14th floor.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

[MaGZ]

You still haven't explained how an air-to-air missile would create such a large hole in a building.

It is now unclear to me what caused the gouge in the building or if it ever existed. Some here are saying the gouge is from the 10th floor to the bottom on the south side. There is reported damage on the 14th floor with black smoking emanating from the area.

The missile impact I saw taken by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio shows debris flying out at a high rate of speed. I am now unsure such a massive hole could have been made by an air-to-air missile.

[MaGZ]

Does this picture (http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/shattered/search2.jpg) not show the extend of the fires in WTC7?

(I have not followed the whole thread, so maybe this picture is well known. If so, sorry.)

A lot of this smoke in the photo is from building WTC 6 which was severely on fire after the collapse of WTC 1 on top of it.

[Sultanist]

Forgive me if this is an unnecessary contribution.
But I've been reading this thread for the first time. I got through the first page of posts and I noticed by that point no one had provided either...
1. The "Steve Spak photo". Which is the photo of the south face of 7 WTC which first began circulating last year and which clearly shows the "gouge" (or "hole") in the south face of the building which several firefighters reported witnessing up close while standing at the base of the building.
and 2. the Firehouse Magazine interviews with those firefighters in which the hole in the face of the building is described.

I just didn't want to have to read through all 22 pages of the thread to confirm whether or not this information has been provided.
But in the off chance that it is has not been, I will be glad to provide it.

[MaGZ]

The 20,000 gallons of fuel were recovered in the cleanup
[FEMA pg 15]

How do we know if this is true. The entire 20,000 gallons that supposedly soaked into the ground was retrieved? Where is the evidence there were environmental hazzard crews on the ground to retrieve the oil?

It seems to me if a decision was made to pull WTC7 then it would be necessary to first burn off the oil.

[MaGZ]

Forgive me if this is an unnecessary contribution.
But I've been reading this thread for the first time. I got through the first page of posts and I noticed by that point no one had provided either...
1. The "Steve Spak photo". Which is the photo of the south face of 7 WTC which first began circulating last year and which clearly shows the "gouge" (or "hole") in the south face of the building which several firefighters reported witnessing up close while standing at the base of the building.
and 2. the Firehouse Magazine interviews with those firefighters in which the hole in the face of the building is described.

I just didn't want to have to read through all 22 pages of the thread to confirm whether or not this information has been provided.
But in the off chance that it is has not been, I will be glad to provide it.

I am not entirely familiar with the "gouge debate" so please provide the photo.

[MaGZ]

I don't know how you can have such a strong opinion when it's such a trivial matter to prove this contention wrong :

30 W Broadway -
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7localdamage1.jpg

The Verizon building -

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/verizondamagedetail-2.jpg

Why is this damage to 30 West Broadway only to the top of the building and not at the bottom? Where exactly is this damaged building in relation to WTC 7?

The floors on 30 West Broadway look burnt.

Damage to only the top of a building.....I wonder.

[MRC_Hans]

Why is this damage to 30 West Broadway only to the top of the building and not at the bottom? Where exactly is this damaged building in relation to WTC 7?

.From a page you linked to yourself: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/911_wtc_map.gif

Hans

[MaGZ]

How do earthquakes cause fires?

A break in gas lines.

[MaGZ]

From a page you linked to yourself: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/911_wtc_map.gif

Hans

Is the building in question on Broadway or Barclay?

The photo you link says 30 W Broadway.

[MRC_Hans]

Is the building in question on Broadway or Barclay?

The photo you link says 30 W Broadway.What photo? It is a map. Seems to be on Barclay and West St.

Hans

[Firestone]

30 W Broadway is +/- North of WTC 7:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-1/1140103/kaart_WTC.jpg

[jaydeehess]

If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Yes and this is not neccessarily where the fuel supply pipes were punctured. In fact if there was a fuel fire then it is more likely that the line was punctured some distance from the generator. The generator is in one room and the door of a generator room is a good seal. The fuel is never in the same room. The louvers open to the outside for the generator room. Its been a long time but it seems to me that the fuel came from another floor through pipes that ran up the elevator shaft or nearby then ran horizontally to the generator.

Every floor must have shear strength in both directions.
[bracing to keep the columns from bending to the side]
The lower floors of a 47 story building must have a great deal of shear strength to handle the stresses of holding up 47 floor building in a hurricane.
Floors falling down will tear away, they will not make 15 massive support columns buckle to the side.
I'm just a carpenter, but this is an easy one

Yes that is true but you also know for certain that there is very significant damage to the south face perimeter columns. This requires that the core columns bear the load south of the core in a catenary fashion. That is a stress that would stress those columns toward the south at the level of the damage to the perimeter putting some of those columns at or near their shear limit already as well as adding to the copression load they are carrying. This was most certainly occuring at the SW corner and likely was also happening wherever a south face perimeter coulmn was taken out.

You are a carpenter , ok imagine a typical wood frame house with a center load bearing wall as well as the load bearing outer wall. Remove several 2 X 4's along one outside wall. The load transfers to the center supports and adjacent outer wall members. You know very well that there is a reason for 16 inch centers. What happens if you build to 32 inch centers?(you are an American correct? I don't have to convert to centimeters right?)

MaGZ, the fuel tanks were damaged but relatively intact in the basement of WTC 7. The fuel was removed from them during the clean-up.

You still haven't answered my query as to how an air-to-air missile manages to hit a structural column deep within a building and cause enough damage to bring the building down.

[beachnut]

A missile impact on the 14th floor.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

Our young neoNazi from the nationalvanguard white supremacist site is trying to show a photo of damage done by the towers and claim that as a missile strike. He does not understand how small a missile is.

MaGeeeZeeeee your source is a neoNazi site; it really makes it false by association. The whole article has holes in it. Your time line of damage is also wrong. There were no missiles; no one saw missiles; you are showing us your neoNazi roots; based on lies and worse.

[jaydeehess]

I thought it was a well known thing.

http://www.jonhs.net/911/speak_out_bartmer.htm


Not really relevent to this thread. His complaint is about the alledged cover-up of the toxicity of the dust.

[MaGZ]

Yes and this is not neccessarily where the fuel supply pipes were punctured. In fact if there was a fuel fire then it is more likely that the line was punctured some distance from the generator. The generator is in one room and the door of a generator room is a good seal. The fuel is never in the same room. The louvers open to the outside for the generator room. Its been a long time but it seems to me that the fuel came from another floor through pipes that ran up the elevator shaft or nearby then ran horizontally to the generator.



Yes that is true but you also know for certain that there is very significant damage to the south face perimeter columns. This requires that the core columns bear the load south of the core in a catenary fashion. That is a stress that would stress those columns toward the south at the level of the damage to the perimeter putting some of those columns at or near their shear limit already as well as adding to the copression load they are carrying. This was most certainly occuring at the SW corner and likely was also happening wherever a south face perimeter coulmn was taken out.

You are a carpenter , ok imagine a typical wood frame house with a center load bearing wall as well as the load bearing outer wall. Remove several 2 X 4's along one outside wall. The load transfers to the center supports and adjacent outer wall members. You know very well that there is a reason for 16 inch centers. What happens if you build to 32 inch centers?(you are an American correct? I don't have to convert to centimeters right?)

MaGZ, the fuel tanks were damaged but relatively intact in the basement of WTC 7. The fuel was removed from them during the clean-up.

You still haven't answered my query as to how an air-to-air missile manages to hit a structural column deep within a building and cause enough damage to bring the building down.

Thanks for the clarification on the diesel tanks. Also I read there were some diesel tanks on the second or third floors, is that correct?

I never suggested the missile brought WTC 7 down. I believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The missile damaged the souther face on the 14th floor. I am uncertain how much damage the missile did.

[eddyk]

Not really relevent to this thread. His complaint is about the alledged cover-up of the toxicity of the dust.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm

The video on the link I posted doesn't work for me...is it the same as in that link?

I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth."

I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down.

[jaydeehess]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm

The video on the link I posted doesn't work for me...is it the same as in that link?

It didn't work for me either. I was going by the text below the video window which dealt with the dust issue.

[jaydeehess]

Thanks for the clarification on the diesel tanks. Also I read there were some diesel tanks on the second or third floors, is that correct?

I never suggested the missile brought WTC 7 down. I believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The missile damaged the souther face on the 14th floor. I am uncertain how much damage the missile did.


There were several deisel tanks in the building.

However if this were a demolition orchestrated by evil people then they would care nothing about setting off explosives with tanks full of fuel in the building. They , according to standard CT contention, have just killed thousands of Americans and destroyed a $billion dollars worth of structures and sent the economy into a tailspin. .... but are you trying to say they'd be concerned about a few more thousand gallons of deisel fuel spilled about?

If this were a demolition due to the building being so unsteady as to require that it be demolished then they simply would have said so. They did that to other buildings in the complex.

[fezzic]

2 x 12,000, 2 x 6,000 gallon tanks at underground level, 1 x 6,000 gallon on 2/3 floor, smaller (under 300 gallon) tanks on 5, 7, 8, 9th floors.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 5-14, Table 5.2

20,000 gallons recovered from the 2 x 12,000 gallon tanks after the events.

[Christopher7]

Is the building in question on Broadway or Barclay?

The photo you link says 30 W Broadway.
This thread is about the lack of evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis [WTC 7]
In particular, the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST Apx. L report
Kindly stop spamming this thread and allowing those who want to bury the facts that i have been presenting, in an endless debate on other subjects.
Please start your own thread if you want to talk about missiles and other buildings.

[jaydeehess]

Is the building in question on Broadway or Barclay?

The photo you link says 30 W Broadway.


Take a few adult education classes and learn to read.
Do you require someone to type in posts for you?

[Arus808]

This thread is about the lack of evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis [WTC 7]

of which that there are tons of evidence, you just happen to ignore them


In particular, the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST Apx. L report

it was a "best" guess on their part based on testimony by eyewitnesse,s the firefighters report, and images and videos captured that day.

You know what best guess is right?

[Christopher7]

Forgive me if this is an unnecessary contribution.
But I've been reading this thread for the first time. I got through the first page of posts and I noticed by that point no one had provided either...
1. The "Steve Spak photo". Which is the photo of the south face of 7 WTC which first began circulating last year and which clearly shows the "gouge" (or "hole") in the south face of the building which several firefighters reported witnessing up close while standing at the base of the building.
and 2. the Firehouse Magazine interviews with those firefighters in which the hole in the face of the building is described.

I just didn't want to have to read through all 22 pages of the thread to confirm whether or not this information has been provided.
But in the off chance that it is has not been, I will be glad to provide it.
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/2698/wtc7holeanalysiscrop1pr.jpg

This photo shows the "large debris hole near the center of the south face around floor 14" [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

http://wtc.net.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

I have a copy but not the URL's for the FM interviews.
Go ahead and post them.

[Christopher7]

How do we know if this is true. The entire 20,000 gallons that supposedly soaked into the ground was retrieved? Where is the evidence there were environmental hazzard crews on the ground to retrieve the oil?
FEMA Chapter 5 pg 15

"...the 20,000 gallons that were recovered..."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport/WTC_ch5.pdf)

[if clicking on link doesn't work, copy and paste URL]

[Coritani]

Anything other than responding to the lack of damage and fire to the mechanical room.


Pot, Kettle, etc. I did notice that you didn't respond to all of my post.


One does not have to be an expert at anything to describe what they heard and saw.

True.

No.
It could have been steel breaking, as Gravy pointed out.
or
It could be a large explosion, or many small explosions in rapid succession.

Exactly! It is NOT evidence of a CD. There are many explanations for a 'clap of thunder' sound, which is quite ambiguous, and I'm not sure how you got 'bomb' from 'clap of thunder'.

[Christopher7]

Yes and this is not neccessarily where the fuel supply pipes were punctured. In fact if there was a fuel fire then it is more likely that the line was punctured some distance from the generator. The generator is in one room and the door of a generator room is a good seal. The fuel is never in the same room. The louvers open to the outside for the generator room. Its been a long time but it seems to me that the fuel came from another floor through pipes that ran up the elevator shaft or nearby then ran horizontally to the generator.
"The risers were in one of the two utility shafts in the west end of the building" [FEMA pg 14]

The SSB supply pipe ran behind a wall [on the 5th floor] that is on the north side of the mechanical room.

ie: a few feet north of the northernmost row of core columns.
[about 100' from the front of the building]*

this is the only fuel pipe in the east half of WTC 7

The 6,000 gallon tank is located between low rise elevators [next to column 70] between 2nd and 3rd floors .........lol


*WTC 7 140' deep, source?

[Gravy]

What makes you so sure i'm wrong ?I know you're an admirer of Killtown, but are you now a student of his? You made up your mind about the "inside job" before you had even read the reports that are relevant to your arguments. Nothing will change your mind. Your claims are unfalsifiable.

In all of your arguments, you think that, based on a few photos or videos you've seen, you know more than the people who were right there when the events unfolded. You don't just think that: you insist on it, and you claim that these photos and videos contain all the proof you need of an inside job.

Well, what are you going to do about it?

Very much like another Chris who posts on this forum, you only focus on small perceived "anomalies" and are unable or unwilling to put them in context with all the evidence.

Also like the other Chris, when one argument of yours is blown out of the water, you desperately search for another "anomaly" and cling to it like death. You do this again and again and again.

Your deeply flawed methods have caused you to be wrong about every 9/11 issue. You are disconnected from reality. It's disturbing to see.


Do you think we should all track these people down and ask them ?No, Chris, I think YOU should. Your claims, your burden of proof. I have no idea why you can't understand that.

You are comparing a crane outside with the collapse of the core of a building but you have demonstrated that there are two possible explanations.You misunderstand my example. I showed you that structural steel can fail explosively under strain.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7

If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Smoke would be pouring out of the louver ventsWho claims that diesel engines were running at 12:10 to 12:15?

[LashL]

FEMA Chapter 5 pg 15

"...the 20,000 gallons that were recovered..."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport/WTC_ch5.pdf)

[if clicking on link doesn't work, copy and paste URL]


It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?

[Gravy]

Why is this damage to 30 West Broadway only to the top of the building and not at the bottom? Where exactly is this damaged building in relation to WTC 7?

The floors on 30 West Broadway look burnt.

Damage to only the top of a building.....I wonder.Your ineptitude is thrilling. Look at the aerial photo above. The building at left is 30 W. Broadway.

[Christopher7]

Pot, Kettle, etc. I did notice that you didn't respond to all of my post.
I don't have time to respond to every statement of every post, so i skip the insults and the rhetorical or off topic questions.

True.Thank you

It is NOT evidence of a CD.That is subject to interpretation.

There are many explanations for a 'clap of thunder' sound, which is quite ambiguous, and I'm not sure how you got 'bomb' from 'clap of thunder'.We have two possible explanations so far, can you think of another?

I said 'explosion', not 'bomb'.

[Christopher7]

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?
The FEMA and NIST reports contain a great deal of basic information about WTC 7.

All the tanks, pipes and generators were in the west end of the building,

except for the 4 SSB generators in the north east section.

The supply line to these generators was the only possible source of a fuel oil fire in the east end of WTC 7.

[LashL]

The FEMA and NIST reports contain a great deal of basic information about WTC 7.

etc. etc.



So, since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask it again:

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?

[Dog Town]

So, since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask it again:

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?

I wonder why 20k+ gallons, might have caused fires? Hell... half it, just 10!
Twoofers are idiots! Next!

[Christopher7]

Who claims that diesel engines were running at 12:10 to 12:15?
FEMA pg 15:

It is believed that they came on at 9:59.

[Coritani]

I don't have time to respond to every statement of every post, so i skip the insults and the rhetorical or off topic questions.

I decided to intervene on the Darryl statement because I had refuted it before, but you never replied.

As for skipping part of my post, you skipped two parts: the part about the noise of the core failing (you said it'd be a rumble) and the source of the 'explosions' you claimed existed. I don't see these as rhetorical, off topic or insulting.

Thank you

:)

That is subject to interpretation.

How is hearing a 'clap of thunder' evidence of a CD? Especially since noone else has reported a 'clap of thunder' being heard seconds before collapse. It's not audible on any video either.

We have two possible explanations so far, can you think of another?

Off the top of my head:

electrical systems shorting
transformers blowing
generators failing
steam pipes bursting
debris and steel beams falling down elevator shafts


There is also the 'steel failing' explanation as well.

I said 'explosion', not 'bomb'.

Sorry, I thought you were parroting one of the CF's favourite equations: Explosion = bomb. If you aren't saying that these explosions are bombs (or demolition charges, or whatever) then you don't really have a point. :confused:

Either way, the 'clap of thunder' does not necessarily mean an explosion - there are other explanations (listed above). And, even if there was an explosion of some sort, there are explanations to where that came from as well.

[Gravy]

FEMA pg 15:

It is believed that they came on at 9:59.I asked who claimed the diesel generators were running at 12:10 to 12:15. You directed me to the FEMA report. It does not make such a claim. It presents a hypothetical case, and in fact states that it is believed that some of the generators stopped running due to air intake contamination.

Your claims are not advanced by strawman arguments.

[Christopher7]

I wonder why 20k+ gallons, might have caused fires? Hell... half it, just 10!
Twoofers are idiots! Next!

All the tanks*, pipes and generators were in the west section of WTC 7.

* 6,000 gal. tank in center between 2nd and 3rd fl.

except for the 4 SSB generators in the north east section

[They were supplied by a pipe running across the building]

see FEMA pg 14

[Pardalis]

Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?

[Gravy]

Chris, why don't you wait for the final report?That question occurs to rational people, but Chris is not rational. He made up his mind about this stuff before reading any reports, and the reports he's read since haven't changed his uninformed, kooky opinions. He's only interested in reports for the "anomalies" he can fixate on and fetishize. He's a true woo believer.

[Christopher7]

I asked who claimed the diesel generators were running at 12:10 to 12:15. You directed me to the FEMA report. It does not make such a claim. It presents a hypothetical case, and in fact states that it is believed that some of the generators stopped running due to air intake contamination.

Your claims are not advanced by strawman arguments.
My point was; no one is 'claiming' they came on or stayed on.

If the generators came on, the pumps would be pumping fuel oil to the north east section of WTC 7.

If they did not come on or shut down, then there would be NO fuel oil to burn in the east section of WTC 7.

[LashL]

So, since you still haven't answered the question, ChristopherX, I'll ask for the third time,

It's probably best to wait for the final NIST report on WTC7 but since you're using the FEMA report re: 20K gals of fuel being recovered, it seems fair to ask this:

So, what do you suppose happened to the balance of the 43,000 gallons of fuel that were on site at the time?

It's a simple, straightforward question, Chris. Surely, you can provide a simple, straightforward answer to it instead of avoiding it repeatedly.

[Christopher7]

That question occurs to rational people, but Chris is not rational. He made up his mind about this stuff before reading any reports, and the reports he's read since haven't changed his uninformed, kooky opinions. He's only interested in reports for the "anomalies" he can fixate on and fetishize. He's a true woo believer.
What?

You want to ignore the information [that isn't going to change] contained in these documents.

Gravy, just last September, when NIST Apx. L was 2 1/4 years old, you insisted that i read it.

You said it was evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire.

Now it's 2 3/4 years old and you want me to fagidabodit.

I keep re-reading these documents and finding things that i had missed like:


The only fuel oil in the eastern part of WTC 7 was a pipe running across the building.

Also, the only generators on the east side of WTC 7 were in the north east section of WTC 7.

These basic facts about the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, is not going to change in the final report.

[Christopher7]

So, since you still haven't answered the question, ChristopherX, I'll ask for the third time,
It's a simple, straightforward question, Chris. Surely, you can provide a simple, straightforward answer to it instead of avoiding it repeatedly.
Terribly sorry to keep you waiting.

I don't know.

[Arus808]

then last time, WAIT FOR THE FINAL REPORT. All this posturing is not doing a thing anyway. You are taking the claims of preliminary report and acting as if its the "above all/say all/concrete" findings.

IT ISN'T

So why dont you WAIT Till the final report is released, forget this thread and start a new one when the WTC 7 report is done and for you to read.

[rwguinn]

Terribly sorry to keep you waiting.

I don't know.

Gee-
Someone who conclusively correlates "a thunderclap" sound to correlation can't figure out where 23000 gallons of kerosene might have gone during a fire...

[Christopher7]

Either way, the 'clap of thunder' does not necessarily mean an explosion - there are other explanations (listed above). And, even if there was an explosion of some sort, there are explanations to where that came from as well.
True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.

[Christopher7]

then last time, WAIT FOR THE FINAL REPORT. All this posturing is not doing a thing anyway. You are taking the claims of preliminary report and acting as if its the "above all/say all/concrete" findings.

IT ISN'T
Actually, i was quoting facts, not claims.
The data about where the fuel oil tanks were located, will not change in the final report, unless you are assuming FEMA didn't get anything right.

The fact that there were only 4 generators [floor 5] and NO fuel oil tanks in the east part of WTC 7 is very important.

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.

It is not on fire.

So why dont you WAIT Till the final report is released, forget this thread and start a new one when the WTC 7 report is done and for you to read.We don't need to wait for the final report to look at the data [not the cliams] that is contained in the many official government reports that have been released.

[Coritani]

True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.

Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?

[Christopher7]

Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?
No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.

[Gravy]

Gravy, just last September, when NIST Apx. L was 2 1/4 years old, you insisted that i read it.Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.

Now it's 2 3/4 years old and you want me to fagidabodit.Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.

I keep re-reading these documents and finding things that i had missed like:


The only fuel oil in the eastern part of WTC 7 was a pipe running across the building.

Also, the only generators on the east side of WTC 7 were in the north east section of WTC 7.

These basic facts about the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, is not going to change in the final report.By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.

[Gravy]

No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.
As we know, when buildings collapse, they make loud noises. Next.

[Gravy]

If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.

It is not on fire.

We don't need to wait for the final report to look at the data [not the cliams] that is contained in the many official government reports that have been released.To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.

[Gravy]

True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.But since there were hundreds of people there, including explosive demolitions experts, who did not describe hearing or seeing anything like demolitions charges going off, we'll assign that possibility to the "vanishingly small" category.

[Christopher7]

Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.
I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.

[Gravy]

I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?

The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.
Please present the data that support your claim, for the 7 hours that the building was on fire. Now would be good. Fair enough?

[Christopher7]

To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.
Right

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.

[Christopher7]

Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?
I've got a better idea. Instead of getting into a pissing match, lets ponder the data in the FEMA report.

Page 14 is very informative.

It lays out where all the fuel tanks, risers and generators are located.

The text starts on page 13 and runs to page 16.

The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room. [along core column row 58 - 79]

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7.

This basic data is of course, essential to any investigation.

Do you think it is incorrect ?

If not, then according to the data, the only place near the initiating event that could have had a fuel fire was the generator room at the north east corner.

[twinstead]

I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

All that really shows christopher7 is that you had already decided that WTC was a CD BEFORE you had even done a proper investigation.

Now it appears, IMHO, that you are just working backwards from that initial predisposition looking for any anomalies or inconsistencies, no matter how small or irrelevant, in an otherwise pretty solid report to try to justify your beliefs.

What kind of kooky investigation is that?

[Gravy]

Um, Chris, who said the diesel fuel was the cause of the collapse?

Not FEMA. In fact, they assigned a low probability to that hypothesis.

That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?

[Gravy]

What kind of kooky investigation is that?

This kind of kooky investigation.


Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:




"That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people." :con2:



"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11." :rolleyes:



"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.
I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning." :confused:


"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do." :jaw-dropp



"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!" :eye-poppi



"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense." :solved2



"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person." :eek:



"This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)" :boggled:


"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation." :hb:




"Can you name one Senator or Rep. calling for an independent investigation or saying "911 was an inside job"." :notm



"This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread." :shocked:



"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice. What more do you need to know ?" http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml



On David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report Omissions":

"It's a lot to read folks, but read it as if your freedom depended on it becaues it DOES!"



"Oh please, are a gluten for insipid pseudo-scientific gibberish?" :gasp:



"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"



"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one." :wide-eyed



"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes." :hypnotize



"I have been doing a lot of research on 911 and spreading the truth by giving copies of Loose Change and a 4 min. video on wtc7 to everyone I come in contact with."
:dl:



Chris: "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise."

gumboot: "CD is distinct compared to what?"

Chris: "another CD."

gumboot: "???"




"In Shanksville a 575 hit filldirt at a 40 degree angle
A better comparison would be a tennis ball hitting an egg after bouncing off a brick wall."
:bricks:



"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"



"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"
:hit:



"This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely. Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes. Look at this 4 min. video." :drool:



"Killtown: Excellent!
Anyone [not in deep denial] who takes the time to study your page,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/11/faked-shanksville-crater-and-burnt.html
will agree that the Shanksville crash site is either probably or definately a fake." :teacher:



"Can you possibly believe that a 757 completely burried itself, tail and all?
The coroner found NO body parts, NO blood." :mad:



"At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs."



"There were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT."
:jaw:
"It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer."



"The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber." :talk003:



"The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE." :tongue-ti


"The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!" :j2:



"Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns." :talk034:



"So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause." :re:



"There simply is no other explanation." :bs:


"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise." :mgbanghead


"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." :mgduh

"Denial will not protect you from reality." :id:

[Belz...]

I am basing my belief on what i see in the videos of WTC 7

You're basing a belief on layman interpretation, nothing more.

The building falls mostly straight down and lands in a pile, mostly within its original footprint.

The surrounding buildings were of no concern. [imho]

Then you've covered all the bases. "Mostly" within its original footprint allows you to accept the fact that surrounding buildings were damaged while simultaneously clinging to your contention that it looks like a controlled demolition. Convenient, if contradictory.

[Belz...]

It is now unclear to me what caused the gouge in the building or if it ever existed. Some here are saying the gouge is from the 10th floor to the bottom on the south side. There is reported damage on the 14th floor with black smoking emanating from the area.

The missile impact I saw taken by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio shows debris flying out at a high rate of speed. I am now unsure such a massive hole could have been made by an air-to-air missile.

Air-to-air missiles are designed to take down planes, remember ? Planes are flimsy things, compared to buildings. You've seen the damage. You've seen that 7 WTC was intact when WTC 2 collapsed. What is your conclusion, so far ?

[Belz...]

That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?

In fact, it isn't even definitive evidence that there wasn't fire in that area when the picture was taken.

[Belz...]

This kind of kooky investigation.


Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:



Well this certainly puts things into perspective.

I'm happy that MY friends who, at one time, thought 9/11 was an inside job were able to be convinced by actual evidence and reasoning, unlike Chris.

[jaydeehess]

The 2 story mechanical room it in the center of the east side.

There are no reports of damage or fire in this area.

To damage the mechanical room, debris would have to bust thru floors 7 & 8.
The smoke would be coming back up thru the debris hole.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7



If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Smoke would be pouring out of the louver vents

-If the generator is running it is drawing outside air IN through the louvers.
-Given the ejected elevators it is quite possible that the smoke is exiting the fire area via the elevator shaft acting as a chimney.
-The generators are separated from the rest of the building by walls and doors. Only if the fire were actually in the same room would smoke have any chance of exiting via the louvers.(assuming that the door was shut, a good bet IMO)
-The fuel fire need not be near the generator as you point out the fule line runs almost the length of the building.
-The day tank draws fuel from the basement tanks.
-Given that there was a fire on 7th floor and the number of fires in the area of the WTC complex of buildings all that the "no heavy dust or smoke" reference means is that the FF's could walk about on 8th floor without too much difficulty.
-There was both the fuel distribution line running the length of the building and a 6000 gal tank in the east elevator shaft between the 2nd and 3rd floor.


All of this indicates the possibility of a fuel fire near the east elevator shaft and thus near the east end of the core structure where the initial event that lead to collapse occured.
FEMA is diligent to point out that this requires more information to determine whether or not the generators were running at the time.

What really seems to trouble many CT's is that definitive information is still lacking. Why is it so very difficult to see that getting such information would be very difficult? In any 'normal' catastrophe it is well known what the initial conditions of a structure were.
In the case of the Murrah building we know that a bomb went off a known distance from the front of the building, we know the type of explosive, we know the condition of the building at the time of the blast.
In the case of the WTC towers we know the speed and mass of the aircraft, where they hit the towers and the testimony of people who were in the building.
In the case of WTC 7 we do not know the exact nature of the physical damage caused by the impact of unknown parts of WTC 1. We have only the testimony of a few workers and the FF's who all were out of the building quite a while before the collapse.

The fact that different groups of experts have looked at the limited available data and come to somewhat different possible causes is not unusual.

NIST concentrated on the towers because that is where people died and NIST's job is to reccommend standards for building safety.

AFTER they finished with the towers they came back to WTC 7 and will release a more in depth report soon.

*WTC 7 140' deep, source?

You have said you read the reports.

NIST report page L-1, paragraph L.1.3
WTC 7 was a 47 story commercial office building, completed in 1987. Its location relative to the WTC
Plaza is shown in Fig. L–1. It contained approximately 2 million ft2 of floor area. The overall
dimensions of WTC 7 were approximately 330 ft long, 140 ft wide, and 610 ft tall.

FEMA report figure 5.1
shows the distance between the south facade and north facade as 144'5"

The cantilever girders are described on page 5-7
They start at the north wall and extend for 6'9" to their north support coulmn then extend a further an additional 46 feet to the core for a total of 52'9" from the north facade to the north side of the core. Doing the math the northern most part of the core structure is 91'8" from the south facade.

[jaydeehess]

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.


No, the fire, if there were one , would have to have been outside the room in which the generator was and indeed that room was separated from the rest of the building including much of the supply line by wall and a door.

[jaydeehess]

"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"

You actually stated that Chris?

Confronted with the oft used CT arguement that the heat of fires should have been conducted away by the heavy steel and not allowed it to heat up such that it lost significant strength, I have asked, "why then is it deemed neccessary to install fire insulation on heavy structural steel?".

Your quote above is the closest anyone has come to attempting to answer that question, even though it would be doing so by asking another question.

The standards that determine what type of fire protection to put on structural members is designed by people who actually make a life's work of studying the effect of fire on such things.

All laymen know that solid steel simply does not burn in any situation one can envision. Some laymen also know or could deduce that heating steel will cause it to become soft(malleable). Any intelligent person who has seen a blacksmith work on iron will inuitively grasp that basic concept.
However you attempt to extrapolate that first bit of lay knowledge and ignore the second and come to what amounts to a questioning of the wisdom of the experts in this feild who do make an in depth study of such matters. You ignore the entire body of work known as fire engineering and substitute your own 'common sense'.

__________________________________________

There is a local handyman in my home town who is of the opinion that 'one nail is all that you need'.

I recently replaced a front door frame for a friend. We started on removing the old frame and saw a nail and pulled it out. We then searched the door frame for the others nails. There were none we could find. So I hauled off and gave the frame a hard smack and sure enough the whole frame came loose. It was held in place by ONE nail, a 3 inch finishing nail. That door frame had been like that for 30 years. My friend had noted that when the door was shut hard that it seemed to shudder the whole frame but he had never thought anything of it. It was also noted that the frame seemed to shift a lot causeing the door to stick. Sure , one nail held it together for 30 years but only out of shear luck. Had anyone tried breaking into the house all they would have to have done would be to give the door a good ram with the shoulder or boot of a big guy and that one piddly nail would not have held. So, in your expert carpenter's opinion was the local handyman(actually he is now deceased for more than a decade) right? He was the one who orginally installed that door.

[Christopher7]

This kind of kooky investigation.
Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:

"That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people."
"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11."
"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.I won't settle for a bandaid,We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning."
"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."
"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"
"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."
"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person." "This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)"
The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."
"Can you name one Senator or Rep. calling for an independent investigation or saying "911 was an inside job"."
"This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread."
"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice. What more do you need to know ?" http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml
On David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report Omissions":
"It's a lot to read folks, but read it as if your freedom depended on it becaues it DOES!"
"Oh please, are a gluten for insipid pseudo-scientific gibberish?"
"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].
There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"
"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one."
"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes."
"I have been doing a lot of research on 911 and spreading the truth by giving copies of Loose Change and a 4 min. video on wtc7 to everyone I come in contact with."
Chris: "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise."
gumboot: "CD is distinct compared to what?"
Chris: "another CD."
gumboot: "???"
"In Shanksville a 575 hit filldirt at a 40 degree angle
A better comparison would be a tennis ball hitting an egg after bouncing off a brick wall."
"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"
"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"
"This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely. Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes. Look at this 4 min. video."
"Killtown: Excellent!
Anyone [not in deep denial] who takes the time to study your page,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/11/faked-shanksville-crater-and-burnt.html
will agree that the Shanksville crash site is either probably or definately a fake."
"Can you possibly believe that a 757 completely burried itself, tail and all?
The coroner found NO body parts, NO blood."
"At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs."
"There were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT."
"It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer."
"The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber."
"The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE."
"The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!"
"Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns."
"So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause."
"There simply is no other explanation."
"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise."
"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."
"Denial will not protect you from reality."
Instead of reading the FEMA report to and discussing the data therein, you wasted a lot of time investigating me.

Do you ever debate the evidence and the data ?

When you can't deny the evidence and/or the data, you waste a lot of time and space trying to discredit the messenger.

NIST gave up the "gouged out" [in the statement on pg 18] in the 4-5-05 final report.

Now i have done some more research and discovered that the only location where a fuel fire could have occured near the initiating event, was in the north east corner of WTC 7 and as of around 3 p.m., it was not on fire.

These indisputable facts make it clear that fuel fed fires did NOT play a part in the initiating event.

Your response to facts you can't deal with, is to talk about something else.

Please take the time to double check the facts i have noted and see weather or not they are correct.

You will find that they are.

[Coritani]

No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.

If these were Demolition Charges going off, how come the Demolition teams didn't hear them?

How do you know that these are explosions, rather than someone describing them as explosions?

Do you have any evidence that these 'explosions' are Demolition charges going off, and not anything else?

[jaydeehess]

Instead of reading the FEMA report to and discussing the data therein, you wasted a lot of time investigating me.

Do you ever debate the evidence and the data ?

When you can't deny the evidence and/or the data, you waste a lot of time and space trying to discredit the messenger.

NIST gave up the "gouged out" [in the statement on pg 18] in the 4-5-05 final report.

Now i have done some more research and discovered that the only location where a fuel fire could have occured near the initiating event, was in the north east corner of WTC 7 and as of around 3 p.m., it was not on fire.

These indisputable facts make it clear that fuel fed fires did NOT play a part in the initiating event.

Your response to facts you can't deal with, is to talk about something else.

Please take the time to double check the facts i have noted and see weather or not they are correct.

You will find that they are.


Please point to anyone stating that such a fuel fire would have been in the room containing the generators Chris!!

I have mentioned this several times and you ignore it. You accuse Gravy of talking about other things, a fashion of arguement that you are just as guilty of!

[twinstead]

Instead of reading the FEMA report to and discussing the data therein, you wasted a lot of time investigating me.

Do you ever debate the evidence and the data ?

LOL

You're kidding, right? What debate have YOU been reading? Have you read Gravy's papers? He has done PLENTY of investigation, and is quite capable of debating the evidence and data.

Unfortunately, you don't want to hear any evidence that contradicts your world view. When the only response he gets to rational, detailed discussion about ALL the evidence is fingers in the ears LA LA LA or some lame ideological diatribe, then all that is left is to then use your own words against you.

[Christopher7]

If these were Demolition Charges going off, how come the Demolition teams didn't hear them?
I don't know

How do you know that these are explosions, rather than someone describing them as explosions?All we know for sure is, Daryl heard what sounded like a clap of thunder.

Do you have any evidence that these 'explosions' are Demolition charges going off, and not anything else?asked and answered

[Coritani]

I don't know

I thought you'd say that. Perhaps because there were no demolition charges going off?

All we know for sure is, Daryl heard what sounded like a clap of thunder.

Okay. Did anyone else?

asked and answered

So that's a no then. No evidence. That's it.

Chris, aren't you seeing that using Daryl's testimony as evidence of a CD is dumb at best?

[Christopher7]

Please point to anyone stating that such a fuel fire would have been in the room containing the generators Chris!!
No one has stated where the fuel fed fires were exactly.
I'm just pointing out where they were not.

I have mentioned this several times and you ignore it. You accuse Gravy of talking about other things, a fashion of arguement that you are just as guilty of!Wrong.

My posts [with references] are about the damage to WTC 7 based on the research i have done.

Gravy's posts ignore the subject at hand and are primarily of the 'attack and insult the messenger' variety.

Instead of researching the data that i used to support my statement, he researched me.

You are a serious, intelligent debater, Gravy is not.

[Christopher7]

I thought you'd say that. Perhaps because there were no demolition charges going off?

Okay. Did anyone else?

So that's a no then. No evidence. That's it.

Chris, aren't you seeing that using Daryl's testimony as evidence of a CD is dumb at best?
We disagree.

[Coritani]

We disagree.

:jaw-dropp

You just admitted that you have no evidence. Yet you still disagree.

I am dumbfounded.

[jaydeehess]

No one has stated where the fuel fed fires were exactly.
I'm just pointing out where they were not.



Why point out that the fires were not in the generator room?
I, for one, am quite aware that the generators were along the walls not in the core section of the building.
You already know the location of the tanks and supply lines. Fires along the supply lines would not neccessarily create smoke out the louvers. There are locations along the supply lines that come close to the area of collapse initiation where smoke would not, of neccessity, exit via perimeter openings on the floor where the fire is.

No one has even stated that fuel fires were present. This is just one possibility that was noticed by one group looking into WTC 7.

Had there been any real evidence that planted explosives were used they would have examined that idea as well.
If there were any evidence that a massive space based beam weapon was employed they would have looked into that as well.(I believe that you don't subscribe to the beam conjecture. Your evidence of explosives is about as strong as beam weapons in space IMHO)

[jaydeehess]

Concerning laymen's opinions on how things work.

Self and bookcase units that one can buy at Home Depot are inexpensive, look pretty good and relatively easy to assemble.

Why are they not as good as ones made by a cabinet maker using plywood or seasoned, dimensional, solid lumber?

Obviously, to you or I, the Home Depot ones are made of particle board with a thin veneer of real wood(if you're lucky, otherwise its a plastic veneer) and under load this will slowly sag. If it gets damp it will quickly swell and buckle. Plywood and solid wood will resist such swelling and support a load much better and longer.
This is analogous to laypersons coming to conclusions about fire damage in steel structures. "My steel wood burning stove survives high heat, surely a large building made of steel should do better".

[Christopher7]

Why point out that the fires were not in the generator room?
That is the only place where there could be a fuel fed fire near the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

I, for one, am quite aware that the generators were along the walls not in the core section of the building.Most people are not aware that the only generator room on the east side of WTC 7 was in the north east corner of floor 5.

You already know the location of the tanks and supply lines. Fires along the supply lines would not neccessarily create smoke out the louvers. There are locations along the supply lines that come close to the area of collapse initiation where smoke would not, of neccessity, exit via perimeter openings on the floor where the fire is.One would have to assume that there was NO ventilation in the middle northern section.

No one has even stated that fuel fires were present. This is just one possibility that was noticed by one group looking into WTC 7.True

Had there been any real evidence that planted explosives were used they would have examined that idea as well.The physical evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be analyzed.
Some volunteers from the Structural Engineers Association of NY salvaged a few pieces of WTC 7 steel for FEMA [the govt. wasn't interested]
They were not analyzed or mentioned in either the FEMA or the NIST report [that i know of]

[Gravy]

These indisputable facts make it clear that fuel fed fires did NOT play a part in the initiating event.I never claimed they did, you certifiable kook.

"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense." So when are you going to present this evidence to a prosecutor, Chris?

Why are you here whining about fuel lines?

[Christopher7]

I never claimed they did,
Thank you.

Now that we have eliminated fuel fed fires in the initial event area,

[debris hole around floor 14 was just west of center, fuel pipe 90' from front of WTC 7]

let's look at the only fire in the initial event area.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Looking from the SE corner at the south face:

Fire on floor 14 [revised to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05]*

Fire on floor 12* moved toward the east face.

2:00 to 2:30 p.m.

Fire on east face floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north.

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


Around 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

Around 4:45....floor 12 was burned out by this time.

[Arus808]

what happened on the north face (the side that wasn't affected by the collapse of tower 1 or the debris that fell from tower 1) doesn't matter all that much. Since the damage was REPORTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

[Christopher7]

Sometime after 3:00 pm

Fire on floors 8 and 13 [north wall]

Fire on floor 8 progresses to east corner and moved to east face.

[Gravy]

Second time:

You say you have all the evidence you need.

So when are you going to present this evidence to a prosecutor, Chris?

[Christopher7]

Second time:

You say you have all the evidence you need.
Really?

When did i say that?

So when are you going to present this evidence to a prosecutor, Chris?I'm still workin on it

Here's what i have so far:

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner
A large hole around the 14th floor just west of center
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner
Part of south wall gone on floor 8
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8
Explosion heard on floor 8

***

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occured.

***

There was a fire on the 12th floor

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire later fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out


The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

[Gravy]

Second time:

You say you have all the evidence you need.Really?

When did i say that?
CHRIS: ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? I POSTED YOUR QUOTES JUST A FEW POSTS AGO.


Chris Sarns:

"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."

"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."

"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person."


Third time, Chris Sarns: you say you have all the evidence you need. When will you be presenting it to a prosecutor?

[Christopher7]

CHRIS: ARE YOU MENTALLY ILL? I POSTED YOUR QUOTES JUST A FEW POSTS AGO.


Chris Sarns:

"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."

"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."

"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person."


Third time, Chris Sarns: you say you have all the evidence you need. When will you be presenting it to a prosecutor?
The photographic evidence is enough for me but not for a prosecutor.

This is why i have been reviewing the data contained in the FEMA and NIST Apx. L reports.

The data on where the tanks pipes and generators were will not change in the final report on WTC 7.

The data on where the fires were, and the timeline of the progression of those fires, will not change in the final report.

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

NIST has revised it's assessment of the damage to the south face from:

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

to:

"South face damage -
middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of south face, 10th floor to ground" [NIST final 4-5-05]

Based on new photographs, they have assessed the damage to the south face again, and will publish their findings in the final report.

It is unlikely that they found evidence of major damage to the east 1/3 of WTC 7, that had gone unnoticed by Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesey.

Note: 11:30 a.m.- 2:30 p.m.
Looking from SE corner at the south face:
Fire on floor 12

Inherent in this statement is: No fires below floor 12 on the eastern part of WTC 7

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

I listed these facts in post #938

No one should take my word for it. This is far too important.

I will post my summary again, with references, so that you can verify every statement for yourself.

I encourage everyone to take the time to review and verify these statements.

[Christopher7]

NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[copy and paste in URL bar]

[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
[NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner
[FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

***

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.
[see post # 910]

***

There were a fires on floor 8 and 12.

NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26:

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

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

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Why point out that the fires were not in the generator room?

That is the only place where there could be a fuel fed fire near the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No it isn't and you are fully aware of that fact.


Quote:
I, for one, am quite aware that the generators were along the walls not in the core section of the building.

Most people are not aware that the only generator room on the east side of WTC 7 was in the north east corner of floor 5.

It is not the location of the generators that is of greatest significance in this and that has been pointed out to you several times now

Quote:
You already know the location of the tanks and supply lines. Fires along the supply lines would not neccessarily create smoke out the louvers. There are locations along the supply lines that come close to the area of collapse initiation where smoke would not, of neccessity, exit via perimeter openings on the floor where the fire is.

One would have to assume that there was NO ventilation in the middle northern section.

The generator is in a separate room behind a door and the ventilation for the generator draws air in via the louvers. A fuel fire near the elevators may well use the shaft as a chimney.

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occured.


You do not have enough information upon which to make this definitive determination and you are ignoring, misrepresenting or denying any evidence that it may have occured.

You have stated many times that the evidence of demolition of WTC 7 by explosives is clear but have as yet not provided anything other than the report of the sound of an explosive detonation by persons who cannot be said to be experienced in such things and who did not see any evidence of an explosion. You have added to this that the building 'looked' like a controlled demolition which amounts to the fact that in both cases buildings fall down and gravity works.

Will you be showing us anything else?

The physical evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be analyzed.
Some volunteers from the Structural Engineers Association of NY salvaged a few pieces of WTC 7 steel for FEMA [the govt. wasn't interested]
They were not analyzed or mentioned in either the FEMA or the NIST report [that i know of]

It seems then that you are saying that the complete and utter lack of any corroborating evidence of your controlled demolition conjecture is to be, by itself, evidence that corroborates your conjecture of controlled demolition.

By that thought process you should be a suspect in the latest murder in your hometown.

[Christopher7]

No it isn't and you are fully aware of that fact.
I wish to differ with you on that point, at length.

It is not the location of the generators that is of greatest significance in this.....
The generator is in a separate room behind a door and the ventilation for the generator draws air in via the louvers. A fuel fire near the elevators may well use the shaft as a chimney.True
[still assuming there is no ventilation in the area where the fire is]
However:

The fire would not be near the initiating event.
[The failure of column 79, 80 and/or 81]

It would be near column 70, in the middle of WTC 7


A piece of debris would have to:

take out 3 perimeter columns
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" thick steel and concrete floors
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts
thru the wall and into the hallway
take out a core beam
break thru a concrete masonry wall
break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor

to get to the fuel pipe, 90' inside the building.

[Gravy]

Hey, Chris, it's me, Mark Roberts, speaking to you from planet Earth.

You know: the real world.

You said:

"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."

"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"

"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."

"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person."

"This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)"

"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."

"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"

"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."

"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes."

"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one"

"This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)"

"That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people."

"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice.

What more do you need to know ? http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml"

"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11."

"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.
I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning."

"The patriot act NULLIFIES HALF of the Bill of Rights"

"YES! Have you read the quote from The Project for the new AMERICAN Century? Refering to the need build up our military " this transformation is likely to take a long time, absent a catalizing event like A NEW PEARL HARBOUR". This was published in 2000. Members include Cheney, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz (sp) and Jeb Bush."

"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."

"This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread."

"The Loose Change interview in Vanity Fair and the CSPAN airing of Scholars for 911 truth are the first cracks in the wall. Send them some love."

"When a clear majority of Americans come to grips with the fact that 911 was an inside job, things will bust wide open and the corperate controlled news media will have to stop denying it. There will then be a MAJOR upheval because this is a global problem."

"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"

"You forgot the part about 'peer review' by other qualified Phd's who CONFIRMED their findings."

"If nothing else, read this one article:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

re: Kevin Ryan (executive at Underwriters Labratory)

Since UL had certified the steel for the trade towers he was concerned.

He did the apropriate testing and concluded that the fires in the towers COULD NOT have caused the steel to fail.

This bad news may ruin your decade, but ignoring it will ruin your future."


"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise.

The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE.
The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!"

Can anyone possibily believe that the Pentagon, had NO air defences on 911?
***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.
***
Let's look at something that cannot be reasonibly disputed.

Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

***
Do you believe that the Pentagon was defenceless on 911?
***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.
**

Now this is not rocket science, Cheney KNEW thers was a plane headed for Washington. Thats's a FACT. The 'orders' could ONLY have been to NOT shoot the plane down.

***
Can you possibly believe that the PENTAGON was DEFENCELESS on 911, that there was NO on site radar or anti aircraft ability? At very least they would have stinger missels and certianly a lot more very sophisticated stuff.

***
Can anybody believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11 ?

The airplane came in at 7,000 ft., made a 330 degree turn while decending to less than 100 ft. and ramed th Pentagon.

Can you possibly believe that there was NO anti aircraft misles to protect our nations' capitol, that they coulden' stop a plane they knew was coming ?

***

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no decernible reckage outside the building

***

We need only show that the 'official story' is false

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no discernible wreckage outside the building

***
Chris TRIES TO LECTURE ANTI-SOPHIST ON THERMODYNAMICS

Sigh, I'm going to have to teach you basic science, aren't I?

***

The evidence that the Pentagon was hit by someting other than a 757 is right in front of you but you just can't deal with it. Antisophist said the tail "is incredibly weak" and thats why it didn't do any damage. You use a poor analogy about a car. There's no way to ignore the FACT that tail of a 757 would have done some damage.

You're grasping at straws. At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs.

***
You are ignoring the FACT that the tail didn't do ANY damage.
Yes, the wings would do more damage, but the tail would have done SOME.
Forget the analogies and look at what is in front of you.

***

I am NOT a no-planer! I have stated that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon because the tail of a 757 would do 'some' damage.

***

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no decernible reckage outside the building

***

We need only show that the 'official story' is false

1) The tail did not damage the building

2) The fuselage did not damage the spools

3) There is no discernible wreckage outside the building

***
Chris TRIES TO LECTURE ANTI-SOPHIST ON THERMODYNAMICS

Sigh, I'm going to have to teach you basic science, aren't I?

***

The evidence that the Pentagon was hit by someting other than a 757 is right in front of you but you just can't deal with it. Antisophist said the tail "is incredibly weak" and thats why it didn't do any damage. You use a poor analogy about a car. There's no way to ignore the FACT that tail of a 757 would have done some damage.

You're grasping at straws. At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs.

***
You are ignoring the FACT that the tail didn't do ANY damage.
Yes, the wings would do more damage, but the tail would have done SOME.
Forget the analogies and look at what is in front of you.

***

I am NOT a no-planer! I have stated that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon because the tail of a 757 would do 'some' damage.

***
Gumboot: explosions don't = explosives but it's certally a strong possibility, especially since there were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT.

***
I haven't heard of any fires between the impact zone and the lobby, have you?
No smoke, no fire. Nothing to cause anything to explode.

***

What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?

******

There's a couple problems with the "kerosene" causing an expolsion.
The kerosene would be burning all the way down and would not have had enough bang left to blow the elavator doors off and dislodge huge marble panels, and why only the lobby?

Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns.
The explosions in the basement were huge and had to have been pre positioned demolition charges. (or just one hellofa coinsidence)
An expolsion big enough to destroy the machine shop and a 50 ton hydrolic press was definately NOT caused by kerosene.
The whole kerosene = explosion in the lobby is f*in rediculous.

******
It burns faster but it does not EXPLODE with enough power to blow elevator doors, and why did it not blow the doors off the 27th floor or the 67th floor. There was a HUGE explosion in the basement that completely destroyed the machine shop. It's a bit more likely that this was the cause of the distruction in the loby.

***
On the angle-cut piece of steel that has torch marks on it:
Note the sides have been cut and the ends have been 'melted' and re-hardened like candlewax.

***

The firemen were pulled off the 'pile' after a few days, when rescue operations ended and recovery operations began.
The question is: Were there people cutting beams during those first few days and if so, why was this core beam cut ?

***
Now i dont have a physics degree, im just a commoner using common sense, but it seems to me that a sizeable portion of the of the central framework would have remained standing.

***
Dont even tell me that 50 stories of this massive central framework, after surviving the collapse, 'broke' at hundreds of joints, not to mention all the cross bracing joints.


***

It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer.


THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE THEORY
WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

***
The fact that there was very little fire on the north side IS THE EVIDENCE!

***

84 pages of spin [nitpick and talk it to death] cannot explain how a 47 story steel framed building disninigrated into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds. All 4 corners and the walls between them started falling at the same time. Only a controlled demolition could cause all 57 exterior support beams to fail at the same time.
There simply is no other explanation.

***

They are videos, he's an expert, he analyzed them, there will be no follow-up analysis because his analysis was:
"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

*******

However.........................It doesn't explain how all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time. My belief is 'no fire could burn so perfectly as to heat 58 steel I beams to the fail point at the same time, especially the 2 corners of the north side'.
The bldg. had to have been riged for demolition BEFORE 9-11 and therein lies the rub.
Fact is, all 58 exterior columns did fail at the same time, it was NOT a case of progressive collapse.
**
You avoided the FACT that all 58 exterior support columns failed at the same time.
What's your spin on that?
**
You won't address the FACT all 58 exterior columns failed at the same time.
No way could a fire burn so perfectly.
**
Then all 58 exterior steel columns fail at the same time, as would be expected in a CD.
Please take a look and decide for yourself.
**
I'm a contractor and i understand construction. A failure in the center will not cause all the exterior walls to fall, much less at the same time. The only way that can happen is if all the exterior supports fail at the same time.
***
No way could a fire cause all 58 exterior support columns to fail at the same time or cause a steel frame building to collapse into a pile of rubble.
**
Not by NIST, all they got was a walk through. Who inspected the steel and what if anything did they say about the precisely cut ends?

***
The firemen had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they lost a lot of people.
Their assumption that WTC 7 was going to fall IS NOT EVIDENCE that it fell due to fire!
***

Should read: "WTC7 was not hit by a plane but fell faster than free fall speeds in air.
Thats where you got into trouble.
The conclusion in the video was, "WTC 7 fell 100m in 4.5 sec. The same time required for a 100m free fall in a vacume"
They said 'approximately' in their first statement, so discussing free fall in air or in a vacume [.2 sec.] is kinda mute.
Using high school physics, The video shows, clearly, the building fell AT freefall speed.
This issue has been debated for a long time and now you have provided the scientific evidence that even Antisophist can agree with.
ie:
WTC 7 collapsed at free fall speed

************
The proof that they LIHOP is in the video of WTC 7
The only thing that can make a 47 story building disinigrate into a pile of rubble in freefall is a CD.
You can see the framework section mentioned in this video leaning up aginst the Vorizon building at the right.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7
Heres a close-up of a beam that has been cut with an acetylene torch and/or a shaped charge

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

We agree that WTC 7 fell at free fall speed
Lets add 'straight down'. The NIST report says WTC 7 landed mostly in its original footprint.
All the exterior supports failed at the same time
The only thing that can make that happen is a CD.

*******

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall and landed mostly in its original footprint.
Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?

WTC 7 disinigrated into a pile of rubble in free fall and landed mostly in its original footprint.
A CD can make a 47 story building disinigrate into a pile of rubble in freefall.
Can anyone site another cause for a global collapse in freefall and mostly into the original footprint ?
So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause.

***

The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber. Everything else only expands on what i could see and deduce from that short but gutwrenching video.
***

WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

No way could a fire burn so perfectly as to bring straight down a 47 story bldg. in 6.5 sec. (freefall 6 sec.) and land (mostly) in it's own footprint.

Look at this 4 min. video and make up your own mind.
***
My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense

***

Since the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed , this honest expert analysis of the best surviving evidence [the videos] is the best possible evidence of a controlled demolition at this point.
Dexter, Eugene: Have you looked at these videos? What do you think?

**
If you still don't believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, look at this 4 min. video.
**
Here's a 4 min. video about wtc7: for those of you who don't have a lot of time.
**
The 4 min video i mentioned has several pictures of a section of wtc7's framework leaning up aginst the building next door. The steel i beams have been cut midspan, this is consistant with a CD.

**
see this 1 min. 46 sec. video of WTC7 side by side with a CD

it should be considered as an alternate hypothesis.
**
About a year ago I saw the video of wtc7 falling straight down (in 6.5 seconds) for the first time. Having seen the special about the Loisoux(sp) family and how they perfected the fine art of building 'implosion', I understand what it takes to 'implode' a building (getting it to fall straight down, thus minimizing damage to surrounding buildings).

I reconized right away that it was an 'implosion' (controlled demolition).
This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely.
Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes.
Look at this 4 min. video
**
Can you still clame that it DOESN'T look like a controlled demolition?
If not then why didn't any govt. inquiry even MENTION this possibility?

Please view this video and respond. Thank you
**
MarkyX: Did you look at the 4 min. video?
**
Obviously you didn't look at the video because it shows WTC7 and another CD just like it side by side.

Please ...... take a couple min.....look at it with an open mind, then tell me what you think.

**
My conclusions are bassed on the evadence, not on what someone told me.
I have compiled a 4 min video of evadence about wtc7. Please take a few munites and view it.

**
Look at this 4 min video. Can you honestly say this DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?
**
Please, look at this video an respond. Thank you.
**
Gravy: You didn't mention the 4 min. video.
Did you look at it?
If so, what is your responce?
**
I've yet to find anyone who can sucessfully spin this video.
WTC7 looks like and therefore could be a controlled cemolition.
There is NO mention of this POSSIBILITY in ANY govt. report!
**
THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTRIOED
The NIST report is bassed on PICTURES AND VIDEOS
If you are willing to accept their hypothesis bassed on videos, why won't you accept my videos as evadence of a CD

***
Have you seen this 4 min. video?
Or this new video from Italy showing wtc7 and a controlled demolition of a steel frame building side by side?

***
Here's a new video from Italy. It shows wtc7 side by side with a controlled demolition.
**
There are some gaping holes in the 'official' story.
This 4 min. video on wtc7 points out one.
and this 1 min. 46 sec. vioeo from Italy.

**
Did you look at this video that Snakesforbrains provided?
It's just 1 min long. Take the time, listen and learn.

***
Take the time to look at a few of the videos listed on the sites Vector417 posted.
I did

***

I'm calling you out, Chris Sarns.

Me, Mark Roberts. Do you stand by these statements, O ye of great experience in the construction industry?

Do you? If not, exactly how have you altered your opinions? Exactly which statements do you now retract?

You have been called out, Mr. 63-64 year-old construction contractor.

Provide your evidence now.

[Christopher7]

Love ya Gravy

I am truly honored, that you took all that time, to gather together my posts from 3 forums.

However, this thread is about the debris damage and fire to WTC 7.

If you would like to discuss my former posts, start a thread for it, call it the Gravy v C7 pissing match.

Meanwhile, i thought i'd post this again in hopes you might read it and post something relevant.


NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

[copy and paste in URL bar]

[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground
[NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner
[FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

***

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.
[see post # 910]

***

There were a fires on floor 8 and 12.

NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26:

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

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

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

[jaydeehess]

Chris ask yourself, what happens to a previously weakened column if proximate columns later foreshorten due to heat?(extra compressive forces)
What happens if the weakened columns suffer damage on proximate floors rather than on the same floor?(additional shear forces)

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.

[twinstead]

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.

Yup. A single-mindedness of focus on irrelevant minutiae and self-determined anomalies that only a true conspiracy theorist can possess.

[Christopher7]

Chris ask yourself, what happens to a previously weakened column if proximate columns later foreshorten due to heat?(extra compressive forces)
What happens if the weakened columns suffer damage on proximate floors rather than on the same floor?(additional shear forces)

You really are one of the most one dimensional thinkers I have ever interacted with.
Two rhetorical questions, one insult.

You did not challenge anything in my summary because you have read the NIST and FEMA reports and you know that every statement is true.

It would be very difficult for debris to eject elevator cars thru a wall and into the hallway.
The debris would have to have been coming down at a 45 degree angle, almost straight on south to north, after taking out 3 perimeter columns, busting thru 5 - 51/2" steel concrete floors and a core column.


http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1968/wtc7fl8editow0.png

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6676/copyofworldtradecenterir6.jpg

[Belz...]

All we know for sure is, Daryl heard what sounded like a clap of thunder.

Chris: what sound does a steel column make when it snaps ?

my posts [with references] are about the damage to WTC 7 based on the research i have done.

Are you willing to concede that your research might be incomplete ?

The physical evidence was removed and destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Is that an excuse ?

The photographic evidence is enough for me but not for a prosecutor.

Yes, and that should tell you something about REAL investigations.

[jaydeehess]

Two rhetorical questions, one insult.

You did not challenge anything in my summary because you have read the NIST and FEMA reports and you know that every statement is true.

It would be very difficult for debris to eject elevator cars thru a wall and into the hallway.
The debris would have to have been coming down at a 45 degree angle, almost straight on south to north, after taking out 3 perimeter columns, busting thru 5 - 51/2" steel concrete floors and a core column.


http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1968/wtc7fl8editow0.png

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6676/copyofworldtradecenterir6.jpg

You are making definitive statements based on incomplete data that you treat as complete. You do this while also ignoring other data that suggests your definitive is incorrect.

To my mind this is no better than what the Bush administration did in making a 'case' for going to war with Iraq. If you take that as an insult , sorry,,, if that isn't the shoe size you want, don't buy it.....

I am illustrating that there are many other senarios other than the ones you assume NIST/FEMA must utilize. You assume that since the initiation of collapse was due to the failure of one or more of three elements that all damage leading to that failure must be localised at those elements. This is simply not the case.

You also assume that since the report is of two of the elevators in that shaft were ejected that none of the others were affected. You assume that since those elevators were ejected that whatever caused it had to have hit them and them only.

How did you arrive the elevators in question being the ones you illustrate above? Is there a better description of which bank of elevators were involved? There is another bank to the east of the one you point to.

A wheel assembly of one of the planes punched through perimeter columns in WTC 1 on the far side from impact. Steel debris from the north tower collapse would easily be many times the mass of that wheel assembly and would be travelling at about 100 MPH, comparable to the velocity at which that wheel assembly hit the p[erimeter column. The WTC perimeter columns were greater in size and strength than those of WTC 7.

Debris need not crunch through several steel & concrete floors if it has entered the elevator shafts.

[Christopher7]

You are making definitive statements based on incomplete data that you treat as complete.
The data on the time and location of the fires in the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 is not complete*, as you say.
However, the fire on floor 12 burned for about 6 hours as it worked it's way around, south wall to east to north. A fire on another floor would do the same, more or less.

There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the SE corner of the south face:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.

Inherent in this statement is:
The area below floor 12 was NOT obscured during this time.
Any serious damage to this area would have been seen and reported.
*That leaves the possibility of damage above the 12th floor.

*In this photograph, there is no damage or fire in the area that can be seen beyond the large hole around floor 14.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4597/wtc7holecleanqo5.jpg

You do this while also ignoring other data that suggests your definitive is incorrect.
What data?

I am illustrating that there are many other senarios other than the ones you assume NIST/FEMA must utilize. You assume that since the initiation of collapse was due to the failure of one or more of three elements that all damage leading to that failure must be localised at those elements. This is simply not the case.
Depends on your definition of local.
A fire or debris damage in the middle of WTC 7 would not cause the eastern most core columns to fail.

You also assume that since the report is of two of the elevators in that shaft were ejected that none of the others were affected.You assume that since those elevators were ejected that whatever caused it had to have hit them and them only.
No

How did you arrive the elevators in question being the ones you illustrate above?
Steve Spak's photo/graphic shows the large hole around floor 14.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

Column 7 is about center of that hole.

Is there a better description of which bank of elevators were involved?
Not that i know of. You?

There is another bank to the east of the one you point to.
The debris, coming from the direction it came from, could not eject those elevators into the hallway.

A wheel assembly of one of the planes punched through perimeter columns in WTC 1 on the far side from impact. Steel debris from the north tower collapse would easily be many times the mass of that wheel assembly and would be traveling at about 100 MPH, comparable to the velocity at which that wheel assembly hit the perimeter column. The WTC perimeter columns were greater in size and strength than those of WTC 7.
That wheel assembly was inside a 100,000 lb. airplane going 580 mph,
hardly comparable to a large piece of debris falling.

However, the hole in Steve's photo appears to be about 30' by 40'. [very roughly]
I will wait for the final report for clarification on this damage, but
a piece of debris big enough to make that hole, might be able to break thru 3 perimeter columns, 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor, take out a core column, eject 2 elevators thru a wall and into the hallway, take out some framing and a concrete masonry wall, [bypassing the 14" RC floor on 7] break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor and sever the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

The end result would be a fuel fed fire in near column 70 [NIST #] the middle of the building.

[Dog Town]

There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

Yes, of course, because no pipes it fed, could have been affected! How many fires have you noticed, with PLENTY of flammables, just die with no fighting? Absurd!

DT

[Belz...]

Chris: what sound does a steel column make when it snaps ?

[jaydeehess]

The data on the time and location of the fires in the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 is not complete*, as you say.
However, the fire on floor 12 burned for about 6 hours as it worked it's way around, south wall to east to north. A fire on another floor would do the same, more or less.

Given the very different floor plans it is doubtful that a fire on the 7th floor or 5th floor would burn in the same pattern as on the 12th floor.


There were NO fuel fed fires in the eastern part of WTC 7.
In the unlikely event that debris severed the fuel supply pipe the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7.

You simply have no way of definitively stating this. I too put the probability of a fuel fire on the east side of the eastern most elevator shaft as fairly low but I cannot discount the possibilty completely.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the SE corner of the south face:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face, the face above the fire was covered with smoke.
Inherent in this statement is:
The area below floor 12 was NOT obscured during this time.
Any serious damage to this area would have been seen and reported.
*That leaves the possibility of damage above the 12th floor..

But it does not preclude a fire on the 7th floor in an area with no windows and a hole in the elevator shaft funneling smoke to the 12th floor or above.

*In this photograph, there is no damage or fire in the area that can be seen beyond the large hole around floor 14.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4597/wtc7holecleanqo5.jpg

In THAT photograph.

What data?

Simply that the fuel lines do indeed run nearby the area under concern and that the building had suffered physical damage that in at least one place can be shown to have caused major damage and that similar damage occured to Banker's Trust from imapct from WTC 2 debris.


Depends on your definition of local.
A fire or debris damage in the middle of WTC 7 would not cause the eastern most core columns to fail.

I am glad you have established the exact route of any heavy debris that hit WTC 7 to such a definite degree.


Steve Spak's photo/graphic shows the large hole around floor 14.

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

Column 7 is about center of that hole.

Also good to know that you definitivly established the trajectory of WTC 1 debris to such an exact nature.


Not that i know of. You?

Nope, which is why I can't say definitively which elevator bank was involved , unlike you.


The debris, coming from the direction it came from, could not eject those elevators into the hallway.

More definitives that require that you have somehow come to a definitive trajectory and route through WTC 7 for such debris.

That wheel assembly was inside a 100,000 lb. airplane going 580 mph,
hardly comparable to a large piece of debris falling.

Irrelevent. The kinetic energy of the wheel assembly alone, as it hit the far wall on its way out of the building, is what would allow it to punch through. That wheel assembly was doing less than 100 MPH when it hit the last perimeter column. The column it hit was larger than any in WTC 7 and the wheel assembly had a mass that would easily be much less than the mass of a portion of structural steel hitting WTC 7. Debris hitting WTC 7 could easily be doing 100 MPH.

I will wait for the final report for clarification on this damage, but
a piece of debris big enough to make that hole, might be able to break thru 3 perimeter columns, 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors including at least 1 floor support beam per floor, take out a core column, eject 2 elevators thru a wall and into the hallway, take out some framing and a concrete masonry wall, [bypassing the 14" RC floor on 7] break thru a 6" steel and concrete floor and sever the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

The end result would be a fuel fed fire in near column 70 [NIST #] the middle of the building

Or ,,,,, using the same data available to me as to you,,,,, a steel column 2' X 2' wide and 30 ft long entered WTC 7 at floor 14 at an angle to the face of the building and punched through the floor pan entering the eastern most elevator bank severing all elevator cables, the lower end of the column section jamming at floor 5, the elevator cars crashing down hitting this steel column and being ejected to the north, the east and north walls of the elevator shaft being severly damaged, breeched at floor 7 and causing damage to column 79(IIRC) and kinking the fuel pipe that fed the generator causing fuel to poll at the north of the elevator shaft and eventually ignite sending smoke up through the 'chimney' created by the debris to exit the building at the 12th floor or higher.

The fire creating a creep of the column(s) nearest it and putting extra load on the physically damaged, yet cooler column nearby which could no longer take the load, which then failed suddenly causing its load to be transfered to the nearby columns including the ones already suffering from loss of strength thus shortening even more very quickly pulling in on nearby columns which starts the vertical progression that sees the penthouse collapse and which increases the canteranry force on beams to the south wall causing the connections along the south side of the core columns to break and allow the perimeter walls to move southward , penthouse structure falling down starts causing further problems higher up, the core now pulling in on the north wall which is intact, the east section pulls free at the intiation point along the east side of the Con-ed building and falls north east whiole the rest of building to the west falls over the Con-ed building crushing it and sending its debris south.

BTW, you are aware that in the crash of the aircraft into the Empire State Building in which the plane was actually climbing, and perpendicular to the building, and doing about 120 MPH, one engine entered the elevator shaft, plunging to the ground down it?

[Miragememories]

If these were Demolition Charges going off, how come the Demolition teams didn't hear them?

How do you know that these are explosions, rather than someone describing them as explosions?

Do you have any evidence that these 'explosions' are Demolition charges going off, and not anything else?

How do you know they aren't?

MM

[CHF]

How do you know they aren't?

MM

Asking your opponent to prove a negative.

A debate tactic straight out of grade 4.

[Miragememories]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.

They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

It's mind-boggling how JREFers refuse to use their lifetime of learned experience when considering this event.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

You have to consider the rest of what happened as well.

Supposing you folks are right and no controlled demolition was applied to WTC7.

Suppose your also right that the fires burned long enough and hot enough to introduce structural failure.

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

The firefighters certainly prepared for a topple.

BUT WTC7 didn't topple.

We didn't see WTC7 fall piecemeal.

We didn't see part of WTC7 remain standing.

We did see a simultaneous uniform structural failure leading to a high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint, COMPLETE collapse of WTC7.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

MM

[CHF]

MM,

explain to me why

a) we didn't hear the rapid explosions that usually accompany a demolition

b) why WTC7 was leaning before it fell

c) how the demo charges survived the fires

d) why seismographs did not detect the charges

e) why the FDNY knew it would come down several hours before it did

f) why no structural engineers agree with you

[DavidJames]

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

MMNo, intelligent people rely on evidence, you tin hatters rely on gut feel.

I feel sorry for you.

[JimBenArm]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.


There's a natural way for a building to collapse?

Do tell!

Gee, do you think getting hit by debris from a neighboring building, being on fire for hours just MIGHT have something to do with how "unnatural" the collapse was?

I love you guys! You keep me laughing all day long!:Banane09:

[twinstead]

We have a HUGE group of experts who don't consider the collapse unnatural, and a small number of non-experts who think it was.

Hmmm. Who to believe? Who to believe?

MM your constant declaring that the building didn't collapse 'naturally' does NOT make it so. The reason why we are quoting firefighters and other experts who were AT THE SCENE that day is to show that your insistence that the collapse was unnatural is WRONG, and because you use that as a basis for your theory it makes your theory WRONG.

[jaydeehess]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.
They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

Because "un-natural" is a subjective phrase, not a scientific one. It is a phrase that suggests the use of 'common sense' (sometimes aka common ignorance) rather than the use of engineering and evidence based reasoning.

It's mind-boggling how JREFers refuse to use their lifetime of learned experience when considering this event.

From what I have seen most JREF's do actually use this. Its also known as education.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

You have to consider the rest of what happened as well.

I sense what is coming but will actually continue to see whether or not my inuition is correct(the scientifically correct thing to do.)

Supposing you folks are right and no controlled demolition was applied to WTC7.

Suppose your also right that the fires burned long enough and hot enough to introduce structural failure.

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

It is not reasonable to expect anything specific in such a case at all.

WTC 7 did not fail all at once, it was coming apart internally many seconds before the north wall fell.

The firefighters certainly prepared for a topple

Prudence is a virtue in such a case as a badly damaged and obviously weakened building so one plans for the worst case senario. In fact they prepared for a toplling by clearing out the area surrounding the building on both the north and south sides out to a distance equal to the height of the building. If I were to use only the 'common sense' approach I would be clearing out only
on the south side for that far since all the major structural damage was on the south side. However it would not make me a very good at the job of public safety.
BUT WTC7 didn't topple.
right, it collapsed from a point within the building
We didn't see WTC7 fall piecemeal.
yes we did, the roof structures first, core members, and possibly parts of the south wall, then the north facade. The western section fell towards the south while the eastern section fell more to the north east.
We didn't see part of WTC7 remain standing.
right!

We did see a simultaneous uniform structural failure leading to a high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint, COMPLETE collapse of WTC7.
No we didn't, as explained above.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Actually it would take a non-engineer to suggest that the possibility was so low as to be extrtemely unlikey. Have you many engineers that have stated that such a collapse was extremely unlikely. Ones who have studied the construction of this specific building?

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

Given the utter lack of any corroborating evidence of such a highly unlikely senario, yes it is unreasonable to suggest that these phantom explosives are a better explanation than the fact that the building had indeed suffered; major structural damage(the full extent of which is unknown); and fires on several floors each of which, on their won, would have been considered major fires on any other day(for which full details about them is not known) that were not fought by the NYFD.

The personal incredulity that you would characterize as 'common sense' is not evidence of anything.

[Christopher7]

Given the very different floor plans it is doubtful that a fire on the 7th floor or 5th floor would burn in the same pattern as on the 12th floor.
Good point. I was talking about floors 7 and up, [office space]. I will make that distinction from now on.

the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7
You simply have no way of definitively stating this. I too put the probability of a fuel fire on the east side of the eastern most elevator shaft as fairly low but I cannot discount the possibilty completely.I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building.

Using the information i have, i just postulated on what path it would have taken.

But it does not preclude a fire on the 7th floor in an area with no windows and a hole in the elevator shaft funneling smoke to the 12th floor or above.I assumed that the debris 'bypassed floor 7' while in the elevator shaft, but this eliminates a fire next to column 73 [NIST #]
The problem with floor 8 is, when the elevators were ejected, they took the wall out. Smoke would be pouring out there as well as up the debris hole. Fuel oil makes a lot of smoke.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4597/wtc7holecleanqo5.jpg

In this photograph.
We can see the 14th and 17th floors as far as column 12 [Steve's #]

Simply that the fuel lines do indeed run nearby the area under concern and that the building had suffered physical damage that in at least one place can be shown to have caused major damage and that similar damage occured to Banker's Trust from imapct from WTC 2 debris.Bankers Trust was about 250' from WTC 2.
WTC 7 was about 350' from WTC 1.
The large piece of debris that hit Bankers Trust only penetrated about 20 to 30 feet.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/8356/bankerstrust3gk3.jpg

[Dog Town]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.



MM



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092345c841e453588.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4015)

I wonder why, and what your definition, of " natural" is? Never mind...

[Belz...]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.

That's because it neither looks or is unnatural, no matter what colour you use to say it.

They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

Which is already far more reliable than a truther's "it looks fishy" kind of investigation.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

What complete picture ? Two large planes crashed into 1 and 2, both of them collapsed, and the debris from one of the towers damaged number 7. Fires, etc. What ELSE do you need to consider ? Plus we have admission of guilt by the terrorist leader and clear motive and ability to carry out the attacks...

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Perhaps, which is why that's what happened with 7.

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Not necessarily. Ask an architect. Oh wait. We have several, here.

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

"Reasonable" ? Again, ask someone who would know instead of trusting your own judgment in things you're not knowledgeable in.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Bolding mine.

It is irrelevant if it's "necessary" to be a structural engineer to suggest this since no structural engineer suggests this.

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

In the complete absence of the evidence we should EXPECT to find, yes. It is.

[Belz...]

I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building.

Well, perhaps you should trust the experts' knowledge on this, rather than trust your own layman's thoughts.

Using the information i have, i just postulated on what path it would have taken.

That's interesting, considering that no computer on earth could do this.

Bankers Trust was about 250' from WTC 2.
WTC 7 was about 350' from WTC 1.
The large piece of debris that hit Bankers Trust only penetrated about 20 to 30 feet.

Again, you're trying to simplify everything so that all things are equal. You're forgetting a great number of factors that might have come into play. Bankers Trust is NOT 7 WTC. 2 WTC's collapse was NOT 1 WTC's. Etc.

[Miragememories]

So let's see what kind of thoughtful response I received;

CHF "We didn't hear it." "It was leaning before it fell." "Demo charges survived fire?" "No seismograph evidence" "FDNY knew it would come down hours ahead of time." "Structural engineers disagree."

DavidJames "tin hatter..."

JimBenArm "there's a natural way for a building to collapse?"

twinstead "..HUGE group of experts..firefighter quotes.."

jaydeehess "..un-natural isn't scientific..it collapsed internally for many seconds..it did fall piecemeal..it did completely collapse..only engineers can draw conclusions..without proof will not use common sense.."

Dog Town "..wonders what un-natural is.."

Belz... "..collapse looks normal.." "..firefighters just know.." "..similar to WTC 1 & 2 plane crash vs debris damage".."Bin Laden's confession.." "..without proof to support was observed, we ignore what was observed.."




What amazingly blind obedience to a chosen belief.

Not a doubt. The Flat Earth Society has ruled again!

5.5 years after the fact, even NIST with all the resources available to them has a branch of the Federal Government, has not been able release an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Yet, it appears you folks could have produced an acceptable explanation overnight.

Experts in controlled demolition spend many man hours and great expense attempting the difficult achievement of making a building completely collapse into it's own footprint.

Supposedly, by random chance, debris and fire damage effectively achieved the same result at WTC7.



Regarding what's natural and what's not natural;

I think we all agree, experts and lay people alike, that GRAVITY is the natural force that ultimately governs a building's collapse.

Gravitational force was uniformly applied to the WTC7.

Videos of the WTC7 collapse, show it as bottom-initiated, dropping (not toppling) downward, at near freefall speed, while maintaining a relatively level horizontal roofline.

For such a level collapse to occur under gravitational pull, sufficiently widespread structural support would have to removed at the same moment in time to avoid an uneven collapse, as well as to assure a TOTAL collapse.

This difficult engineering accomplishment is achieved by the application of controlled demolition.

Without a doubt, you folks accept the premise that somehow, inspite of the fact that the majority of the ground floor structural supports were undamaged by WTC1 debris, that the fires were able, in a bizarre feat of masterful timing, simultaneously weaken enough of the foundational structure to induce gravity to perform a controlled demolition-like collapse of WTC7?

What an amazing bunch of critical thinkers you think you are!

MM

[DavidJames]

What an amazing bunch of critical thinkers you think you are!

MMI called you a tin hatter because you refuse to support your claims with evidence, instead relying on your own gut feel. Should you change your method, I will change my opinion.

[twinstead]

MM since you are not in a position to decide if something is unnatural or not, who's word are you taking without question?

The gist of the thread is that YOU don't know what you are talking about. All you have is your disbelief, no further evidence. Even worse, it appears that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a blind sheep.

This is straight out of Paranoid Conspiracy Theory 101, chapter 1.

We don't agree with you. Even better, experts in how buildings fall down go boom disagree with you. Almost ALL of them.

Talk about being blind--why should we take your word for any of this?

[Gravy]

MM, you have 117 posts here. Can you name one claim that you've been able to defend with evidence?

Bet you can't.

[Gravy]

Christopher7, can you name some major events on 9/11 that were more severe in WTC 7 than they were at the Bankers Trust Building?

Bet you won't.

How are those CocoaPuffs today?

By the way, if you're looking for Jaydeehess, he's away for his semiannual Illuminati training.

[einsteen]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD.

Twin & James, what kind of evidence is in your opinion the proof that it was a CD? You prefer fireman quotes above video evidence?

If you make an archive of all buildings that were destroyed by natural collapses, fire, earthquakes and CDs then the category CD would fit the best for wtc7. Even experts will do that. And there is also video and audio evidence about people on the scene talking about 'first explosion to weaken the structure', 'building is about to blow up', 'keep your eye on that building, it is coming down'

No I hate to use the 'pull it' video although it is the industry term they pulled the firemen out of the building, that's fine for me.

I've mailed DemolitionDave, Dave if you are watching could you please give some clarification about building 7?

[The Almond]

5.5 years after the fact, even NIST with all the resources available to them has a branch of the Federal Government, has not been able release an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Yet, it appears you folks could have produced an acceptable explanation overnight.

Ok, it's time to address this again. NIST's funding for 2006 was $581 million (http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/024.html) dollars and change. Compare that to:
National Institute of Health: $28.6 Billion (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=37242)
National Cancer Institute: $4.35 Billion (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=37242)

No, NIST does not have unlimited resources, nor is it a "branch" of the federal government. Those branches would be Executive, Legislative and Judicial. NIST is part of the Executive branch, under the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration.

Experts in controlled demolition spend many man hours and great expense attempting the difficult achievement of making a building completely collapse into it's own footprint.
That's an excellent point! Please produce the evidence showing that controlled demolition experts spent many hours and great expense in attempting to bring down the WTC 7 using a controlled demolition.

[Gravy]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD. Er, you mean ALL except every expert who has studied the collapse, and except every expert who was right there when WTC 7 came down.

That's what you mean, right?

Or can you name an expert who

A) studied the collapse or
B) was there

who says it looked/sounded like a CD?

Well, go right ahead, einsteen. Present your expert testimony.

[Gravy]

I've mailed DemolitionDave, Dave if you are watching could you please give some clarification about building 7?I didn't realize he was there. I'd be most interested to hear what he saw and heard.

[Belz...]

Belz... "..collapse looks normal.." "..firefighters just know.." "..similar to WTC 1 & 2 plane crash vs debris damage".."Bin Laden's confession.." "..without proof to support was observed, we ignore what was observed.."

What amazingly blind obedience to a chosen belief.

I take it you have no argument against the evidence I listed ?

[Belz...]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD.

Which features would that be ?

- Collapsing with gravity : check
- loud explosions : no check
- visible demolition charges : no check
- months worth of wiring reported by working employees : no check

It seems to me like the only thing that makes it look like a CD is the fact that the building fell down.

If you make an archive of all buildings that were destroyed by natural collapses, fire, earthquakes and CDs then the category CD would fit the best for wtc7.

If you make an archive of all bulidings that were destroyed by fire following the collapsed of an even bigger building in their vacinity following the intentional crash of a 767 into it, and that had a construction similar to 7 WTC, then the category "7 WTC" would fit the best for wtc7.

[Miragememories]

MM, you have 117 posts here. Can you name one claim that you've been able to defend with evidence?

Bet you can't.

Gravy..Mark Roberts you really should get that avatar hand treated...or find it a girlfriend.

117 posts? Your point? JREFers post here as casually as breathing.

Since when is evidence of real concern to you unless it bolsters your bigoted point of view.

This is a forum not a courtroom.

During a proper official investigation, I expect the rules of evidence and expert testimony to apply.

You folks aren't interested in a discussion unless you can restrict it to the limited official investigations that have previously occured.

I made a forum presentation that argued why the few semi-official explanations for the WTC7 collapse should be discounted and no one attempts to refute my logic.

You all escape to courtroom rules in order to avoid having to defend yourselves with logic.

A grand jury, comprised of lay-people, can submit a case for trial based on reasonable belief that a crime has occured.

I'm arguing that there is reasonable belief that the WTC7 collapse was caused by more than fire and debris damage.

Without the full official powers of a courtroom (evidence collection and expert witnesses testimony), it isn't possible for a public forum such as this to do anything else but discuss probabilities.

You can't limit the scope of the discussion just because you don't like the presentation. You have to prove the presentation is irrelevant to the argument.

If what I say is logically implausible, it should be possible to logically explain why the main WTC7 structure performed a controlled-demolition-like collapse.

If you can't eliminate reasonable doubt than there remains a good case for further investigation into what really happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

And no one seems to be able to answer why NIST, with all it's government resources has been unable after FIVE and ONE-HALF YEARS to offer an explanation that they feel will stand up to public scrutiny?

MM

[Miragememories]

Ok, it's time to address this again. NIST's funding for 2006 was $581 million (http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/024.html) dollars and change. Compare that to:
National Institute of Health: $28.6 Billion (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=37242)
National Cancer Institute: $4.35 Billion (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=37242)

No, NIST does not have unlimited resources, nor is it a "branch" of the federal government. Those branches would be Executive, Legislative and Judicial. NIST is part of the Executive branch, under the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration.
That's an excellent point! Please produce the evidence showing that controlled demolition experts spent many hours and great expense in attempting to bring down the WTC 7 using a controlled demolition.

So your point is?

Has NIST claimed that even though their $581 million dollar yearly budget is sufficient for them to produce 10,000 page report on WTC1 & 2, it's not enough, 5.5 years after the fact, to provide a report on WTC7?

And now you are nit-picking about "branch". Maybe I should have said "twig" or "limb"? The point was that they were an organization affiliated with the world's largest organization.

My point about "hours and expense" to create a successful controlled demolition was to illustrate how difficult it was to intentionally create what you folks blithely accept as natural occurence on 9/11.

Your egos are so puffed, that just because you can't fathom "how they did the CD", you conclude it wasn't done, and proceed to dismiss everything that suggests it must have been CD.

MM

[twinstead]

This is a forum not a courtroom.
correct.


During a proper official investigation, I expect the rules of evidence and expert testimony to apply.Exactly. (psst...those are courtroom rules) So when do we get that from you?


You folks aren't interested in a discussion unless you can restrict it to the limited official investigations that have previously occured.Those 'limited' official investigations hare set forth in minute detail for all to see. It's what we have. Perhaps the fact you have NO investigations to report has something to do with that?


I made a forum presentation that argued why the few semi-official explanations for the WTC7 collapse should be discounted and no one attempts to refute my logic.Your argument is you don't believe what happened is possible. You present no expert witnesses to corroborate what you say, nor do you offer any corroborating evidence at all.


You all escape to courtroom rules in order to avoid having to defend yourselves with logic. ???

A grand jury, comprised of lay-people, can submit a case for trial based on reasonable belief that a crime has occured. Who gets to define what 'reasonable belief' that the US government murdered 3000 innocent people is? You?

I'm arguing that there is reasonable belief that the WTC7 collapse was caused by more than fire and debris damage.And we're agruning that there isn't. Our word against yours, but YOUR claim. For God's sake all we are asking is that you provide your evidence to support it. We, or a jury for that matter, isn't simply going to take your word for it. You're accusing people of mass murder here!

Without the full official powers of a courtroom (evidence collection and expert witnesses testimony), it isn't possible for a public forum such as this to do anything else but discuss probabilities. Duh


You can't limit the scope of the discussion just because you don't like the presentation. You have to prove the presentation is irrelevant to the argument. This goes both ways

If what I say is logically implausible, it should be possible to logically explain why the main WTC7 structure performed a controlled-demolition-like collapse. Dude. You forgot a step. You need to show that the WTC's collapse could only be caused by CD first.


If you can't eliminate reasonable doubt than there remains a good case for further investigation into what really happened to WTC7 on 9/11.And if that investigation shows the official story is true? I submit that you are so ideologically biased that you would NEVER accept the results of ANY investigation no matter from whom that didn't support CD.

And just who by the way would perform and pay for this new investigation.


And no one seems to be able to answer why NIST, with all it's government resources has been unable after FIVE and ONE-HALF YEARS to offer an explanation that they feel will stand up to public scrutiny?The NIST's preliminary report now, and soon the official report, spells out in minute detail an explanation that indeed has, and will, stand up to public scrutiny. Unless of course by public scrutiny you mean a couple of stark, raving ideologues scanning YouTube videos for anomalies. Then yea, you may be right.

[aggle-rithm]

Has NIST claimed that even though their $581 million dollar yearly budget is sufficient for them to produce 10,000 page report on WTC1 & 2, it's not enough, 5.5 years after the fact, to provide a report on WTC7?


Do you feel that the investigation of the WTC7 attack should have taken higher priority than the two towers? If so, you're one of the very few.

Maybe you should get yourself elected to a position of power so you can make things happen the way you'd prefer.

[aggle-rithm]

And now you are nit-picking about "branch". Maybe I should have said "twig" or "limb"? The point was that they were an organization affiliated with the world's largest organization.


Amway?!?

[Miragememories]

I take it you have no argument against the evidence I listed ?

Evidence?

The collapse didn't look normal. If it did then under your proposed belief that it wasn't a CD, I'm sure CD experts would love to learn the trick and save themselves a lot of time and expense. Let's see, it took the fire 7 hours approximately to create all the weak points CD experts usually have to create with precuts and explosives.

The firefighters were in shock from what occured at WTC1 & 2. They were told by their superiors how to treat WTC7. They were psychologically prepared to believe it was going to collapse and faced with all the smoke, glimpses of fire and orders to evacuate the area from their superiors, it's hardly surprising many were quoted declaring WTC7 was a goner. At no point do they ever get quoted as having any idea that it will completely collapse in the fashion that it did.

WTC1 falling debris damage to WTC7 is hardly comparable to fuel-laden jetliners crashing full speed into WTC 1 & 2.

Bin Laden's confession has never been proven as true and he is not on the FBI's wanted list.

MM

[aggle-rithm]

Evidence?

The collapse didn't look normal.



They rarely do. How many building collapses are a part of your normal day?


If it did then under your proposed belief that it wasn't a CD, I'm sure CD experts would love to learn the trick and save themselves a lot of time and expense. Let's see, it took the fire 7 hours approximately to create all the weak points CD experts usually have to create with precuts and explosives.


Demolition experts go to all that time and expense so nearby buildings won't be damaged. Buildings near WTC7 WERE damaged. But you know this, of course.


The firefighters were in shock from what occured at WTC1 & 2.


Right...all the OTHER times airliners crashed into buildings, it was business as usual...


They were told by their superiors how to treat WTC7.


They didn't need their superiors to tell them to stay the hell away from a building that was burning out of control and creaking and groaning alarmingly.


They were psychologically prepared to believe it was going to collapse and faced with all the smoke, glimpses of fire and orders to evacuate the area from their superiors, it's hardly surprising many were quoted declaring WTC7 was a goner. At no point do they ever get quoted as having any idea that it will completely collapse in the fashion that it did.


Nor were any of them able to provide an accurate weather forcast for the following month. So?


WTC1 falling debris damage to WTC7 is hardly comparable to fuel-laden jetliners crashing full speed into WTC 1 & 2.


Why does it need to be comparable?


Bin Laden's confession has never been proven as true and he is not on the FBI's wanted list.


Therefore, the Joooooos didit!

[twinstead]

Evidence?

The collapse didn't look normal. If it did then under your proposed belief that it wasn't a CD, I'm sure CD experts would love to learn the trick and save themselves a lot of time and expense. Let's see, it took the fire 7 hours approximately to create all the weak points CD experts usually have to create with precuts and explosives.

Not normal to YOU. And those same CD experts (even the ones who where there that day) don't agree with you that the collapse didn't look normal, and that it only could be CD. Why is that?


The firefighters were in shock from what occured at WTC1 & 2. They were told by their superiors how to treat WTC7. They were psychologically prepared to believe it was going to collapse and faced with all the smoke, glimpses of fire and orders to evacuate the area from their superiors, it's hardly surprising many were quoted declaring WTC7 was a goner. At no point do they ever get quoted as having any idea that it will completely collapse in the fashion that it did. Are you suggesting that the firefighters at the scene didn't know what they were doing and only report a building ready to fail because they were phychologically prepared to believe that? Did I really read that from you? Perhaps you can, during the course of YOUR investigation, interview some of these incompetent firefighters. Their names have been posted on this very thread. Have at it.


WTC1 falling debris damage to WTC7 is hardly comparable to fuel-laden jetliners crashing full speed into WTC 1 & 2.What's your point? It was enough to bring WTC7 building down. Prove it wasn't. Besides, I thought you think the other buildings were CD as well.

Bin Laden's confession has never been proven as true and he is not on the FBI's wanted list.
LOL of course. And if it's never been proven it's true, then it HAS to be a fake, right. And don't you think that if it was an inside job the FBI just might have put him on their wanted list? How easy would that be. Could there be OTHER reasons perhaps?

Here's a task for you. tell me what the official story is about why Bin Laden isn't on the wanted list. Do you even know? Don't you think an unbiased investigation would know both sides?

[The Almond]

So your point is?
all the resources available to them has a branch of the Federal Government
These two quotes are my point. You're implying that NIST has some massive funding source or resource allocation. Your argument implied that its status as a federal government institution gave it powers and resources beyond what it is capable of producing. My point is that NIST is a rather minor outpost of the Department of Commerce, and that it is still limited by both funding and manpower resources.

Has NIST claimed that even though their $581 million dollar yearly budget is sufficient for them to produce 10,000 page report on WTC1 & 2, it's not enough, 5.5 years after the fact, to provide a report on WTC7?

You've reverted back to an argument from personal incredulity. NIST has produced 10,000 pages of peer-reviewed, papers in addition to documentation presented to the public, the congress and the scientific community. Please, do compare that to what Scholars for the Truth has come up with.

And now you are nit-picking about "branch". Maybe I should have said "twig" or "limb"? The point was that they were an organization affiliated with the world's largest organization.

Rather, I showed that your characterization of NIST as a branch of the federal government was woefully overstated.

My point about "hours and expense" to create a successful controlled demolition was to illustrate how difficult it was to intentionally create what you folks blithely accept as natural occurence on 9/11.

And yet, you admitted that a controlled demolition would take thousands of man hours and expert time to achieve. If a controlled demolition is what you're claiming, you should show evidence to support it. Show the evidence of experts putting thousands of man hours into demolishing the WTC 7.

Your egos are so puffed, that just because you can't fathom "how they did the CD", you conclude it wasn't done, and proceed to dismiss everything that suggests it must have been CD.

MM
The ad hominem attack is the refuge of someone who has lost the argument.

[einsteen]

I didn't realize he was there. I'd be most interested to hear what he saw and heard.

No, I mean he was at this forum, I didn't know him, I asked him about what he knows and what he thinks. He might be busy, I didn't get a reply yet.

I found it quite funny what he said about Brent Blanchard. Gravy we all know your list of quotes, do you also have reports from genuine CD experts who studied it afterwards and independently ?

[twinstead]

No, I mean he was at this forum, I didn't know him, I asked him about what he knows and what he thinks. He might be busy, I didn't get a reply yet.

I found it quite funny what he said about Brent Blanchard. Gravy we all know your list of quotes, do you also have reports from genuine CD experts who studied it afterwards and independently ?

Not sure if this is what you mean but this (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf)is fairly good. I don't think it covers WTC 7 though.

[einsteen]

DemolitionDave wrote:

I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs. He is a self proclaimed "expert"

Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"

There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"

[Belz...]

The collapse didn't look normal.

Collapses aren't normal, but I understand what you mean. What this all boils down to, however, is that YOU don't think it looks like a "natural" collapse. Indeed, I doubt you have the required experience to make that judgment call.

If it did then under your proposed belief that it wasn't a CD, I'm sure CD experts would love to learn the trick and save themselves a lot of time and expense.

Considering how much damage 7 WTC did to surrounding buildings, I'll just chalk up your claim here as a lie.

The firefighters were in shock from what occured at WTC1 & 2. They were told by their superiors how to treat WTC7. They were psychologically prepared to believe it was going to collapse and faced with all the smoke, glimpses of fire and orders to evacuate the area from their superiors, it's hardly surprising many were quoted declaring WTC7 was a goner. At no point do they ever get quoted as having any idea that it will completely collapse in the fashion that it did.

Speculation. I don't really care for it.

WTC1 falling debris damage to WTC7 is hardly comparable to fuel-laden jetliners crashing full speed into WTC 1 & 2.

Which is why the two are completely different.

Bin Laden's confession has never been proven as true and he is not on the FBI's wanted list.

Good for him. This is no proof of a controlled demolition. In fact, a government conspiracy, if your argument above had any value, would've ensured that Ibn Laden would be on the list.

[CptColumbo]

Collapsing in general isn't the natural state for a building to be in, so most collapses will probably look unnatural.

[Miragememories]

Nothing but lame responses.

aggle-rithm "..building collapses rarely look normal.."

It's a rarity for buildings to completely collapse, so I guess it's true that they rarely look normal. Other than as a result of being too close to the epicentre of an earthquake, the atomic bombing in Japan during WWII, or suffering controlled demolition, I don't recall any instances of buildings completely collapsing to the ground.

aggle-rithm "..Buildings near WTC7 WERE damaged.."

Your point? That's common knowledge. This was hardly a "invite the public" controlled demolition. Obviously they wanted the building destroyed yet they had to hope the belief that fire and debris damage would be acceptable as the cause. Too little demolition and the building isn't destroyed. Too much and it's obviously a man made destruction. So they went with limited overkill which resulted in collateral damage to other buildings and unfortunately for them, still displayed a classic controlled demolition building collapse.

aggle-rithm "..all the OTHER times airliners crashed into buildings.."

There had never ever been a New York 9/11 incident before! Over 300 brother firefighters lost their lives. I think the surviving firefighters had every right to be in shock.

twinstead "..are you suggesting the firefighters didn't know what they were doing..only reported the building was going to fall because they were told to.."

I said they never once were quoted as expecting a complete collapse. They never once indicated that in all their expertise that they imagined the building might collapse rapidly, symmetrically and into it's own rough footprint. I do think that as a result of the horror that they had experienced with the twin towers, that it was quite conceivable that they were more receptive to believing WTC7 was going to collapse then they might otherwise have been.

The Almond "..NIST..was but a minor outpost of the Department of Commerce.."

Whatever you say, NIST was 'connected'. They are a government agency and in a position to request/demand, special/extra funding and resources if they deemed it necessary. NIST administrators had an inside track that no private company could openly admit to.

The Almond "..controlled demolition..would take thousands of man hours.."

Learn to read oh pompous one! I never attached any numerical figure to the number of man hours. I've explained in other threads how it would be possible to covertly setup a CD in WTC 1,2 & 7.

MM

[Arus808]

Nothing but lame responses.

funny those responses are from sane and capable people stating the obvious.

if that is lame, then your responses thus far have been nothing but unbelievable.

[The Almond]

The Almond "..NIST..was but a minor outpost of the Department of Commerce.."

Whatever you say, NIST was 'connected'. They are a government agency and in a position to request/demand, special/extra funding and resources if they deemed it necessary.

Those requests would be subject to a public hearing before congress. Despite your poorly conceived notions about the federal government, congress does not simply open up the grab bag for funding and resources. They set aside money for NIST, but did not set up a time frame for the response so that NIST could produce an accurate report.

It seems to me that the majority of conspiracy theorists have no concept of how scientific research is done. Congress does not give money to the National Cancer Institute and declare that all cancer will be cured in 10 years. Good science takes time, peer review takes time and accuracy takes time. Thus far, you've offered only arguments from personal incredulity, and yet you have failed to show any capacity to argue on a scientific or technical level. The fact that you think the report is taking too long only highlights your inability to comprehend the nature of scientific research.

NIST administrators had an inside track that no private company could openly admit to.

Oh please, tell me what inside track NIST had. Also, tell me how they kept this inside track from the dozens of private companies contracted out to do many of the research tasks involved in the NCSTAR. While you're at it, tell me how the independent advisory council whose members included faculty from 2 major engineering universities did not notice this "inside track."

The Almond "..controlled demolition..would take thousands of man hours.."

Learn to read oh pompous one!

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome. Or do you think they make you look smarter?

I never attached any numerical figure to the number of man hours.


Perhaps you could enlighten me. Show me a controlled demolition of a building whose size is comparable to the WTC towers that DID NOT take thousands of man hours.

I've explained in other threads how it would be possible to covertly setup a CD in WTC 1,2 & 7.
And yet, arguing entirely from the hypothetical, without corroborating evidence, is a complete waste of time. I could write many pages about how a hypothetical race of pan-dimensional beings brought down the towers, but without proof that said beings exist, the hypothesis is worth nothing.

I've also noticed how you ignored many of the salient points made against you. You whined when R.Mackey did that to you in the NIST thread, and yet you do just that here. I must say, your representation of your arguments thus far has been very poor. You whine, you insult, you make generalizations, you refuse to respond to counter arguments and you have yet to produce any evidence for any of your claims. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to learn about rhetoric and logic by representing yourself like an adult, and produce arguments that don't devolve into name-calling and poorly strung, wildly illogical statements.

[twinstead]

mm you have some nerve calling rational objections to your conjecture and nonsense as 'lame'. You don't know what lame is.

Lame is:

I said they never once were quoted as expecting a complete collapse. They never once indicated that in all their expertise that they imagined the building might collapse rapidly, symmetrically and into it's own rough footprint. I do think that as a result of the horror that they had experienced with the twin towers, that it was quite conceivable that they were more receptive to believing WTC7 was going to collapse then they might otherwise have been. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THE BUILDING SHOULDN'T HAVE COLLAPSED THE WAY IT DID.

You have nothing but conjecture, and are guessing what they might have been thinking. The experts were clear: They expected the building to fail at any time. How exactly it would fail, would it fall symmetrically, would it topple over, would it float up into space and turn purple, WHO CARES?

The fact remains that damage, fire, leans, sounds and bulges that were indicative of something bad happening to the building was observed. By LOTS of people. Experts after the fact see nothing wrong with how they collapsed, but do you expect firefighters to describe exactly how the building was to fail?

Your task is to prove that once collapse started, ONLY CD could have caused it to fall like it did. Right now that's of primary importance because your entire theory relies on it. Your theory is a house of cards that will come crumbling down like the WTC7 if you can't prove that CD could only have been responsible more than "I don't believe it".

Frankly, I could care less what you believe. I'm not buying your little ideologically-primed fantasy, and neither are people who actually DO know what they are talking about concerning the subject.

So that leaves us with me, not an expert. You, not an expert. I will defer to experts, you can keep pulling this unadulterated crap out of your posterior. Have fun

[Firestone]

Nothing but lame responses.
...

aggle-rithm "..Buildings near WTC7 WERE damaged.."

Your point? That's common knowledge. This was hardly a "invite the public" controlled demolition. Obviously they wanted the building destroyed yet they had to hope the belief that fire and debris damage would be acceptable as the cause. Too little demolition and the building isn't destroyed. Too much and it's obviously a man made destruction. So they went with limited overkill which resulted in collateral damage to other buildings and unfortunately for them, still displayed a classic controlled demolition building collapse.You actually admit here that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't really look like a classic controlled demolition.
That's remarkable, because the only argument in favor of controlled demolition of WTC 7 I've heard is that it looks so on video. (I assume you don't buy the "pull it" argument.)

But now, we have no reasonable motive, no trace of explosives, no sound characteristic of controlled demolition, and it doesn't really look like controlled demolition either! What's left then?

[gumboot]

Nothing but lame responses.

aggle-rithm "..building collapses rarely look normal.."

It's a rarity for buildings to completely collapse, so I guess it's true that they rarely look normal. Other than as a result of being too close to the epicentre of an earthquake, the atomic bombing in Japan during WWII, or suffering controlled demolition, I don't recall any instances of buildings completely collapsing to the ground.



Really? What about the Kader Toy Factory fire? Or the Seol shopping mall collapse? Or two collapses of apartment complexes in Italy? Or stadium collapses due to excessive audiences (these are surprisingly frequent). Or buildings collapsing due to storms. Or floods.

Buildings completely collapse for all sorts of reason.





aggle-rithm "..Buildings near WTC7 WERE damaged.."

Your point? That's common knowledge. This was hardly a "invite the public" controlled demolition. Obviously they wanted the building destroyed yet they had to hope the belief that fire and debris damage would be acceptable as the cause. Too little demolition and the building isn't destroyed. Too much and it's obviously a man made destruction. So they went with limited overkill which resulted in collateral damage to other buildings and unfortunately for them, still displayed a classic controlled demolition building collapse.


So a classic controlled demolition collapse except for the enormous explosions, huge flashes of light, and neat collapse pattern?




twinstead "..are you suggesting the firefighters didn't know what they were doing..only reported the building was going to fall because they were told to.."

I said they never once were quoted as expecting a complete collapse. They never once indicated that in all their expertise that they imagined the building might collapse rapidly, symmetrically and into it's own rough footprint. I do think that as a result of the horror that they had experienced with the twin towers, that it was quite conceivable that they were more receptive to believing WTC7 was going to collapse then they might otherwise have been.


How would you respond to the assessment, made by the FDNY, that the towers would collapse? You do know that's why they ordered the evacuation of WTC1, right?





The Almond "..controlled demolition..would take thousands of man hours.."

Learn to read oh pompous one! I never attached any numerical figure to the number of man hours. I've explained in other threads how it would be possible to covertly setup a CD in WTC 1,2 & 7.


I've just been discussing this. The people I'm talking to claim that a very small team went in at nights, every night, for years, setting charges. Do you agree with this claim? One of them claimed the demolition team has been hard at work since 1993.

-Gumboot

[twinstead]

Your point? That's common knowledge. This was hardly a "invite the public" controlled demolition. Obviously they wanted the building destroyed yet they had to hope the belief that fire and debris damage would be acceptable as the cause. Too little demolition and the building isn't destroyed. Too much and it's obviously a man made destruction. So they went with limited overkill which resulted in collateral damage to other buildings and unfortunately for them, still displayed a classic controlled demolition building collapse.


Now you are inventing stuff. You're talking as if you were in on the 911 conspiracy planning meetings, for God's sake. Yea, it was an almost perfect plan, and they would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for your intrepid crack WTC investigative team.

You use the classic approach: "well, the buildings were rigged to NOT look like CD, but they didn't do a good enough job and we saw right through it". All the experts are fooled or 'in on it', but they didn't count on you brave folks, did they?

And yet you don't see how ludicrous that is.

[Christopher7]

Well, perhaps you should trust the experts' knowledge on this, rather than trust your own layman's thoughts.
Who are these 'experts' that say debris penetrated 90' into WTC 7, ejected the elevators and severed the fuel supply pipe?

That's interesting, considering that no computer on earth could do this.It doesn't take an expert or a computer to see which direction the debris came from. [see post# 948]
You're right about tracing the path of debris thru the building. That would be very dificult or impossible.

Again, you're trying to simplify everything so that all things are equal. You're forgetting a great number of factors that might have come into play. Bankers Trust is NOT 7 WTC. 2 WTC's collapse was NOT 1 WTC's. Etc.WTC 7 and Bankers Trust are similar. They both have steel frames with large perimeter columns and concrete floors.
WTC 1 and 2 were almost identical straight down collapses.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, can you name some major events on 9/11 that were more severe in WTC 7 than they were at the Bankers Trust Building?
The severe debris damage and fires were in the western portion of WTC 7.

There was no debris damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7.

The only major fire on the eastern end of WTC 7 was on the 12th floor and that burned out by 4:45 p.m.