10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 5

View Full Version : 10 story hole in WTC 7

Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Dave Rogers

22nd February 2007, 02:03 AM

Evidence?

The collapse didn't look normal.

I see this a lot in the 9-11 Truth community. I'm not sure whether there's a commonly accepted name for it, but I think of it as the "single-sided inequality". We have two phenomena: (a) the collapse that happened, and (b) the idealised collapse that should have happened, and the argument is that (a) and (b) are not the same. The problem, however, is that (b) is never defined, so the assertion can never be tested.

Miragememories, could you please help us assess the quality of your argument here? Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating.

Dave

gumboot

22nd February 2007, 04:58 AM

I see this a lot in the 9-11 Truth community. I'm not sure whether there's a commonly accepted name for it, but I think of it as the "single-sided inequality". We have two phenomena: (a) the collapse that happened, and (b) the idealised collapse that should have happened, and the argument is that (a) and (b) are not the same. The problem, however, is that (b) is never defined, so the assertion can never be tested.

Miragememories, could you please help us assess the quality of your argument here? Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating.

Dave

Some pictures would be nice.

-Gumboot

volatile

22nd February 2007, 06:30 AM

Some pictures would be nice.

-Gumboot

Or YouTube videos?

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 06:55 AM

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.

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."

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome. Or do you think they make you look smarter?

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.

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.

In a nutshell The Almond I am but one person and you are part of a gang of bigots who perform tag team assaults on those who do not share your dogma.

There aren't sufficient hours in the day for me to respond to every quip fired at me so I select those that are more interesting or just seem worth responding to. If you don't like that, well just grow a little more weary, I couldn't care less.

Regarding NIST, I'm sure their budget never allowed for 9/11 yet they managed to scrape up the millions to output 10,000 pages of shock and awe.

You also fall back on the same lame tactic that ALL the JREF skeptics resort to when they can't account for the unbelievable. You attempt to impose courtroom rules in a non-courtroom setting. As I've already said, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Logical speculation is a legitimate form of discussion.

MM

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 07:08 AM

mm you have some nerve calling rational objections to your conjecture and nonsense as 'lame'. You don't know what lame is.

Lame is:

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

twinstead "How exactly it would fail, would it fall symmetrically, would it topple over, would it float up into space and turn purple, WHO CARES?"Well obviously with your limited attention span you don't care.

I care a lot. When the unexpected happens it catches my attention and arouses my curiosity. Apparently you lack that facility and are content to be told what to think.

You seem to think there's nothing unusual about a modern 47-storey building performing a high speed TOTAL COLLAPSE from natural causes.

Experts do question this. So far the Official Story doesn't.

MM

Gravy

22nd February 2007, 07:13 AM

Experts do question this. So far the Official Story doesn't.Yeah, it's infuriating that they never undertook an investigation to attempt to explain the collapse.

Oh, wait....

:hb:

aggle-rithm

22nd February 2007, 07:16 AM

I saw a "Modern Marvels" episode recently about demolition, and it had a couple of interesting facts:

Fact #1: Bringing down a building with explosives is by far the most rare method of controlled demolition, making up only 1% of the total. The rest are pulled down with cables or dismantled piecemeal.

Fact #2: IT IS ILLEGAL TO DEMOLISH BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY USING EXPLOSIVES. The reason? There is too much infrastructure beneath the streets that could be damaged by the falling debris. The episode showed a controlled demolition of an old Con Edison power station in progress, and said it would take two years to complete. (?!?)

The point here is that it would have taken a conspiracy just for explosive demolition teams to be operating in New York City at all, much less wiring three large buildings without being detected.

twinstead

22nd February 2007, 07:26 AM

Well obviously with your limited attention span you don't care.

You seem to think there's nothing unusual about a modern 47-storey building performing a high speed TOTAL COLLAPSE from natural causes.

Obviously your limited attention span precludes you from getting things through your thick, ideologically addled brain.

I'M not saying I think there's nothing unusual, I, like YOU, am not qualified to judge that. I defer to the experts. THEY are saying it isn't unnatural. So, show me the experts you say think it was unnatural. The preliminary NIST report on WTC7 lays out in EXPLICIT DETAIL how a building can, given the condition of the building--supported by dozens of experts on the ground--and the structure of the building, collapse exactly how it was observed.

If it is so obvious like you say there should be experts, real structural engineers, coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts, as well as shunning all those lying shill engineers who are involved with NIST.

We should work to get those evil structural engineers at NIST disbanded from whatever structural engineering association they are members of.

So get off your high horse, shut down your YouTube computer and get out in the real world and present your rock-solid evidence that the WTC7's collapse could only be caused by CD to law enforcement, or at least to a structural engineering organization. Doesn't have to be American, go to Iran or China, for God's sake. You can lead the charge.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 07:26 AM

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?

What I admit is that it wasn't a "classic" controlled demolition and I explained why.

It looked like an over-calculated controlled demolition and in that sense wasn't "classic". A classic controlled demolition would not have allowed collateral damage to the surroundings.

Regarding "pull it", that issue has been argued ad nauseum and I have no new angle to present on it. You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe. All I'll say is that Silverstein said "it" not "them" and it didn't sound like he was referring to firefighters or the firefighting operation to me. Also, it wouldn't have been "his call" as to whether to fight a building fire or not.

We have recorded sound of explosives and we have video of squibs moving rapidly up one side of WTC7 (pressure created squibs would proceed downward not upward). We have a site that was rapidly cleaned up before any kind of forensic investigation could be made.

MM

The Almond

22nd February 2007, 07:51 AM

In a nutshell The Almond I am but one person and you are part of a gang of bigots who perform tag team assaults on those who do not share your dogma.

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome.

There aren't sufficient hours in the day for me to respond to every quip fired at me so I select those that are more interesting or just seem worth responding to. If you don't like that, well just grow a little more weary, I couldn't care less.

Rather, you choose to respond only to points for which your rebuttal allows you to wax polemic about our supposed bigotry and close-mindedness. Posts that request information, proof and evidence are roundly ignored. To the casual observer, this indicates that you simply don't have evidence.

Regarding NIST, I'm sure their budget never allowed for 9/11 yet they managed to scrape up the millions to output 10,000 pages of shock and awe.

I'm glad to see that you concede my point on the matter. Unfortunately, your characterization of it being "shock and awe," however boldfaced, is simply a matter of your poorly conceived, unfounded opinion.

You also fall back on the same lame tactic that ALL the JREF skeptics resort to when they can't account for the unbelievable. You attempt to impose courtroom rules in a non-courtroom setting. As I've already said, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Logical speculation is a legitimate form of discussion.

MM
Speculation is a legitimate form of discussion, but it is not a legitimate form of proof. Proof, evidence, logic, and reason are all part of legitimate discussion, yet you seem eminently focused on speculation and implication.

Consider that your reason for arguing here appears only to be to be allowed to write your opinions down. The rest of us are interested in discussion and argument to change minds and opinions. In that case, countering opinion with speculation is a fruitless endeavor. The only way to rationally determine the more truthful position is to compare the reason, the logic and the evidence.

The problem is not that you speculate, but that you expect your speculations and opinions to stand as counter arguments to evidence and reason. Should you wish to continue in this way, I would highly suggest opening up Word, Notepad or some other text program and simply typing to yourself. It would be a lot less frustrating for you, and it would accomplish the same goal.

Mashuna

22nd February 2007, 07:52 AM

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 08:05 AM

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 08:08 AM

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.

And that is evidence of... what ?

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.

Speculation upon speculation upon speculation. Are you going to provide any form of evidence at one point, or are you just going to keep spitting your own opinon ?

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.

But to assume that this shock led to this or that speculative result is, well, again speculation.

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.

They also didn't say they expected a controlled demolition. Both my sentence and yours don't mean anything.

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.

And they were right.

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.

And how much time would THAT take, given that they'd have to do it in secret ? Do tell, Ô ignorant one.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 08:13 AM

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 08:14 AM

Who are these 'experts' that say debris penetrated 90' into WTC 7, ejected the elevators and severed the fuel supply pipe?

Are you asking me to make your claim or to do your research for you ?

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.

Then please stop saying that you've done this.

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.

Key word: almost. Also, 7 WTC and Bankers Trust weren't at the same distance, etc.

Collapses are inherently chaotic. One doesn't produce the same result as the other, even in very similar, practically identical circumstances.

Mashuna

22nd February 2007, 08:17 AM

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face. They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

MM

Yes, you've said that you don't think it looked right.

Did I miss any of the detailed reasoning?

twinstead

22nd February 2007, 08:18 AM

Condescending crap Dave Rogers.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

LOL and you are so quick to concede a point, right?

Frankly I don't care what YOU think because you're no more qualified to make that call than I am. I wouldn't expect anybody to listen to me if I suddenly started claiming the collapse was CD because the building looked 'unnatural' to me unless I had additional corroborating evidence.

Why do you think that what YOU think about it constitutes in any way, shape, or form real evidence that is going to 'convert' somebody? Why do you think anybody who dares disagree with you simply lacks 'sufficient imagination'?

You are so full of yourself.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 08:32 AM

Obviously your limited attention span precludes you from getting things through your thick, ideologically addled brain.

I'M not saying I think there's nothing unusual, I, like YOU, am not qualified to judge that. I defer to the experts. THEY are saying it isn't unnatural. So, show me the experts you say think it was unnatural. The preliminary NIST report on WTC7 lays out in EXPLICIT DETAIL how a building can, given the condition of the building--supported by dozens of experts on the ground--and the structure of the building, collapse exactly how it was observed.

If it is so obvious like you say there should be experts, real structural engineers, coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts, as well as shunning all those lying shill engineers who are involved with NIST.

We should work to get those evil structural engineers at NIST disbanded from whatever structural engineering association they are members of.

So get off your high horse, shut down your YouTube computer and get out in the real world and present your rock-solid evidence that the WTC7's collapse could only be caused by CD to law enforcement, or at least to a structural engineering organization. Doesn't have to be American, go to Iran or China, for God's sake. You can lead the charge.

OMG..you've done it now twinstead, you actually conceded that maybe there was something unusual about the WTC7 though you quickly apologize for stopping to 'think' and quickly hand it back to the expert's teat.

If it was so obvious, NIST wouldn't have waffled so long in their response.

"Engineers coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts"..that's too funny. Engineers are remarkable only for their lack of public bravery. They aren't known for whistle blowing and placing their comfortable lifestyles at risk. How many people on JREF use their real names instead of aliases? I rest my case.

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

A courtroom requires more stringent rules of evidence and my hope is that eventually there will be sufficient concern from the people that still think for themselves, to force matters into a courtroom calibre setting.

MM

Mashuna

22nd February 2007, 08:40 AM

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of reasonable doubt. It's reasonable doubt based on the evidence available. It's not just because you personally doubt it based on your lack of understanding.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 08:54 AM

Your ad hominem attacks are becoming tiresome.

Rather, you choose to respond only to points for which your rebuttal allows you to wax polemic about our supposed bigotry and close-mindedness. Posts that request information, proof and evidence are roundly ignored. To the casual observer, this indicates that you simply don't have evidence.

I'm glad to see that you concede my point on the matter. Unfortunately, your characterization of it being "shock and awe," however boldfaced, is simply a matter of your poorly conceived, unfounded opinion.

Speculation is a legitimate form of discussion, but it is not a legitimate form of proof. Proof, evidence, logic, and reason are all part of legitimate discussion, yet you seem eminently focused on speculation and implication.

Consider that your reason for arguing here appears only to be to be allowed to write your opinions down. The rest of us are interested in discussion and argument to change minds and opinions. In that case, countering opinion with speculation is a fruitless endeavor. The only way to rationally determine the more truthful position is to compare the reason, the logic and the evidence.

The problem is not that you speculate, but that you expect your speculations and opinions to stand as counter arguments to evidence and reason. Should you wish to continue in this way, I would highly suggest opening up Word, Notepad or some other text program and simply typing to yourself. It would be a lot less frustrating for you, and it would accomplish the same goal.

You still haven't learned that reading is more than just looking at the words The Almond. I never conceded your point about NIST and it's budget. I made the point that in spite of the fact that NIST had a budget in place and were not prepared for 9/11, they were still able to find funding for their 10,000 page shock and awe document.

I see little point in moving to the next level of discussion; arguing facts, figures and testimony, when the first level of the discussion has not been settled; justifiable reason for doubt.

Again you are too afraid of upsetting the rest of the herd by agreeing to any of my points that argue reasonable doubt. You escape from forum rules and hide in the courtroom demanding clear proof and evidence.

Regarding my reasons for arguing here. The JREF skeptics seem all too comfortable in the belief in their infallibility and the supposed unassailable truths they worship. Someone has to shake that tree. Maybe none of you bigots will be swayed but maybe potential future converts might get an idea how intellectually corrupt you really are.

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt.

I suggest you take your own advice and start writing to yourself...your favourite audience.

MM

twinstead

22nd February 2007, 08:55 AM

OMG..you've done it now twinstead, you actually conceded that maybe there was something unusual about the WTC7 though you quickly apologize for stopping to 'think' and quickly hand it back to the expert's teat.

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

A courtroom requires more stringent rules of evidence and my hope is that eventually there will be sufficient concern from the people that still think for themselves, to force matters into a courtroom calibre setting.

Screw what a courtroom requires, I require it as well if you are going to accuse people of mass murder and expect me to take you seriously.

And, I did notice your horrid character assassination of engineers. I'm sure you'll be hearing about that soon (we have a few of those evil beings on this forum), but that's your explanation as to why they haven't come forward? It of course CAN'T be because your theory is crap, right? You ARE full of yourself, aren't you?

Mashuna

22nd February 2007, 08:59 AM

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt.

I think you put these words in by accident. Your paragraph doesn't match up with reality unless you change them to something like, 'frankly bats**t crazy'. Then it works.

DavidJames

22nd February 2007, 09:05 AM

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt. Fair enough, but you are in the wrong forum for such a discussion. Take your politics, your speculations, your opinions, your reasoning to the Politics forum where discussions like that are common occurrence.

rwguinn

22nd February 2007, 09:17 AM

OMG..you've done it now twinstead, you actually conceded that maybe there was something unusual about the WTC7 though you quickly apologize for stopping to 'think' and quickly hand it back to the expert's teat.

If it was so obvious, NIST wouldn't have waffled so long in their response.

"Engineers coming out of the woodwork with serious doubts"..that's too funny. Engineers are remarkable only for their lack of public bravery. They aren't known for whistle blowing and placing their comfortable lifestyles at risk. How many people on JREF use their real names instead of aliases? I rest my case.

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

A courtroom requires more stringent rules of evidence and my hope is that eventually there will be sufficient concern from the people that still think for themselves, to force matters into a courtroom calibre setting.

MM
All right, you slimy, malodorous waste of space and p&$$poor excuse for a human being. What the hell gives you the right to hide anonymously behind a computer screen and give self-righteous proclamations like that? You, who are so stupid that you think that Mother Nature is subject to opinion? Who thinks that "reasonable doubt" (translated:"I am intellectually incapable of finding the eqality 2+2=?") can change the laws of physics?
A coward who impugns anyone who dares to disagree with his "It looks like" by pointing out an equatiom with the worst aspects of his own character has no right to say a (rule8) thing to anyone.
Get your stupid a$$ back to the slime it came from.

volatile

22nd February 2007, 09:20 AM

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt.

I'm gonna repost this from Dave Rogers, then ask you a question:

"Describe the normal way that a 47-storey steel framed tower collapses due to a combination of structural damage and uncontrolled fire, in detail. Take plenty of time, and include as much detail on timings, the direction different parts of the building fall, how much falls inside and how much outside the footprint, and anything else you can think of. Back it up with references wherever you can. When you've done that, we can compare the actual collapse with your account, then determine how different they actually are. If your account is credible, and the differences are sufficiently profound, then I suspect that everyone here will admit you have a point worth investigating."

Why haven't you done this yet? Will you? If not, why won't you?

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 09:24 AM

LOL and you are so quick to concede a point, right?

Frankly I don't care what YOU think because you're no more qualified to make that call than I am. I wouldn't expect anybody to listen to me if I suddenly started claiming the collapse was CD because the building looked 'unnatural' to me unless I had additional corroborating evidence.

Why do you think that what YOU think about it constitutes in any way, shape, or form real evidence that is going to 'convert' somebody? Why do you think anybody who dares disagree with you simply lacks 'sufficient imagination'?

You are so full of yourself.

I guess I can see by your avatar what you are full of.

MM

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 09:27 AM

I think you're misunderstanding the concept of reasonable doubt. It's reasonable doubt based on the evidence available. It's not just because you personally doubt it based on your lack of understanding.

Photographic, video, audio and eye witness evidence are sufficient for arguing a legitimate case for reasonable doubt.

MM

The Almond

22nd February 2007, 09:31 AM

You still haven't learned that reading is more than just looking at the words The Almond. I never conceded your point about NIST and it's budget.

So, the person who's complaining that JREFers are too egotistical and married to their beliefs to concede a point, REFUSES TO CONCEDE A POINT. Amazing.

I made the point that in spite of the fact that NIST had a budget in place and were not prepared for 9/11, they were still able to find funding for their 10,000 page shock and awe document.

You're countering with an astounding amount of ignorance. You've changed your position in the debate, and now you're arguing that NIST was able to find funding for the NCSTAR? Congress gave them the money, it wasn't unlimited, and it wasn't a lot. Why do you insist on debating this lost point?

I see little point in moving to the next level of discussion; arguing facts, figures and testimony, when the first level of the discussion has not been settled; justifiable reason for doubt.

Let me get this straight. Without evidence, we should concede to you the idea that the facts of 9/11 are in doubt. You want us to believe this because...?
Have you presented any evidence?
Have you countered any argument with facts?
Have you found any errors in the NCSTAR?
Have you found any errors made by Gravy?
Have you presented any reason to doubt other than your personal opinion and incredulity on the matter? Then why should we doubt?

Again you are too afraid of upsetting the rest of the herd by agreeing to any of my points that argue reasonable doubt.

Perhaps I could lecture you on intellectual cowardice. Criticizing a report you have not read, falsely representing yourself as someone with knowledge of structural engineering, and demanding that other people acknowledge your opinions above fact and reason is intellectual cowardice.

You escape from forum rules and hide in the courtroom demanding clear proof and evidence.

Perhaps you could point to the forum rules I've broken. And God forbid I should demand clear proof and evidence for my beliefs!

Regarding my reasons for arguing here. The JREF skeptics seem all too comfortable in the belief in their infallibility and the supposed unassailable truths they worship. Someone has to shake that tree. Maybe none of you bigots will be swayed but maybe potential future converts might get an idea how intellectually corrupt you really are.

And yet, by continuously calling people names, refusing to provide evidence, and refusing to argue counter-points, you have failed to shake anyone's belief. Good job at calling everyone a bigot, though. I'm certain that really helps your argument.

Yes I speculate. I make reasoned speculations and I expect reasoned counter arguments. What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating; everything but attempts to invalidate my logical points that support reasonable doubt.

So, you make reasoned speculations, and when someone asks you to produce evidence corroborating your speculations, you demand that they first accept your speculations as true, without evidence. How does that work, again?

I suggest you take your own advice and start writing to yourself...your favourite audience.

MM

A mocker mocks, and a mocked man mocks the mocker.

Firestone

22nd February 2007, 09:31 AM

What I admit is that it wasn't a "classic" controlled demolition and I explained why.

It looked like an over-calculated controlled demolition and in that sense wasn't "classic". A classic controlled demolition would not have allowed collateral damage to the surroundings.You can play with words as much as you want, the bottomline is that the collapse of WTC 7 only superficially looks like CD. And that's because the main damage was relatively low in the building.

You are of course entitled to invent a new concept, the "over-calculated controlled demolition". But since there is no other known example of such an "over-calculated controlled demolition", all you are actually saying is that the collapse of WTC 7 is surprisingly similar to the collapse of WTC 7.
That's a point I readily concede.

Regarding "pull it", that issue has been argued ad nauseum and I have no new angle to present on it. You are entitled to believe what you wish to believe. All I'll say is that Silverstein said "it" not "them" and it didn't sound like he was referring to firefighters or the firefighting operation to me. Also, it wouldn't have been "his call" as to whether to fight a building fire or not.As you say, argued as nauseum, I will not go into this now.

We have recorded sound of explosives...We have? :confused:... and we have video of squibs moving rapidly up one side of WTC7 (pressure created squibs would proceed downward not upward).I'm not aware of this (I'm not saying it's not true).
Anyway, for WTC 7 squibs moving up proves CD. And for WTC 1/2, squibs moving down also prove CD. I don't know whether you personally claim this, but the squibs are frequently presented as evidence for WTC 1/2. So, once more we have a CT-argument that works both ways.

We have a site that was rapidly cleaned up before any kind of forensic investigation could be made.Who decided on this rapid cleanup and why?

And of course, we still have no motive for the destruction of WTC 7.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 09:33 AM

Screw what a courtroom requires, I require it as well if you are going to accuse people of mass murder and expect me to take you seriously.

And, I did notice your horrid character assassination of engineers. I'm sure you'll be hearing about that soon (we have a few of those evil beings on this forum), but that's your explanation as to why they haven't come forward? It of course CAN'T be because your theory is crap, right? You ARE full of yourself, aren't you?

Have another pint on me twinstead.

"Screw what a courtroom requires.." You don't like playing fair so your taking your pail and shovel and moving to a new sandbox?

Just because you don't like, or fear the truth, doesn't make it any less so.

MM

Mashuna

22nd February 2007, 09:37 AM

Just because you don't like, or fear the truth, doesn't make it any less so.

MM

Just because you repeat lies, doesn't make them any closer to the truth

rwguinn

22nd February 2007, 09:37 AM

Have another pint on me twinstead.

You don't like playing fair so your taking your pail and shovel and moving to a new sandbox?

Just because you don't like, or fear the truth, doesn't make it any less so.

MM

You'reso full of recycled alfalfa your eyes are brown.
We require evidence--"That which is seen". You haven't showed us a thing, you idiot.

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 10:42 AM

In a nutshell The Almond I am but one person and you are part of a gang of bigots who perform tag team assaults on those who do not share your dogma.

All these insults are fun, I'm sure, but do you actually have some evidence ? That kind of thing usually DOES change minds, here.

You also fall back on the same lame tactic that ALL the JREF skeptics resort to when they can't account for the unbelievable. You attempt to impose courtroom rules in a non-courtroom setting.

Don't like the strictures of rational thinking, eh ?

As I've already said, this is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Logical speculation is a legitimate form of discussion.

Of discussion, yes. Of evidence, no.

I care a lot.

So, what exactly are you doing about those 3000 murders ?

You seem to think there's nothing unusual about a modern 47-storey building performing a high speed TOTAL COLLAPSE from natural causes.

Having a 110-storey, flaming building fall on it is NOT considered a NATURAL cause.

What I admit is that it wasn't a "classic" controlled demolition and I explained why.

It looked like an over-calculated controlled demolition and in that sense wasn't "classic". A classic controlled demolition would not have allowed collateral damage to the surroundings.

So it "looked" like a controlled demolition, only not really. And your own layman's opinion is that it "actually" looked like an "over-calculated" controlled demolition ? What are your credentials to make this kind of judgment, please ?

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 10:45 AM

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face.

I suppose this is an understandable point of view for someone with no actual evidence, since you're not likely to convince anyone with half a brain without it.

They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

More insults. Gosh, I could swear you were actually going to go for actual proof, instead. :rolleyes:

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

"Imagination" ? What does THAT have to do with reality ?

So I guess your point is that they wouldn't have used proven technology because it was illegal? Good point!

I agree. Aggle's point about the legality of explosives in NYC was irrelevant to the question of a controlled, clandestine demolition.

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 10:54 AM

If it was so obvious, NIST wouldn't have waffled so long in their response.

Actual research takes time. But popcorn opinions like yours can be made in just moments.

Engineers are remarkable only for their lack of public bravery.

As a whole ? Do you have anything to support this accusation ? Or do you base this conclusion on YOUR conclusion ?

They aren't known for whistle blowing and placing their comfortable lifestyles at risk. How many people on JREF use their real names instead of aliases? I rest my case.

Point taken, Mr MIRAGEMEMORIES.

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom.

Pesky evidence, eh ? The only thing can that conclusively prove anything.

A courtroom requires more stringent rules of evidence and my hope is that eventually there will be sufficient concern from the people that still think for themselves, to force matters into a courtroom calibre setting.

Again with the tired, debunked arguments. You might have missed it, but several posters here are NOT Americans. Also, many of them have provided quite expert analyses of the various aspects of 9/11, proving that they can, indeed, think for themselves.

I see little point in moving to the next level of discussion; arguing facts, figures and testimony, when the first level of the discussion has not been settled; justifiable reason for doubt.

It indeed has not been settled: you have not provided any reason to doubt the current scenario about the collapses.

Again you are too afraid of upsetting the rest of the herd by agreeing to any of my points that argue reasonable doubt.

Speculation. All you know is that we disagree with you. Please stop trying to read minds. You're really bad at it.

Regarding my reasons for arguing here. The JREF skeptics seem all too comfortable in the belief in their infallibility and the supposed unassailable truths they worship. Someone has to shake that tree.

Without the heavy machinery you'd need, you're just hugging it.

Maybe none of you bigots will be swayed but maybe potential future converts might get an idea how intellectually corrupt you really are.

Seems you're using a lot of religious terms, here. Wonder why.

What I get are diversions, insults, chest beating

I see a kettle... and a pot.

Photographic, video, audio and eye witness evidence are sufficient for arguing a legitimate case for reasonable doubt.

Common sense, again ? Common sense tells you the Earth is flat.

Christopher7

22nd February 2007, 11:05 AM

Are you asking me to make your claim or to do your research for you ?
I'm not asking you to do my research.
I'm asking you to back up your statement.

I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building
Well, perhaps you should trust the experts' knowledge on this
Who are these 'experts' that say debris penetrated 90' into WTC 7, ejected the elevators and severed the fuel supply pipe.

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

You're right about tracing the path of debris thru the building. That would be very difficult or impossible.

Then please stop saying that you've done this.OK, i will stop postulating about how debris might have caused a fuel fed fire in the east end WTC 7.
Everyone here should do the same.

Key word: almost. Also, 7 WTC and Bankers Trust weren't at the same distance, etc.Right, WTC 7 was 100 feet further away.

Gravy

22nd February 2007, 11:39 AM

OK, i will stop postulating about how debris might have caused a fuel fed fire in the east end WTC 7.That's wise. You have shown yourself to be utterly unwilling and incapable of synthesizing the information you read, see, and hear. You choose to dismiss any factual information that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, and that's very sad. You will never, ever, progress towards "truth" that way. Never.

Belz...

22nd February 2007, 01:04 PM

I'm not asking you to do my research.
I'm asking you to back up your statement.

MY statement ? You're imagining things. You said:

I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building

My only statement is, maybe you should stop "thinking" about things you're not qualified to analyse and trust the people who are. Either that, or get an education in those matters.

OK, i will stop postulating about how debris might have caused a fuel fed fire in the east end WTC 7.
Everyone here should do the same.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I asked you to stop postulating about the EXACT PATH the debris should've taken, something you initially claimed to be able to do. If you want to discuss possibilities, be my guest.

Right, WTC 7 was 100 feet further away.

True. Does this always mean less damage ? Is distance the only factor ?

I also hope you saw this:

Collapses are inherently chaotic. One doesn't produce the same result as the other, even in very similar, practically identical circumstances.

rwguinn

22nd February 2007, 01:10 PM

snip>>>

OK, i will stop postulating about how debris might have caused a fuel fed fire in the east end WTC 7.
Everyone here should do the same.

Right, WTC 7 was 100 feet further away.

You might think about this:
A man is standing due south of you, aiming a 12 gage shotgun at a target due North of you.
What are the chances of you absorbing some pellets, as compared to those of someone standing to your south and East? You are actually farther from the muzzle, straight- line distance.
Still think that distance is the only important factor?

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 01:39 PM

So, the person who's complaining that JREFers are too egotistical and married to their beliefs to concede a point, REFUSES TO CONCEDE A POINT. Amazing.

You're countering with an astounding amount of ignorance. You've changed your position in the debate, and now you're arguing that NIST was able to find funding for the NCSTAR? Congress gave them the money, it wasn't unlimited, and it wasn't a lot. Why do you insist on debating this lost point?

Let me get this straight. Without evidence, we should concede to you the idea that the facts of 9/11 are in doubt. You want us to believe this because...?
Have you presented any evidence?
Have you countered any argument with facts?
Have you found any errors in the NCSTAR?
Have you found any errors made by Gravy?
Have you presented any reason to doubt other than your personal opinion and incredulity on the matter? Then why should we doubt?

Perhaps I could lecture you on intellectual cowardice. Criticizing a report you have not read, falsely representing yourself as someone with knowledge of structural engineering, and demanding that other people acknowledge your opinions above fact and reason is intellectual cowardice.

Perhaps you could point to the forum rules I've broken. And God forbid I should demand clear proof and evidence for my beliefs!

And yet, by continuously calling people names, refusing to provide evidence, and refusing to argue counter-points, you have failed to shake anyone's belief. Good job at calling everyone a bigot, though. I'm certain that really helps your argument.

So, you make reasoned speculations, and when someone asks you to produce evidence corroborating your speculations, you demand that they first accept your speculations as true, without evidence. How does that work, again?

A mocker mocks, and a mocked man mocks the mocker.

Well The Almond, you are oh so proud of yourself for having waddled through that forest of paper NIST created, you can't waste an opportunity broadcasting the fact.
You actually believed when I used the common expression of "find money" that I actually meant it was like "out lying on the street"..lol
Congress gave them the money, but I disagree with you that $20,000,000.00 wasn't a lot.

You are also obsessed about evidence and seem to have tunnelvision regarding it's meaning. The video evidence alone is sufficient to justify reasonable doubt. I'm sure you don't need the links. Everyone here has no doubt seen the WTC7 collapse videos countless times.
Because you know your position is precarious when confined to the allowances of a forum discussion you keep trying to impose the more restrictive rules of a courtroom which this isn't!

What does NCSTAR have to do with this WTC7 attempt at a discussion? Again you want to bragg about waddling through the 10,000 page NIST spoor.

What's there to say about Mark Roberts, Gravy. Another legend in his own mind. He bases his WTC7 paper predominantly on; attacks on the credibility of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, voluminous firefighter statements, ridicule, and some NIST extracts.

I have presented lots of reasons to doubt but apparently your mind is incapable of thinking outside the box. That's fine, I wasn't expecting anything but kneejerk reactions from you.

I never said I haven't read the report. It would be most surprising to hear that more than a few people here have attempted it. My knowledge of structural engineering has not been falsely stated and I have not demanded anything of anyone here.

By forum rules (lol..what a one track mind you have), I was referring to the legitimate rules of discussion and not the official JREF rules of behaviour. Your insistence that my points aren't acceptable for argument unless supported by the kind of exacting evidence (clear proof) demanded in the courtroom is where you miss the point.

If people behave in a bigoted manner than it is accurate to call them bigots. I do provide references to known evidence but you choose to ignore this in your typical lame fallback to courtroom criteria. I'd be happy to argue counterpoints if people actually argued against my position instead of constantly rehashing their fixed beliefs.

I heard about floods, the toy factory collapse etc. etc. but they aren't examples of complete, high speed, symmetrical, fire and debris damage collapses.

Again you harp on about corroborative evidence. It's the old; "no, no, no I don't like that evidence, show me something else." You don't like the evidence I refer to because you can't easily explain it away, hence; reasonable doubt!

I don't demand anyone accept my speculations as true. What I do demand, is that if they think my speculations are so without merit, they show me the errors in my logical reasoning.

You do believe in an individual's right to logically consider the credibility of what they are told don't you? Or is that something you abdicate as well in favour of the priestly experts everyone worships here?

A mocker mocks.

A mocked man can only be hurt by those who gain his respect.

It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.

MM

Dog Town

22nd February 2007, 01:57 PM

Let me get this straight. Without evidence, we should concede to you the idea that the facts of 9/11 are in doubt. You want us to believe this because...?
Have you presented any evidence?
Have you countered any argument with facts?
Have you found any errors in the NCSTAR?
Have you found any errors made by Gravy?
Have you presented any reason to doubt other than your personal opinion and incredulity on the matter? Then why should we doubt?

Did you not read this, MM? What is it, with the CTers lack of comprehension?

H'ethetheth

22nd February 2007, 03:38 PM

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.
Look, it's very simple.

In the courtroom analogy:
You are a witness who doubts that this building came down because of fire and damage. That's all fine.

People then point to expert testimony that states that it may seem that way to the untrained eye from one side of the building, but after doing the research, it turns out there really isn't anything strange about the way the building collapsed.

You then procede to dispute the expert testimony, therefore the ball is in your court.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 05:38 PM

Did you not read this, MM? What is it, with the CTers lack of comprehension?

Read it and replied.

What's with you JREFers inability to find space in your brains for what you obviously struggle to read?

MM

Dog Town

22nd February 2007, 05:44 PM

Read it and replied.

MM

You showed no sign, of understanding it, however!

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 05:49 PM

Look, it's very simple.

In the courtroom analogy:
You are a witness who doubts that this building came down because of fire and damage. That's all fine.

People then point to expert testimony that states that it may seem that way to the untrained eye from one side of the building, but after doing the research, it turns out there really isn't anything strange about the way the building collapsed.

You then procede to dispute the expert testimony, therefore the ball is in your court.

Yes it is very simple H'ethethethethethethethethe.

This isn't a courtroom. I never drew a courtroom analogy. I said specifically, not analogously, that courtroom rules were not required in an open forum!

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

You are not as important as you like to think you are and your lame research isn't of much value until it's accepted in a courtroom. I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality. Logoff and your on your own again with no applause given to your smug replies.

My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

MM

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 05:53 PM

You showed no sign, of understanding it, however!

Give the dope some time to wear off Dog Town and maybe your ability to comprehend basic english will return..maybe not.

It's difficult replying to people who aren't interested in reading unless it's praise from the rest of the herd.

MM

twinstead

22nd February 2007, 06:04 PM

Yes it is very simple
My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

Oh for God's sake what an fool you are! You say your evidence is as usable as his? Bull, your post record shows clearly that you think your evidence is more compelling than any single thing that has been brought up on this thread, and you are a bastion of reason and logic in the midst of a rabble of blind sheep.

And you dare to try to pull this whole, "what, it's not like it's a court of law or anything. Who needs real evidence in a web forum"? What a bunch of crap!

You are nothing but an arrogant fool. You say you would defer to a court of law, but I doubt you would ever let your world view be overturned, even in a full-fledged court of law. You have the stone-cold, rock-solid, unshakable conviction in the face of contrary evidence that only one who is mentally ill or morbidly ideologically blind can possess.

Good luck with that.

Christopher7

22nd February 2007, 06:37 PM

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7

Please take your personal pissing match elsewhere.

Respond to this please.

No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]

Debris damage:

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
[about 1/3 down the page]

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

************************************************** **********
A piece of debris would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor,
to get to the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

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, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

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

Fire on floor 12

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

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

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

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.

Miragememories

22nd February 2007, 08:54 PM

Christopher7

22nd February 2007, 09:00 PM

MM, Thank you.

Chris

Dog Town

22nd February 2007, 09:18 PM

It's difficult replying to people who aren't interested in reading unless it's praise from the rest of the herd.

MM

That is quite rich, coming from you. The person who wants to sequester criticism, of the twoof, to a secret "yes man" forum! Bravo!

5697

The Almond

22nd February 2007, 09:36 PM

Well The Almond, you are oh so proud of yourself for having waddled through that forest of paper NIST created, you can't waste an opportunity broadcasting the fact.

Ad hominem, but why bother pointing that out?

You actually believed when I used the common expression of "find money" that I actually meant it was like "out lying on the street"..lol
Congress gave them the money, but I disagree with you that $20,000,000.00 wasn't a lot.

When compared to other institutes it is.

You are also obsessed about evidence and seem to have tunnelvision regarding it's meaning.

And this is where we disagree. I believe I am right to be obsessed with evidence. Were you accused of murder, you, too, would be obsessed with the evidence set against you. Why, then, should we not be obsessed with the evidence that our own government murdered 3000 citizens, and that hundreds of scientists at NIST covered it up?

The video evidence alone is sufficient to justify reasonable doubt. I'm sure you don't need the links.

According to whom?

Everyone here has no doubt seen the WTC7 collapse videos countless times.
Because you know your position is precarious when confined to the allowances of a forum discussion you keep trying to impose the more restrictive rules of a courtroom which this isn't!

For someone who rails so incessently against courtroom rules of evidence, you seem oddly fixated on reasonable doubt. I'm sure you're aware that reasonable doubt is used in the courtroom to prove someone innocent, not guilty. Perhaps you might consider that.

What does NCSTAR have to do with this WTC7 attempt at a discussion? Again you want to bragg about waddling through the 10,000 page NIST spoor.

Childish.

What's there to say about Mark Roberts, Gravy. Another legend in his own mind. He bases his WTC7 paper predominantly on; attacks on the credibility of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, voluminous firefighter statements, ridicule, and some NIST extracts.

So, in response to the question, "What errors has Gravy made," you respond as above. What I mean to say is, you respond, "I have found none, but I still hate him."

I have presented lots of reasons to doubt but apparently your mind is incapable of thinking outside the box. That's fine, I wasn't expecting anything but kneejerk reactions from you.

Ad hom 2 and 3 for this post. You're on a roll!

I never said I haven't read the report. It would be most surprising to hear that more than a few people here have attempted it.

And yet, you have not produced any criticisms of the report that are based upon a sound knowledge of the report's contents. You misrepresented Underwriters Laboratories, misrepresented the thermodynamic response and misrepresented the extreme case scenario. I would be surprised to learn that you've read any of the NIST report.

My knowledge of structural engineering has not been falsely stated and I have not demanded anything of anyone here.

Rather, not falsely stated, but severly overstated. After 4 pages of bluster, you produced no equations, no mathematics and no relevant knowledge of structural engineering to our little NIST discussion. Or perhaps you would care to produce said equations and said relevant knowledge right now?

By forum rules (lol..what a one track mind you have)

Ad hom #4.

, I was referring to the legitimate rules of discussion

Oh do tell! Where might those be written?

and not the official JREF rules of behaviour. Your insistence that my points aren't acceptable for argument unless supported by the kind of exacting evidence (clear proof) demanded in the courtroom is where you miss the point.

Reasonable doubt. Courtroom. Rules of evidence. Do you even see the contradiction there?

If people behave in a bigoted manner than it is accurate to call them bigots.

I'm glad the Emperor of Earth has crowned you king and judge over all you survey. It's good to know we have one person here who can call people names and be correct in applying them!

I do provide references to known evidence but you choose to ignore this in your typical lame fallback to courtroom criteria.

Courtroom criteria. Reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence.

I'd be happy to argue counterpoints if people actually argued against my position instead of constantly rehashing their fixed beliefs.

Ad hom #5 and we're still going!

I heard about floods, the toy factory collapse etc. etc. but they aren't examples of complete, high speed, symmetrical, fire and debris damage collapses.

Would you care to name other buildings that had the WTC towers collapse on them?

Again you harp on about corroborative evidence. It's the old; "no, no, no I don't like that evidence, show me something else." You don't like the evidence I refer to because you can't easily explain it away, hence; reasonable doubt!

Courtroom evidence. Reasonable doubt. Do you see any contradiction in your statement?

I don't demand anyone accept my speculations as true. What I do demand, is that if they think my speculations are so without merit, they show me the errors in my logical reasoning.

So you can claim something without evidence, and you demand that we prove you wrong? You're digging that logic hole awfully deep.

You do believe in an individual's right to logically consider the credibility of what they are told don't you? Or is that something you abdicate as well in favour of the priestly experts everyone worships here?

Ad hom #6 combined with a red herring. Logic was not your strong suit, eh? You probably didn't get as good a grade in Philosophy as you did in Structural Engineering.

A mocker mocks.

A mocked man can only be hurt by those who gain his respect.

It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.

MM
Ok, aside from ad hom #7, you've got nothing but rhetoric here. Sorry MM, I'm done with you. I thought you might be a challenge, but you fled from the NIST thread and crapped on this one. Sorry about that Christopher7, you split this thread off from another so that it wouldn't get junked up. I'll leave now.

H'ethetheth

23rd February 2007, 02:36 AM

Yes it is very simple H'ethethethethethethethethe.

This isn't a courtroom. I never drew a courtroom analogy. I said specifically, not analogously, that courtroom rules were not required in an open forum!

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

You are not as important as you like to think you are and your lame research isn't of much value until it's accepted in a courtroom. I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality. Logoff and your on your own again with no applause given to your smug replies.
Bah! What's with the broken record? You either came here to discuss something or you didn't. People here like discussing things.
You don't believe this or that. Professional researchers who have been on the case for five years say you're wrong. Their arguments are there for anyone to read who wants to.
You don't read their arguments but dismiss them anyway. That's fine and dandy but if you're here to convince anyone, it is your turn to come up with a story that is as good as the NIST reconstruction.
If you do not, you will not convince anyone here. I'm sure there are more amusing things for you to do than scream "LALALALALALA, you suck!!" with your fingers in your ears on a fairly obscure webforum.

My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

MMNo, your evidence is enough to make one wonder what actually happened to WTC7. The funny thing is: people who do this for a living looked into it, and it looks like you're wrong.
I fail to see how dismissing hundreds of man-years of expert research off-hand is not self important. Maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror.

Dave Rogers

23rd February 2007, 02:49 AM

Condescending crap Dave Rogers.

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face. They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

MM

OK, putting aside anything you might see as condescending:
You say the collapse didn't look right. What would it have looked like if it had looked right?

Dave

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 05:42 AM

It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.

BINGO! I was wondering when the CTer would refer to a work of fiction to represent his twisted view of reality.

Congratulations.

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 05:47 AM

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

A forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism, both of which tend to use "evidence", a word you seem unfamiliar with.

This isn't a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles forum where you can speculate about genetic explanations for the various abilities of fictional characters.

I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality.

What IS it with CTers and their obsession with sheep mentality ?

No, that was a rhetorical question. I know the answer: It's obvious to you guys that your opinions on reality do not reflect that of most people, and you probably realise that most of those actually have a real life, a job, etc. Naturally, it would seem as though your layman's opinions aren't worth much against those of experts or generally smarter people. But you CANNOT possibly be wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be mommy's special little boys. So, your conclusion ? Your opponents MUST be disagreeing with you on purpose. That's the only explanation, right ?

Nope. There's still the one where you're just nutcases.

Miragememories

23rd February 2007, 12:34 PM

Belz...

23rd February 2007, 01:10 PM

Oh, we have. Long ago. We just don't like repeating ourselves to the same people over and over.

Not too much, anyway.

Miragememories

23rd February 2007, 01:24 PM

Actual research takes time. But popcorn opinions like yours can be made in just moments.

As a whole ? Do you have anything to support this accusation ? Or do you base this conclusion on YOUR conclusion ?

Again with the tired, debunked arguments. You might have missed it, but several posters here are NOT Americans. Also, many of them have provided quite expert analyses of the various aspects of 9/11, proving that they can, indeed, think for themselves.

It indeed has not been settled: you have not provided any reason to doubt the current scenario about the collapses.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3 (file:///Users/jimcrewe/Desktop/www.pumpitout.com:audio:danny_jowenko_022207.mp3.w ebloc)

Since you have no use for my opinion, try that of an expert who's had ample time to change his mind.

MM

twinstead

23rd February 2007, 01:26 PM

Oh, we have. Long ago. We just don't like repeating ourselves to the same people over and over.

That's why CTs always have an advantage. They can post long debunked claims over and over and over again, and when we finally get tired of debating this way and get a little cranky about it, they can claim we can't answer them and are relying on insults.

Whack-a-mole

twinstead

23rd February 2007, 01:31 PM

Miragememories

23rd February 2007, 03:46 PM

Of course Jowenko claims the WTC1 and 2 WEREN'T demolished by CD, or didn't you know. Do you believe him about that?

Oh, and I wonder how many of his colleagues agree with him. Frankly, you could have 10 experts claiming the same thing and still they would be in the tiny minority, but I don't want to move the goalposts.

Yea, Jowenko thinks WTC7 was CD (but not 1 or 2). You've proved your point let's all go home.

You amply prove my point that no matter how much we comply with your request for expert opinion, you'll simply raise the bar to make sure we don't satisfy your demands.

MM

Christopher7

23rd February 2007, 05:57 PM

That's why CTs always have an advantage. They can post long debunked claims over and over and over again, and when we finally get tired of debating this way and get a little cranky about it, they can claim we can't answer them and are relying on insults.
No one can 'debunk' the facts in the FEMA report about the location of the east generator room and the supply pipe that fed those generators.

There were NO fuel fed fires in the east part of WTC 7.

There was NO fire in the east generator room.

There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe, 90 feet inside the building, was severed.

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 07:08 AM

No one can 'debunk' the facts in the FEMA report about the location of the east generator room and the supply pipe that fed those generators.

There were NO fuel fed fires in the east part of WTC 7.

There was NO fire in the east generator room.

There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe, 90 feet inside the building, was severed.

Nice job Christopher7.

Apparently, based on zero rebuttal, you've satisfied the JREF skeptics and they now agree that the WTC7 collapse could not have a occured as a result of fire and debris damage.

Profession Demolitionist, Danny Jowenko's continues to agree with you as well, in spite of the many opportunities he's had to retract his expert opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and absolutely could not have collapsed due to the fire conditions that existed.

MM

twinstead

24th February 2007, 10:46 AM

You amply prove my point that no matter how much we comply with your request for expert opinion, you'll simply raise the bar to make sure we don't satisfy your demands.

No, my point is that in a war of attrition of experts agreeing with each of our opinions, I will win hands down. Simple fact, and one that must frustrate your ideologically addled brain to no end.

I never asked you to find a single expert and then you'd be vindicated. The world of experts are against you, and until that changes you'll get nowhere.

Also, you didn't answer my question: DO YOU BELIEVE HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THE WTC1 and 2?

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 12:11 PM

No, my point is that in a war of attrition of experts agreeing with each of our opinions, I will win hands down. Simple fact, and one that must frustrate your ideologically addled brain to no end.

I never asked you to find a single expert and then you'd be vindicated. The world of experts are against you, and until that changes you'll get nowhere.

Also, you didn't answer my question: DO YOU BELIEVE HE IS RIGHT ABOUT THE WTC1 and 2?

So basically you believe in quantity vs quality.

To answer your question about Jowenko's view on WTC1 & 2, I disagree with his accepting the official explanation for the cause of their collapse.

I'm not convinced that he is convinced, but , since he's not on record expressing a dissenting opinion, and since he acknowledges when referring to his American counterparts that they don't dissent because it would be bad for business, it's understandable that he would apply the same understanding to his own statements. He was 'trapped' into making his WTC7 statement and has enough integrity to not try and back away from a stated belief, especially one that he feels is easy to defend.

There were many events in the 9/11 scenario that day and many unanswered questions remain. Just because Jowenko had different views about different buildings doesn't mean that his statements are rendered invalid.

MM

Belz...

24th February 2007, 01:00 PM

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3 (file:///Users/jimcrewe/Desktop/www.pumpitout.com:audio:danny_jowenko_022207.mp3.w ebloc)

Since you have no use for my opinion, try that of an expert who's had ample time to change his mind.

MM

The link doesn't work. What a pleasant surprise.

Do have any evidence or argument ? Or are you just going to dodge ?

Yea, Jowenko thinks WTC7 was CD (but not 1 or 2). You've proved your point let's all go home.

You amply prove my point that no matter how much we comply with your request for expert opinion, you'll simply raise the bar to make sure we don't satisfy your demands.

No one ever asked for an opinion. I've consistently asked for EVIDENCE, and nothing less.

Apparently, based on zero rebuttal, you've satisfied the JREF skeptics and they now agree that the WTC7 collapse could not have a occured as a result of fire and debris damage.

I'm no architect, firefighter or structural engineer, nor am I a demolitions expert, but someone's going to have to explain to me why a building would need to be completely on fire (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072308/) in order to collapse.

So basically you believe in quantity vs quality.

How exactly do you judge an expert's quality, mister skeptics-don't-post-their-real-names ?

it's understandable that he would apply the same understanding to his own statements. He was 'trapped' into making his WTC7 statement and has enough integrity to not try and back away from a stated belief, especially one that he feels is easy to defend.

That sounds remarkably like speculation. Care to prove me wrong ?

There were many events in the 9/11 scenario that day and many unanswered questions remain. Just because Jowenko had different views about different buildings doesn't mean that his statements are rendered invalid.

Convenient use of double-standards.

Christopher7

24th February 2007, 02:07 PM

The link doesn't work. What a pleasant surprise.

Do have any evidence or argument ? Or are you just going to dodge ?

No one ever asked for an opinion. I've consistently asked for EVIDENCE, and nothing less.

I'm no architect, firefighter or structural engineer, nor am I a demolitions expert, but someone's going to have to explain to me why a building would need to be completely on fire (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072308/) in order to collapse.

How exactly do you judge an expert's quality, mister skeptics-don't-post-their-real-names ?

That sounds remarkably like speculation. Care to prove me wrong ?

Convenient use of double-standards.
You are willing to argue this point ad nasium but you won't dispute or even acknowledge the facts listed in post # 1048
OT'ers refuse to acknowledge facts that they cannot dispute.
Instead, they talk about anything other than that which bursts their bubble.

Can you dispute anything in post # 1048?

If not, by your acquiescence, you accept those facts as true.

beachnut

24th February 2007, 02:31 PM

Nice job Christopher7.

Apparently, based on zero rebuttal, you've satisfied the JREF skeptics and they now agree that the WTC7 collapse could not have a occured as a result of fire and debris damage.

Profession Demolitionist, Danny Jowenko's continues to agree with you as well, in spite of the many opportunities he's had to retract his expert opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and absolutely could not have collapsed due to the fire conditions that existed.

MM

I think most now group you and Chris7 as a pair of concrete core type guys. You and Chris have no facts, no idea how the real world works and zero capabilities to read and comprehend. Logic and knowledge are not yours or Chris's strong suits.

Chris continues to tilt at the hole as he takes the many descriptions of this elephant and makes the logical errors we were all warned about in first grade. Seems you are blind enough to be a truther and follow others blindly into the knowledge vacuum of 9/11 truth; or should I say lies.

It is possible no one cares what you and Chris have to say any more? Yes.

Kiwiwriter

24th February 2007, 02:33 PM

Christopher7

24th February 2007, 03:19 PM

I think most now group you and Chris7 as a pair of concrete core type guys. You and Chris have no facts, no idea how the real world works and zero capabilities to read and comprehend. Logic and knowledge are not yours or Chris's strong suits.

Wrong.

I listed a number of [B]facts contained in the FEMA and NIST reports.

All the fuel oil tanks were in the west end of WTC 7 except for 1 tank in the center between floors 2 and 3.

There are a lot more facts listed in post #1048.

You can deny that these facts are indisputable if that makes you feel better.

twinstead

24th February 2007, 03:40 PM

There were many events in the 9/11 scenario that day and many unanswered questions remain. Just because Jowenko had different views about different buildings doesn't mean that his statements are rendered invalid.

I could say the same to you concerning WTC7; Just because Jowenko had different views about different buildings doesn't mean that his statements are rendered valid.

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 03:50 PM

I think most now group you and Chris7 as a pair of concrete core type guys. You and Chris have no facts, no idea how the real world works and zero capabilities to read and comprehend. Logic and knowledge are not yours or Chris's strong suits.

Chris continues to tilt at the hole as he takes the many descriptions of this elephant and makes the logical errors we were all warned about in first grade. Seems you are blind enough to be a truther and follow others blindly into the knowledge vacuum of 9/11 truth; or should I say lies.

It is possible no one cares what you and Chris have to say any more? Yes.

Sure go ahead beachnut.

The fact that I don't currently have an opinion about concrete in the core is of no consequence..you will think what you wish anyway.

I'm sure in real life you are a decent guy beachnut. I can assure you I'm a decent person as well. I'm not playing this like it's a game. I don't expect you JREFers to budge an inch. I say what I believe and if you folks want to crap all over me so be it. I hope it was worth the brownie points.

MM

stateofgrace

24th February 2007, 04:32 PM

Sure go ahead beachnut.

The fact that I don't currently have an opinion about concrete in the core is of no consequence..you will think what you wish anyway.

I'm sure in real life you are a decent guy beachnut. I can assure you I'm a decent person as well. I'm not playing this like it's a game. I don't expect you JREFers to budge an inch. I say what I believe and if you folks want to crap all over me so be it. I hope it was worth the brownie points.

MM

Then why do you not have the nerve to say what you really believe?

You believe that your fellow countrymen planned, executed and covered up mass murder of 3000 of their own.

Come on you decent guys say it, put your beliefs to this one dimensional text, be the first CTER to have the nerve to say what you really believe.

People crap all over you pal because they are offended and appalled by your beliefs, they are annoyed that guys like you who think this is all one big game and crap all over this event.

You have and will continue to accuse people of this most heinous crime and you do so from the safety and security of you own house. You then have the nerve to accuse those who will not join you of being narrow minded, fixed in their ways.

NO MM, people are not fixed, people are not narrow minded, they are sick and tired of individuals like you, with their over blown sense of importance pretending you have seen something everybody else missed.

Now do it MM, say what you really believe, have the courage that you foolish pretend those who oppose you do not have. Say what you really think.

I will say it for you ¨I,MM accuse Americans of committed mass murder of 3000 of their own¨

Now simply nod your CT head in agreement.

Belz...

25th February 2007, 12:02 PM

You are willing to argue this point ad nasium but you won't dispute or even acknowledge the facts listed in post # 1048
OT'ers refuse to acknowledge facts that they cannot dispute.

So that's how you "think" ? If YOU can't debunk it, then it's false ?

And what's nasium ?

Instead, they talk about anything other than that which bursts their bubble.

Reality cannot be burst.

Can you dispute anything in post # 1048?

I'd like to see the final report, first.

If not, by your acquiescence, you accept those facts as true.

Non sequitur.

Belz...

25th February 2007, 12:03 PM

I can assure you I'm a decent person as well.

Everybody says that.

I'm not playing this like it's a game. I don't expect you JREFers to budge an inch.

Then why are you here ? To hear yourself talk ?

I say what I believe and if you folks want to crap all over me so be it. I hope it was worth the brownie points.

"Brownie points" ? Are you still trying to explain away why people disagree with your "obvious" conclusions by accusing them of beign dishonest ? Really ? Don't you see any other possibilities ? I do.

Miragememories

25th February 2007, 01:58 PM

Then why do you not have the nerve to say what you really believe?

You believe that your fellow countrymen planned, executed and covered up mass murder of 3000 of their own.

Come on you decent guys say it, put your beliefs to this one dimensional text, be the first CTER to have the nerve to say what you really believe.

People crap all over you pal because they are offended and appalled by your beliefs, they are annoyed that guys like you who think this is all one big game and crap all over this event.

You have and will continue to accuse people of this most heinous crime and you do so from the safety and security of you own house. You then have the nerve to accuse those who will not join you of being narrow minded, fixed in their ways.

NO MM, people are not fixed, people are not narrow minded, they are sick and tired of individuals like you, with their over blown sense of importance pretending you have seen something everybody else missed.

Now do it MM, say what you really believe, have the courage that you foolish pretend those who oppose you do not have. Say what you really think.

I will say it for you ¨I,MM accuse Americans of committed mass murder of 3000 of their own¨

Now simply nod your CT head in agreement.

I try and say what is worth saying. Emotional tirades only lead to even greater emotional responses..as you enjoy proving.

I prefer to consider myself a citizen of the world first. For too long we've thought in terms of borders and the time is rapidly approaching when those borders will become meaningless.

People crap on other people because they can do it without revealing their true identity. You enjoy hiding behind stateofgrace but if you had to use your real name and provide full contact information, I believe you would be far more tactful in your responses, and of course, so would I.

Heinous? No one ever says heinous any more (I don't remember ever hearing that outside of the odd novel).

And what makes you believe that Americans are and less likely than any other people to murder their own, especially if they believe the end justifies the means?

Americans had no difficulty killing each other in the American Revolution and the Civil War. American leaders had no problem using the Draft to send 50,000 young men to their deaths in Vietnam. They are doing a similar thing in Iraq.

I believe 9/11 was motivated by a political belief that it would provide the necessary public support for the ruling power structure to obtain the congressional and public backing they needed to pursue a course that they felt was critical to the future of the U.S.A.

My belief is that those who feel they are much wiser than ourselves see a grim future. We live on a planet that is rapidly approaching unsustainable overpopulation. We face dwindling oil reserves while oil consumption continues to rise. We are oil dependent and do not have any quick or affordable replacement. The U.S. is the world's No.1 military power. It's in a unique position in history and I'm sure those controlling those reins don't want to see them dropped. By securing the last remaining major oil reserves, the military's demand for oil is slaked and the economic engine of the U.S. is temporarily protected. It won't last but it will buy time..more time than the other major power threats (China, India, Japan, Russia etc.) will have.

Whether you believe that or not, the response to 9/11 provided the current administration with the mandate they desired and allowed them to seize control of the country with the oil assets they felt were critically needed.

Some might argue that it was a failure because of the current mess in Iraq but I could argue that 'mess' is part of the desired plan. A stable Iraq makes it difficult for the U.S. to 'stay'. An unstable Iraq justifies American long term continued involvement in maintaining some stability and defacto control over oil asset management.

MM

stateofgrace

25th February 2007, 09:44 PM

I try and say what is worth saying. Emotional tirades only lead to even greater emotional responses..as you enjoy proving.

To date you have said nothing backed by facts or reality, other than your own believes and your own worldviews. They are completely lacking in substance and completely lacking in evidence.

I prefer to consider myself a citizen of the world first. For too long we've thought in terms of borders and the time is rapidly approaching when those borders will become meaningless.

A citizen of the world eh? Therefore by implication because I refuse to belief your insane theories whereby your fellow Americans murdered 3000 of their own I am not a citizen of the world. I really don’t care what is happening in the world, I am not concerned about global warming, global terrorism, world poverty or the AIDs crisis. I am not concerned about the disaster that is happening in the Middle East. Is this how you view those who refuse to subscribe to your insane conspiracies? Believe me, there are far more real and relevant problems in this world to concern oneself with that complete BS as promoted by the likes of you.

People crap on other people because they can do it without revealing their true identity. You enjoy hiding behind stateofgrace but if you had to use your real name and provide full contact information, I believe you would be far more tactful in your responses, and of course, so would I.

No I crap on your ideas because they are completely wrong, they are completely misguided and they are lies. You are quite welcome to PM me your personnel details and I will gladly reply with mine. I will gladly arrange to meet you in person if you so desire. I am not ashamed of who I am or what I believe in. I would say to your face, in person, exactly what I have said to you on this forum. I would say quite clearly, you are accusing your fellow Americans of mass murder,you do this with no evidence.

Heinous? No one ever says heinous any more (I don't remember ever hearing that outside of the odd novel).

Oh well excuse me, allow me to change it : hideous, evil, dreadful, callous, awful etc, please take your pick.

And what makes you believe that Americans are and less likely than any other people to murder their own, especially if they believe the end justifies the means?

Why would I question whether Americans would knowing plant explosives inside the towers, plant explosives inside WTC 7, purposefully allow their fellow country men to die? Well maybe I just believe in humanity a little bit. Maybe I just believe the very notion of anybody, let alone US citezens, committing just a dreadful, terrible, evil, callous, hideous act is actually quite ludicrous. But then again who I? Just somebody who happens to believe that human life is scared, and a decision of such magnitude would never be taken. That the US administration, despite how much you may dislike them, would ever commit themselves to such a terrible act. That they would ever knowingly plan, execute and cover up such a dreadful act of mass murder. That maybe, just maybe somebody somewhere would say ¨NO way am I going to allow this to happen¨.
It’s called humanity pal, there is a little bit in everybody, I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find a little bit inside yourself.

Americans had no difficulty killing each other in the American Revolution and the Civil War. American leaders had no problem using the Draft to send 50,000 young men to their deaths in Vietnam. They are doing a similar thing in Iraq.

Vietnam as nothing to do with 911. Iraq has nothing to do with 911.
Iraq was invaded because of WMD; please do not try to mix up these events. Bush used 911 as political muscle to get into Iraq. End of story.
I believe 9/11 was motivated by a political belief that it would provide the necessary public support for the ruling power structure to obtain the congressional and public backing they needed to pursue a course that they felt was critical to the future of the U.S.A.

I don’t care what you believe. A Government so evil they would murder 3000 of their own would not give a dam about public opinion, they would not care what the public thought.
Your beliefs are one whereby each and every event is inter related and they all inter connect. The reality is, as I have pointed out, that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, if it was then why did the Evil US Government not just simply blame Iraq. It would have been simple. Iraqi pilots all funded by Saddam. Simple, invade Iraq. Yet they picked Saudi hijackers, they choose to blame UBL in Afghanistan, so how does this one work?

My belief is that those who feel they are much wiser than ourselves see a grim future. We live on a planet that is rapidly approaching unsustainable overpopulation. We face dwindling oil reserves while oil consumption continues to rise. We are oil dependent and do not have any quick or affordable replacement.

This I sort of agree with, yes we have limited oil supplies and yes we need to find different energy sources. Various companies around the world are actually doing this I believe, as fossil runs out. This does not mean that every country that has oil reserves will become targets in the future. Besides I believe the US used to import oil from Iraq before they invaded them, so what was the point of invading a county that you already got oil from?

The U.S. is the world's No.1 military power. It's in a unique position in history and I'm sure those controlling those reins don't want to see them dropped. By securing the last remaining major oil reserves, the military's demand for oil is slaked and the economic engine of the U.S. is temporarily protected. It won't last but it will buy time..more time than the other major power threats (China, India, Japan, Russia etc.) will have.

So the number one military power kills 3000 of its own to Invade Iraq eh? This is to buy more time against other super powers, like China, Japan, and Russia. Ok well since 911 itself cost close to 70 billion in damages and the war on terror has actually cost close to 400 billion, lets round it all up to say 450 billion, then why did they not simply invest all this cash in future technology? Why not buy lots and lots of new ICBM’s, why not restart the star war program? Why spend an absolute fortune on blowing up yourself and on unpopular foreign wars when it would have been simpler just to use all this cash to build up better homeland defenses?

Whether you believe that or not, the response to 9/11 provided the current administration with the mandate they desired and allowed them to seize control of the country with the oil assets they felt were critically needed.

Oil that was needed eh? I believe they imported oil from Iraq anyway, so are they now importing more oil from Iraq? I honestly don’t know, maybe you could tell me. Does the US now get more oil out of Iraq than they did prior to the Invasion? Does this all cover the cost of the 450 billion that has been spent?

Some might argue that it was a failure because of the current mess in Iraq but I could argue that 'mess' is part of the desired plan. A stable Iraq makes it difficult for the U.S. to 'stay'. An unstable Iraq justifies American long term continued involvement in maintaining some stability and defector control over oil asset management.

Yes and some might argue that the mess in Iraq is nothing to do with foreword planning, quite the reserve in fact. Some might argue that the US and coalition forces that invaded Iraq did not have a clear exit strategy, had no clear mandate has to how to get the country back up and running once the fighting had stopped. Some might also argue that this is the most unpopular war ever and the Coalitions forces are now stuck inside a country that is on the brink of civil war.

Of course some idiot may also say this is exactly how it was all planned out.

Christopher7

25th February 2007, 10:29 PM

So that's how you "think" ? If YOU can't debunk it, then it's false ?
No
I'd like to see the final report first.Post #1048 lists facts contained in the FEMA and NIST reports
that are not going to change in the final report.

The location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators
is not going to change in the final report.

They have reassessed the damage to the south side but
the location and time frame of the fires is not going to change in the final report.

beachnut

25th February 2007, 10:42 PM

I try and say what is worth saying. Emotional tirades only lead to even greater emotional responses..as you enjoy proving.

Whether you believe that or not, the response to 9/11 provided the current administration with the mandate they desired and allowed them to seize control of the country with the oil assets they felt were critically needed.

Some might argue that it was a failure because of the current mess in Iraq but I could argue that 'mess' is part of the desired plan. A stable Iraq makes it difficult for the U.S. to 'stay'. An unstable Iraq justifies American long term continued involvement in maintaining some stability and defacto control over oil asset management.

MM

Why am I having a problem relating this to a hole in the WTC7?

Belz...

26th February 2007, 05:35 AM

And what makes you believe that Americans are and less likely than any other people to murder their own, especially if they believe the end justifies the means?

Argument from bare possibility. Speculation.

Americans had no difficulty killing each other in the American Revolution and the Civil War.

And somehow that didn't stay secret.

American leaders had no problem using the Draft to send 50,000 young men to their deaths in Vietnam.

And we found out about that one.

I believe 9/11 was motivated by a political belief that it would provide the necessary public support for the ruling power structure to obtain the congressional and public backing they needed to pursue a course that they felt was critical to the future of the U.S.A.

Your speculation on the matter would be interesting, even debatable, if we had any sort of conclusive proof that the event was an inside job. Since this is not the case, it is simply pointless.

The U.S. is the world's No.1 military power. It's in a unique position in history and I'm sure those controlling those reins don't want to see them dropped.

Not so unique, considering past superpowers.

By securing the last remaining major oil reserves, the military's demand for oil is slaked and the economic engine of the U.S. is temporarily protected. It won't last but it will buy time..more time than the other major power threats (China, India, Japan, Russia etc.) will have.

Again, speculating on the motive of a non-event is fruitless.

Whether you believe that or not, the response to 9/11 provided the current administration with the mandate they desired and allowed them to seize control of the country with the oil assets they felt were critically needed.

Incorrect. Afghanistan was the target related to 9/11, not Iraq.

Christopher7

26th February 2007, 11:55 AM

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7.
Please keep your comments relevant.

No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

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

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [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://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

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

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.

12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

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

Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

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, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

Fire on floor 12

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

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

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

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.

Belz...

27th February 2007, 08:05 AM

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."

Christopher7

28th February 2007, 12:28 AM

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."
It seems that no one here has anything to add.

My last post, using facts from the FEMA and NIST reports, clearly shows that there was NO debris damage or fuel fed fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

No one here can bring themselves to admit that debris damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7.

gumboot

28th February 2007, 12:30 AM

Christopher7,

What do you speculate was the reason behind the FDNY agreeing to go along with the demolition of WTC7?

-Gumboot

Christopher7

28th February 2007, 01:10 AM

Christopher7,

What do you speculate was the reason behind the FDNY agreeing to go along with the demolition of WTC7?

-Gumboot
I don't think they knew about the demolition.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Do you dispute any of the facts i listed or are you ready to admit that debris damage and fuel oil fed fires did not cause the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7 ?

gumboot

28th February 2007, 01:20 AM

I don't think they knew about the demolition.

But they covered up the demolition with their "damage" cover stories.

The moment the thing came down they'd have known it was a demolition.

Firemen aren't stupid.

If WTC7 was a demolition job, the FDNY HAS to be in on it.

-Gumboot

Christopher7

28th February 2007, 02:36 AM

Chiefs Nigro, Hayden and Fellini thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
They reported what they thought and what they did.
That's not a "cover story"

You can think what you want about FDNY, but it has no bearing on the facts in post #1082

Nice try at changing the subject.

Do you dispute any of the facts i listed or are you ready to admit that debris damage and fuel oil fed fires did not cause the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7 ?

Belz...

28th February 2007, 05:41 AM

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

That's because you have nothing.

Chiefs Nigro, Hayden and Fellini thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
They reported what they thought and what they did.

And yet it was demolished ? What's your point ?

stateofgrace

28th February 2007, 06:38 AM

Questions for Chris and other WTC 7 demo experts.

Why did they wait for over six hours and for the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers to clear before demolishing WTC 7 ?
Why did they not simply demolish WTC 7 under cover of the debris cloud?
How did they know the damage from the collapse of the Towers would not completely destroy WTC 7?
How did they know the Towers would not collapse on to WTC 7?
How did they know the fires that were started would not cause WTC 7 to collapse?
How did whatever explosives were used survive the fires inside WTC 7 ?
How did they know where to plant these explosives so they would not be damaged by the collapsing of the Towers?
Why did the fireman block off the area if the building was not in danger of collapsing?
Why did the firemen pull the operation ?
Why rely completely on innocent firemen to back your story and hope they would assume the damage and fires brought the building down?
How did the press know WTC 7 was about to collapse?
What would have happened had there been no damage and no fires to WTC 7, this would simply have blown the cover, would it not ?
So why come up with a plan that relies completely on unknown amounts of damage from another building and unknown amounts of damage from fires to cover your tracks ?
Why were there no clear audible sounds of explosive charges going off, in sequence as this building collapsed, beforehand or during ?
Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

Miragememories

28th February 2007, 11:04 AM

Regarding the likelihood of WTC7 collapsing from fire and debris damage, I thought this statements was quite interesting;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F9482 60

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.That building was over-constructed if anything.

MM

Pardalis

28th February 2007, 11:12 AM

You missed this part:

'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.

Usually, the removal of floors is done with precision and alot of preplanning, not by scooping them randomly by a falling skyscraper nextdoor.

Christopher7

28th February 2007, 10:29 PM

Why,Why,How,How,How,How,How,Why,Why,Why,How,What,
So why,Why,Why?

Why do you avoid responding to the indisputable facts about where the fuel oil tanks, supply pipes and generators were. These facts are NOT GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FINAL REPORT.

Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?The facts, about the location and progression of the fires are available NOW in the NIST Apx. L. report.
There are photographs to confirm what is stated in the report.

You can run away from the facts by asking a lot of questions but eventually you should read post #1082 and come to grips with the
fact that

THERE WERE NO FUEL OIL FED FIRES IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.

beachnut

28th February 2007, 11:01 PM

Regarding the likelihood of WTC7 collapsing from fire and debris damage, I thought this statements was quite interesting;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F9482 60

That building was over-constructed if anything.

MMWere you the press agent for the Titanic too?

You could be the press guy for the Titanic. The super fire proof steel, never fails in fire! MM says structural steel never fails in fire! Just as an ice berg doomed the Titanic, fire destroyed much of the WTC complex – there was some extra stuff going on, like lots of extra fuel and some impact damage from airplanes and tons of steel flying all over 19 acres of WTC complex and surrounding buildings.

Next time do not put nine diesel generators and tons of fuel in your steel building. Next time use concrete for insulation. It works better than spray on stuff that falls off after 2 hours of fire, or simple trauma from tons of steel.

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

All that junk must of crashed internally and caused the whole building to fail. Wonder if those automatic pumps kept pumping fuel to the generators. I think if I build a building I will put my fuel and generators in an extra building so it does not fall on me.

stateofgrace

28th February 2007, 11:12 PM

Why do you avoid responding to the indisputable facts about where the fuel oil tanks, supply pipes and generators were. These facts are NOT GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FINAL REPORT.

Oh dear me well heaven forbid that I should have the nerve to question you, it is clearly not in the script that anybody should ask a civil question of you.

I have avoided nothing I have simply asked you some questions, questions you are unable or unwilling to answer. You put forward something that you call indisputable facts for what reason? Why? To prove what? That what you believe are indisputable facts simply override all the other know facts? That the FDNY are wrong and should not have cleared the area? What exactly are you suggesting? Why will you not answer simple questions to back up your indisputable facts?

So why produce a final report? If it is so clear-cut what on earth are NIST up to producing a report that confirms your suspicions?

For your thesis to go anywhere you must address the follow on questions, you must fully and completely demonstrate that your thesis is better than the one that is being produced by NIST. It must take in all the known facts including the testimony from those who were there. You clearly are not prepared to do this. You simply want to cherry pick what is available and disregard the rest.

The facts, about the location and progression of the fires are available NOW in the NIST Apx. L. report.
There are photographs to confirm what is stated in the report.

You can run away from the facts by asking a lot of questions but eventually you should read post #1082 and come to grips with the
fact that

THERE WERE NO FUEL OIL FED FIRES IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.

Then if it is known fact why did the building collapse? What was used to bring it down? Why was it demolished? Why are NIST trying to cover it all up?
If it is so abundantly clear to you then it is also abundantly clear to NIST is it not? Are you calling them liars? Are you suggesting they are part of a cover?
Why would they even publish such a fact if they knew would give the game away?

No Chris I will not simply accept your FACTS and disregard all the rest, why? Because you will not answer my questions, instead you choose to believe that it is all one big cover up and you have discovered it. You think those who have worked on this are so stupid they have given the game away by releasing to you facts about this event that you have now twisted to suit your own agenda.

So Chris thanks for taking the time to fully answer all the questions, keep clinging to belief that you have discovered that NIST have actually given the game away. Once you really have a thesis, a correct working thesis, that fully involves ALL the know fact I may take some notice of you, until then. I will simply keep asking you more and more questions. Questions you are unwilling or unable to answer. Yet you expect me to answer your questions.

I don’t think so pal, because once you are questioned and your theories are put under the spotlight they simply dissolve.

Answer my questions or remain silent.

Why did they wait for over six hours and for the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers to clear before demolishing WTC 7 ?
Why did they not simply demolish WTC 7 under cover of the debris cloud?
How did they know the damage from the collapse of the Towers would not completely destroy WTC 7?
How did they know the Towers would not collapse on to WTC 7?
How did they know the fires that were started would not cause WTC 7 to collapse?
How did whatever explosives were used survive the fires inside WTC 7 ?
How did they know where to plant these explosives so they would not be damaged by the collapsing of the Towers?
Why did the fireman block off the area if the building was not in danger of collapsing?
Why did the firemen pull the operation ?
Why rely completely on innocent firemen to back your story and hope they would assume the damage and fires brought the building down?
How did the press know WTC 7 was about to collapse?
What would have happened had there been no damage and no fires to WTC 7, this would simply have blown the cover, would it not ?
So why come up with a plan that relies completely on unknown amounts of damage from another building and unknown amounts of damage from fires to cover your tracks ?
Why were there no clear audible sounds of explosive charges going off, in sequence as this building collapsed, beforehand or during ?
Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

gumboot

1st March 2007, 07:16 AM

I am inclined to agree with Christopher7. I don't think WTC7 was brought down by diesel-fed fires. I think it was brought down by massive structural damage and fires fed by regular office contents.

-Gumboot

jaydeehess

1st March 2007, 07:57 AM

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."

Yah beat me to it.

________________________

I have been on vacation and have paid for only 30 minutes time on the computer here. Sent e-mails and checked in on this thread.

I have only looked at one page but seems to me that C7 still has offered up nothing more than 'it looks like it to me' to back up his contention that WTC 7 was a controlled dmolition.

nstead all he tries(and pretty much fails to do) is attack the theories of collapse built on the available evidence of debris impacts and fire damage inflicted on the structure.

Oh, well, see you all in a few days.

Miragememories

1st March 2007, 10:33 AM

The Almond

1st March 2007, 10:47 AM

You are asking a whole pile of WHY questions in reply to a post that is about the HOW. If your questions are so pertinent to the issue of, HOW could the WTC7 collapse given the lack of sufficient damage and fire then you should be able to address Christopher7's post directly and explain how your WHYquestions scientifically negate his post!

MM

This is a very telling statement. You have clearly not been exposed to logical positivism yet.

"Why" statements can show how a given theory is insufficient, incomplete or inferior to an alternative theory. Stateofgrace posed questions fully answered by the NIST hypothesis that are not answered by the controlled demolition hypothesis. Theories are evaluated based on which are capable of encompassing and explaining most of the available evidence. In the case of the controlled demolition hypothesis, a significant portion of the evidence is imaginary.

Given the positivist position, the NIST self-initiated collapse theory does encompass more of the available data and is the better theory.

Christopher7

1st March 2007, 11:13 AM

aggle-rithm

1st March 2007, 11:59 AM

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

My last post, using facts from the FEMA and NIST reports, clearly shows that there was NO debris damage or fuel fed fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

No one here can bring themselves to admit that debris damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7.

ALL fires are fuel-fed. I assume by fuel you are referring to diesel fuel.

There was more than enough combustible material in that building to keep secondary fires going for a long, long time. Assuming you are correct and the fire on the east wall was secondary, why do you say it was unsufficient to bring down the building? The report said that ANY column failure in that area could had initiated collapse. How do you KNOW that secondary fires could not have done this?

As always, please include your calculations.

aggle-rithm

1st March 2007, 12:01 PM

Logical positivism?
I haven't heard that one before.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis [set of assumptions] and [B]facts ?

There wee NO fuel oil tanks in the eastern half of WTC 7.

No damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 was reported.

Yes, but the PowerPoint presentation you linked to SHOWED fires on that side of the building. Did you forget? Or do you think that fires in an office building can't do any damage?

Miragememories

1st March 2007, 12:23 PM

This is a very telling statement. You have clearly not been exposed to logical positivism yet.

"Why" statements can show how a given theory is insufficient, incomplete or inferior to an alternative theory. Stateofgrace posed questions fully answered by the NIST hypothesis that are not answered by the controlled demolition hypothesis. Theories are evaluated based on which are capable of encompassing and explaining most of the available evidence. In the case of the controlled demolition hypothesis, a significant portion of the evidence is imaginary.

Given the positivist position, the NIST self-initiated collapse theory does encompass more of the available data and is the better theory.

I think you are espousing illogical negativism The Almond.

Christopher7's post #1082 addresses specifically the history of physical conditions that existed in WTC7 on 9/11. He is providing solid data based on NIST's own reporting.

This thread is about whether fire and debris damage could account for the collapse of WTC7. Christopher7 has presented a strong case which supports the argument that something, something other than fire and debris damage, caused the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

The only remaining logical scientific explanation to this question is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Posing a list of 'why' questions does not undermine the logic of this scientific WTC7 collapse explanation regardless of how interesting the questions are.

MM

Belz...

1st March 2007, 01:03 PM

This thread is about whether fire and debris damage could account for the collapse of WTC7. Christopher7 has presented a strong case which supports the argument that something, something other than fire and debris damage, caused the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of WTC7 on 9/11.

He has not done so. The fact is, as Aggle said, that it doesn't follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building.

The only remaining logical scientific explanation to this question is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

That is a non sequitur, even if its premise were true.

Posing a list of 'why' questions does not undermine the logic of this scientific WTC7 collapse explanation regardless of how interesting the questions are.

In the absence of actual evidence for a controlled demolition, one must wonder about the motive for such a demolition before one would even consider it.

Miragememories

1st March 2007, 01:29 PM

He has not done so. The fact is, as Aggle said, that it doesn't follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building.

I totally agree; "it does not follow that the worst fires will deal the critical blow to the building."

That is a non sequitur, even if its premise were true.

It is not a "non sequitur". Buildings fall because they can no longer resist the force of gravity. If fire and debris damage are insufficient to achieve this, than some other powerful force must have caused the sudden collapse of this over-engineered building. It was a beautiful September day, at least it was weatherwise. It is quite logical to infer that human intervention, via explosives, was the most scientifically feasible explanation for the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of this 47-storey tower.

In the absence of actual evidence for a controlled demolition, one must wonder about the motive for such a demolition before one would even consider it.

One should consider motive, but one is not logically dependent on knowing the motive in order to consider that controlled demolition was the cause.

MM

The Almond

1st March 2007, 02:57 PM

Logical positivism?
I haven't heard that one before.

Not surprising. I would suggest that you read up on the concept.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis [set of assumptions] and facts ?

Actually, I know the difference between a hypothesis based on objective, verifiable data, and a theory whose formulation requires the rationalization of contrary data as being part of a massive cover-up. No, a hypothesis is not merely a set of assumptions. Rather, it is an attempt to rationalize significant data. You have failed to provide specific data to support your hypothesis, and your subsequent defense of said hypothesis lacks the logical robustness demanded by logical positivism.

Christopher7

1st March 2007, 08:09 PM

aggle-rithm: Thank you for catching that. I did mean fuel oil [diesel]

Not surprising. I would suggest that you read up on the concept.

Actually, I know the difference between a hypothesis based on objective, verifiable data, and a theory whose formulation requires the rationalization of contrary data as being part of a massive cover-up. No, a hypothesis is not merely a set of assumptions. Rather, it is an attempt to rationalize significant data. You have failed to provide specific data to support your hypothesis, and your subsequent defense of said hypothesis lacks the logical robustness demanded by logical positivism.
If you had actually read and verified the data using the references given, you would know that every statement is a direct quote from the FEMA and NIST reports, or is verified by the pages noted. This data is not going to change in the final report.
[note: in the Fires section, the reference pages for the location of the generator room and the supply pipe - FEMA pg 14 - 15]

Before making another stupid statement like "you have failed to provide specific data", read the specific data.
Do you know of any specific data that contradicts any of the data listed?

The damage to the south side will be updated in the final report but the damage to the east 1/3 of WTC 7 below floor 12 will not change.

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
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:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

The Almond

1st March 2007, 08:56 PM

If you had actually read and verified the data using the references given, you would know that every statement is a direct quote from the FEMA and NIST reports, or is verified by the pages noted. This data is not going to change in the final report.

And yet, your interpretation of the data is what is in question. Indeed, by looking at the same evidence NIST considered, a team of the country's best structural and materials engineers came up with a radically different conclusion. That would lead me to conclude one of two things:
1) You're cherry picking data which would seem to support your hypothesis
2) You're misrepresenting the evidence

[note: in the Fires section, the reference pages for the location of the generator room and the supply pipe - FEMA pg 14 - 15]

Before making another stupid statement like "you have failed to provide specific data", read the specific data.
Do you know of any specific data that contradicts any of the data listed?

The damage to the south side will be updated in the final report but the damage to the east 1/3 of WTC 7 below floor 12 will not change.

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
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:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

I'm glad that you accept NIST's analysis and report as factual. Perhaps you could comment on L.2.5, starting on page 30.

The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse structures, window breakage on the west side of the north facade, and initiation of global collapse (see Fig. L–28) indicates that the building loads could no longer be supported. Horizontal progression of the collapse appears to have occurred after the vertical collapse on the east side of the building. The greater strength of Floors 5 and 7 relative to the other floors and the transfer trusses between these floors suggests that this region of the building played a key role in destabilizing the remaining core columns, and the global collapse occurred with few external signs prior to the system failure.

Now then, given that the horizontal progression appeared after vertical collapse, how does a controlled demolition account for this sequence? This is the evidence, it is not in dispute, as you are so fond of recounting.

I might also like you to comment on L.3.2 where NIST notes:
If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately.

How does this statement conform to the controlled demolition hypothesis?

stateofgrace

1st March 2007, 09:16 PM

Excellent work Christopher7.

True to form, when presented with a thorough anaylsis of the conditions that actually existed at WTC7 on 9/11, the responders take shelter by avoiding the inarguable points raised in your post #1082.

stateofgrace your collection of questions are very nice but they are totally irrelevant. You are asking a whole pile of WHY questions in reply to a post that is about the HOW. If your questions are so pertinent to the issue of, HOW could the WTC7 collapse given the lack of sufficient damage and fire then you should be able to address Christopher7's post directly and explain how your WHYquestions scientifically negate his post!

MM

The questions I have asked are but a snap shot of the very real questions that will be posed if and when a working alternative theory is put forward as to how WTC 7 fell. They will not go away and they need to be addressed for any alternative thesis to be taken seriously.

It is not enough to simply cherry pick NIST and proudly declare ¨hey they are wrong, therefore WTC 7 was demolished¨. A complete and proper alternative theory must take in all, each and every single known fact, eyewitness account and piece of scientific data.

What is being suggested is that a building was purposefully and knowingly pre rigged with explosives and demolished for some sinister reason. Therefore you must provide a workable theory, one that will not simply stall out because somebody asks you questions on it. You seem to forget or wish to ignore the fact that any alternative theory does not have meet the approval of this forum , or any internet forum, it has to meet the approval of the entire scientific and engineering community. To do this it will have to meet a very strict and rigid criteria.

Your theory cannot simply dismiss what you don’t like or facts that simply do not fit into it but must compass them all. From the fire fighter on the ground who said he heard the building groaning , right through to the damage caused by the collapsing tower and the subsequent fires. All this must be included.

Equally so for your theory to be even consider to be realistic you must with it offer up a whole new set of recommendations to prevent it happening again. See,you guys continually go on and only about how steel framed building have never collapsed as a result of fire before, well NIST to date have offered no less than 30 recommendations to prevent this happening again. So what to do with these? Simply ignore them ? I have no doubt when the final report into WTC 7 comes out there will be further recommendations, so you must offer your own. You must decide the best way to prevent large building in highly populated areas from being demolished again. You must push for a complete U turn on those recommendations that have been put forward and offer better more workable solutions.

It is no good from this point simply watching a ¨you tube video and saying hey that looked like a controlled demolishion, NIST have to be wrong¨. You and your group have to offer a completely plausible , working alternative theory, with a complete list of recommendations to back it up. It is not NISTs job to disprove you, it is not even mine or anybodies to disprove you, it is your burden to provide something that is workable and plausible and not just say ¨Hey NIST got this wrong, it looked like a controlled demo, therefore it must be¨.

When and if you do offer such a thesis and as requested offer up a completely plausible set of recommendations that actually make large steel framed building safer for everybody, then you may be taken seriously by the scientific community. At this moment you are simply whistling in the wind, cherry picking have offered nothing.

So my questions stand, they remain and will do so until you and your movement offer something more tangible than your gut feelings and cherry picking of NIST.

Christopher7

1st March 2007, 10:06 PM

ALL fires are fuel-fed. I assume by fuel you are referring to diesel fuel.

There was more than enough combustible material in that building to keep secondary fires going for a long, long time. Assuming you are correct and the fire on the east wall was secondary, why do you say it was unsufficient to bring down the building? The report said that ANY column failure in that area could had initiated collapse. How do you KNOW that secondary fires could not have done this?
Secondary?
I listed the statements from NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16, about the time and location of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
There is no mention of 'secondary' fires.

Office fires burn thru the available fuel in a couple hours in a particular location. Even though the fires in WTC 7 were not fought, the fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out by 4:45 p.m.

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg

Read the timeline and view the photos [click on links]

I don't believe that WTC 7 was designed so poorly that the failure of a single column would lead to a global collapse.
NIST was not at all sure.

The likely reigon: NIST Apx. L pg 47 - 50
[I left out a lot of the boring technical stuff and got down to the essence of this section]

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

The likely region in which the horizontal progression occurred.....floors 5 and 7
strong lateral ties between interior columns may have been able to impose lateral displacements on adjacent columns.
Assuming that a vertical collapse of one or more bays occurred...
debris is likely to have severed....
transfer trusses #1 and #2 and the east transfer girder may have been damaged
possible responses of floors 5 and 7 following a vertical collapse of one or more bays.

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.

Gravy

1st March 2007, 10:27 PM

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.You don't say? I think they should have investigated those things! This is very disturbing!

Christopher, won't you join with me in calling for an investigation into what caused the collapse of WTC 7?

I'm going to be busy in the morning. Would you mind calling Mike Newman at NIST and asking him why these things haven't been investigated?

Thanks.

–Mark

Christopher7

1st March 2007, 11:13 PM

And yet, your interpretation of the data is what is in question. Indeed, by looking at the same evidence NIST considered, a team of the country's best structural and materials engineers came up with a radically different conclusion.
Dude, they did not come to a conclusion!

They said that their hypothesis "appears possible".

That would lead me to conclude one of two things:
1) You're cherry picking data which would seem to support your hypothesis
2) You're misrepresenting the evidenceOf course, to make a point one must list the facts that support that point.
Do you know of anything in those reports that conflicts with the statements i listed?

Read the evidence i listed. Check the references provided.
Please don't assume that i have misrepresented anything.

If you can find fault with anything in post #1082, say so, prove me wrong.
Be specific.

I'm glad that you accept NIST's analysis and report as factual. Perhaps you could comment on L.2.5, starting on page 30.I accept the data as factual but the analysis is a bit 'iffy'.
"appears possible" is not a statement of fact.

Now then, given that the horizontal progression appeared after vertical collapse, how does a controlled demolition account for this sequence? This is the evidence, it is not in dispute, as you are so fond of recounting.This thread is about the debris damage and fire to WTC 7
It is not about CD.

I might also like you to comment on L.3.2 where NIST notes:
If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately.The entire report is awash with could have, may have, if, possibly, etc.
It is the most indecisive thing i have ever read.
You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

Christopher7

1st March 2007, 11:17 PM

You don't say? I think they should have investigated those things! This is very disturbing!

Christopher, won't you join with me in calling for an investigation into what caused the collapse of WTC 7?

I'm going to be busy in the morning. Would you mind calling Mike Newman at NIST and asking him why these things haven't been investigated?

Thanks.

–Mark
Why don't you read post # 1082 and post something relevant?

Gravy

2nd March 2007, 02:03 AM

Why don't you read post # 1082 and post something relevant?Oh, I've read it, and I'm right with you!

Why does NIST refuse to investigate the collapse of WTC 7?

I demand answers!

You're gonna make that call to Mike Newman, right?

Belz...

2nd March 2007, 05:57 AM

It is not a "non sequitur". Buildings fall because they can no longer resist the force of gravity. If fire and debris damage are insufficient to achieve this, than some other powerful force must have caused the sudden collapse

True.

of this over-engineered building.

Over-engineered ? Do you have a source for that ? Or is that just a way to make 7 WTC's collapse look more suspicious ?

It was a beautiful September day, at least it was weatherwise. It is quite logical to infer that human intervention, via explosives, was the most scientifically feasible explanation for the rapid, symmetrical, total collapse of this 47-storey tower.

Correction: IF fire and physical damage from 1 WTC's collapse didn't do it, controlled demolition is ONE possible explanation, one not supported by the evidence.

One should consider motive, but one is not logically dependent on knowing the motive in order to consider that controlled demolition was the cause.

Without proof ? Really ?

twinstead

2nd March 2007, 06:01 AM

You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

You have GOT to be kidding me. Your ENTIRE movement hangs its hat on "appears possible" AND "appears impossible".

What a double standard.

When NIST says "appears possible" it comes from the carefully considered investigation of experts in the relevant fields.
When your movement says "appears possible" it comes from ideologically-biased laymen expressing personal incredulity.

aggle-rithm

2nd March 2007, 07:03 AM

Secondary?
I listed the statements from NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16, about the time and location of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.
There is no mention of 'secondary' fires.

Then you admit that the fires on the east side were fueled by diesel oil. Now, we're getting somewhere.

Office fires burn thru the available fuel in a couple hours in a particular location.

You mean, in general?

According to...whom?

I don't believe that WTC 7 was designed so poorly that the failure of a single column would lead to a global collapse.

First, your belief is irrelevant. Second, in ideal conditions it probably would not have been sufficient. However, with the building in the condition it was (heavily damaged by debris and on fire), NIST believed that a single column could trigger the initiating event.

NIST was not at all sure.

The likely reigon: NIST Apx. L pg 47 - 50
[I left out a lot of the boring technical stuff and got down to the essence of this section]

Well, that boring technical stuff is key to understanding what happened.

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

The likely region in which the horizontal progression occurred.....floors 5 and 7
strong lateral ties between interior columns may have been able to impose lateral displacements on adjacent columns.
Assuming that a vertical collapse of one or more bays occurred...
debris is likely to have severed....
transfer trusses #1 and #2 and the east transfer girder may have been damaged
possible responses of floors 5 and 7 following a vertical collapse of one or more bays.

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

It goes on like that. In every paragraph there is a 'may have been', 'would tend to' or 'if'.

Given that ignorance breeds confidence far more easily than does knowledge, what do you make of the fact that the highly skilled investigators at NIST were not sure exactly what happened, but you, with no expertise at all, are CERTAIN as to what happened?

Belz...

2nd March 2007, 08:02 AM

You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

This coming from a member of the "truth" movement, a group that bases its conclusions SOLELY on bare possibilities ? Laughable.

Belz...

2nd March 2007, 08:03 AM

Given that ignorance breeds confidence far more easily than does knowledge, what do you make of the fact that the highly skilled investigators at NIST were not sure exactly what happened, but you, with no expertise at all, are CERTAIN as to what happened?

I second that question.

Kent1

2nd March 2007, 10:26 AM

Just a small note. NIST reports (See NIST Testimony Sept 8/06) suggest that the pressurized fuel supply piping system was damaged from the collapse of WTC1. One possiblilty especially is the point where the pipes entered the value box and or the pipe and containment pipe. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. (Mounted on the underside of the floorslab (6)) I see nothing suggesting that debris was needed to reach this point to cause pipe fracture. No seismic design was added to the piping system.

NIST also mentions airflow may of been altered due to south face damage. So you may not see smoke coming out of the exhaust vents. There were no exterior windows on the 5th floor.

Furthermore "no residual petroleum product or sludge was found in the tanks or piping. Examination of the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted showed some fuel contamination, but none was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer below. Witnesses also reported that the two 6,000 gal fuel tanks were always kept full for emergencies and were full that day. "(See Finding 1b4 and 5 June 04)

A fracture would continue to cause tanks to pump fuel until tanks were empty or at least one generator was running.

So its likely the fuel burned.
Cheers.:D

Miragememories

2nd March 2007, 02:54 PM

Just a small note. NIST reports (See NIST Testimony Sept 8/06) suggest that the pressurized fuel supply piping system was damaged from the collapse of WTC1.
Cheers.:D

Again we have NIST "suggesting" because they know the consequence of not "suggesting."

NIST is good at suggesting. They suggest all kinds of things in order to make their explanations suggestable.

I can suggest as well.

I can suggest that NIST and the most of the JREFers would nuke themselves before they would seriously entertain any examination of the possibility that a controlled demolition brought that 47 storey tower down in a rapid, symmetrical, total collapse.

MM

Kent1

2nd March 2007, 03:13 PM

Again we have NIST "suggesting" because they know the consequence of not "suggesting."

NIST is good at suggesting. They suggest all kinds of things in order to make their explanations suggestable.

I can suggest as well.

I can suggest that NIST and the most of the JREFers would nuke themselves before they would seriously entertain any examination of the possibility that a controlled demolition brought that 47 storey tower down in a rapid, symmetrical, total collapse.

MM
Thanks for the word salad.
I would certainlly hope that they only propose since the report isn't finished. As outlined in their last report they stated they are looking into CD.

Cheers

Christopher7

2nd March 2007, 06:27 PM

Oh, I've read it, and I'm right with you!
I knew you would recognize the truth if the facts were properly laid out for you.

Why does NIST refuse to investigate the collapse of WTC 7? Actually, they are just stalling as long as possible.
After all, a blowjob warrants immediate attention and sufficient funds, the greatest crime in US history; not so much.

I demand answers!Read post #1082 again. The answer to weather or not debris damage/fire brought down WTC 7 is there.

You're gonna make that call to Mike Newman, right?No. I don't think that would have any effect.
BTW, Did you ever get a reply to the "No 10 story gouge" post that you sent to NIST ?

uk_dave

2nd March 2007, 06:33 PM

I hope NIST doesn't come up with a working hypothesis for WTC7

I mean, it's the only thing the 'truthers' have got.

Sure, some will witter on about the ISI connection, but that's not going anywhere, so without WTC7 what have the 'truthers' got? The Pentagon flyover? Puhlease!

Christopher7

2nd March 2007, 07:05 PM

You have GOT to be kidding me. Your ENTIRE movement hangs its hat on "appears possible" AND "appears impossible".
What a double standard.
Very good point. It appears possible that neither of us has a place to hang our hats......that is until you study post #1082 carefully and realize that there were NO fuel oil tanks in the east end of WTC 7 etc.

When NIST says "appears possible" it comes from the carefully considered investigation of experts in the relevant fields.
When your movement says "appears possible" it comes from ideologically-biased laymen expressing personal incredulity.It's true, an expert can make a non-statement with a lot more authority than a lay person.

Christopher7

2nd March 2007, 08:23 PM

Then you admit that the fires on the east side were fueled by diesel oil. Now, we're getting somewhere.
Just the opposite.
There was 1 fuel tank in the center of WTC 7 between floors 2 and 3.
There was 1 supply pipe running on the north side of the core, [90 feet from the south side] to the generator room on floor 5, in the north east corner of the building.
All the rest of the generators, fuel tanks, pipes and valves, were in the west end of the building.

You mean, in general? Right. Thank you

According to...whom?The fire timeline as stated in NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26
[post #1082 incorrectly says 13 - 16]
There are photographs to confirm the progression of the fires

First, your belief is irrelevant. Second, in ideal conditions it probably would not have been sufficient. However, with the building in the condition it was (heavily damaged by debris and on fire), NIST believed that a single column could trigger the initiating event.
The debris damage was to the west end and the middle of the south side of WTC 7. There was NO damage reported to the east 1/3 of the building, where the initiating event occurred.
The fuel oil fires were on the west end of WTC 7.
That leaves office fires.

Well, that boring technical stuff is key to understanding what happened.Just for S&G, read it. [NIST Apx. L pg 47 - 50]

Given that ignorance breeds confidence far more easily than does knowledge, what do you make of the fact that the highly skilled investigators at NIST were not sure exactly what happened, but you, with no expertise at all, are CERTAIN as to what happened?Ignorance [lack of knowledge]
Until recently i was ignorant of the fact that there were no fuel oil tanks in the eastern half of WTC 7
[my bad]

Gravy

2nd March 2007, 08:39 PM

I swear: if the NIST doesn't start investigating
this building 7 stuff by the end of 2005,

I'm gonna throw a fit!

Christopher, did you make that call to Mike Newman today?

jaydeehess

2nd March 2007, 09:27 PM

No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

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

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [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://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

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

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

Requires that YOUR assumptions about the trajectory of debris and the path it took through the building are 100% accurate.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.

12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

,,,, or smoke continued up the elevator shaft, as it would in a chimney, to the initial floor the debris entered the building.
Perhaps with a little smoke exiting the shaft at 8th floor. The FF's did not say "no smoke"

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

Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

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, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

Fire on floor 12

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

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

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

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.

You still insist that fuel fed fire requires that the fire be in the same room as the generator and thus the same room as the louvers. This is simply not the case as the generator is in a separate room and the pipe feeding fuel to it comes from outside that room thus smoke from a fuel fed fire need not be exiting via the louvers.

If something came down and caused a partial rupture in that fuel line then
a) the fuel need not have ignited right away, instead pooling and igniting later
b) smoke could just as easily be drawn up through the hole created by debris, the elevator shaft or the stairwell

The report of fire extent and progression could indeed be modified if additional photographic evidence that was not available for the apendix l preliminary report warrents its. (I am not saying there will be a change. I am saying that the definitive nature of your statement is in error. Not a surprise since you really, really like making definitive statements based on scant evidence.

,,,,,,,,,,, but you will dismiss such things because NIST and FEMA did not specifically claim it as being so,,,,because it is speculation,,,,because you don't want to actually think about any senario in which explosives were not used

jaydeehess

2nd March 2007, 09:39 PM

Ignorance [lack of knowledge]
Until recently i was ignorant of the fact that there were no fuel oil tanks in the eastern half of WTC 7
[my bad]

Are you suggesting that NIST engineers constructed their preliminary report in pretty much complete ignorance, or just you?

Kent1

2nd March 2007, 09:53 PM

Requires that YOUR assumptions about the trajectory of debris and the path it took through the building are 100% accurate.

As I stated previously a fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. Mounted on the underside of the floorslab. I see nothing suggesting that debris was needed to reach this point to cause pipe fracture. As NIST clearly states, no seismic design was added to the piping system.

ie. Debris doesn't need to reach the valve box near column 79 for pipe to fracture.

As I also stated previously smoke need not be pouring out thru the vents because of damage. I think NIST also makes that clear.

There is little that will change Chris7's mind. If this thread is any indication you will be talking to a brick wall.

I would also suggest others read these
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Cheers

jaydeehess

2nd March 2007, 10:10 PM

As I stated previously a fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. Mounted on the underside of the floorslab. I see nothing suggesting that debris was needed to reach this point to cause pipe fracture. As NIST clearly states, no seismic design was added to the piping system.

ie. Debris doesn't need to reach the valve box near column 79 for pipe to fracture.

As I also stated previously smoke need not be pouring out thru the vents because of damage. I think NIST also makes that clear.

There is little that will change Chris7's mind. If this thread is any indication you will be talking to a brick wall.

I would also suggest others read these
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/testimony/TestimonySept8_06.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Cheers

I know C7 is a brick wall. You will note he refers to me in the first post in this thread.

I have been away for a while and must have missed your posts, Kent.

I have repeatedly pointed out that Chris' definitive statements require that his interpretation of the conditions be 100% accurate and all he does is quote appendix l back at me as if it makes his interpretation complete.

Kent1

2nd March 2007, 10:23 PM

I know C7 is a brick wall. You will note he refers to me in the first post in this thread.

I have been away for a while and must have missed your posts, Kent.

I have repeatedly pointed out that Chris' definitive statements require that his interpretation of the conditions be 100% accurate and all he does is quote appendix l back at me as if it makes his interpretation complete.

I haven't posted much resently either. Most of these guys have become echo chambers of last years debunked talking points. Activity has slowed down as little new info has come out. I also help out at some of the debunking websites.

Best Scott

jaydeehess

2nd March 2007, 10:38 PM

C7 writes
OK, i will stop postulating about how debris might have caused a fuel fed fire in the east end WTC 7.
Everyone here should do the same.

Actually you have not attemted to postulate how a fuel fire could have been caused by debris.

You instead have made definitive statements about how debris could not have done this based on YOUR assumptions regarding debris paths.

In other words by using the same scant data, you categorically reject the possibility.

jaydeehess

2nd March 2007, 11:03 PM

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

,,,,,,, and what was it that created that hole in Banker's trust? Oh, look, it was an entire perimeter column tree. Yes such a chunk of debris would have a hard time going very far into a building.

Does that mean that what punched through WTC 7 had to be a perimeter column tree? No!

A core column section comes to mind,or perhaps other large, heavy, dense things(elevator/escalator motors, electrical distribution transformer, large air conditioning unit, a walk in safe).

Christopher7

2nd March 2007, 11:29 PM

Requires that YOUR assumptions about the trajectory of debris and the path it took through the building are 100% accurate.
No.
Falling debris could not penetrate 90 feet into a steel frame building.

Maybe you can talk yourself in to believing that, but at best, it's a real stretch.

,,,, or smoke continued up the elevator shaft, as it would in a chimney, to the initial floor the debris entered the building.

Perhaps with a little smoke exiting the shaft at 8th floor. The FF's did not say "no smoke"The visible portion of the south wall was gone [pg 18] providing a path for the smoke. Smoke goes everywhere it can.

You still insist that fuel fed fire requires that the fire be in the same room as the generator and thus the same room as the louvers.No

This is simply not the case as the generator is in a separate room and the pipe feeding fuel to it comes from outside that room thus smoke from a fuel fed fire need not be exiting via the louvers.At least we agree that there was NO fire in the generator room.

There could have been a diesel fuel fire outside the generator room but there is NO evidence that this happened.

If something came down and caused a partial rupture in that fuel line then
a) the fuel need not have ignited right away, instead pooling and igniting later
b) smoke could just as easily be drawn up through the hole created by debris, the elevator shaft or the stairwellWhen you start with if, anything is possible. Add in 'need not have' and 'could just as easily be' and you are only limited by your imagination.

The report of fire extent and progression could indeed be modified if additional photographic evidence that was not available for the apendix l preliminary report warrents its. (I am not saying there will be a change. I am saying that the definitive nature of your statement is in error. Not a surprise since you really, really like making definitive statements based on scant evidence.Scant? The location and the timeline of the fires on the east half of WTC 7, in the area of the initiating event, is complete [with pictures].

There could have been additional debris damage and fire above floor 12
but not in the areas we can see in this picture.
[large hole around floor 14 is just west of center]

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4597/wtc7holecleanqo5.jpg

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 01:05 AM

As I stated previously a fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure very close to column 79. Mounted on the underside of the floorslab. I see nothing suggesting that debris was needed to reach this point to cause pipe fracture. As NIST clearly states, no seismic design was added to the piping system.

ie. Debris doesn't need to reach the valve box near column 79 for pipe to fracture.
Mr. Sunder said "One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis is.................[what you said]........."
There is NO evidence that this happened.
You are living in the world of possibilities, not facts.

As I also stated previously smoke need not be pouring out thru the vents because of damage. I think NIST also makes that clear.No.
The cooling fans were on the east wall and the exhaust louvers were on the north wall of the NE generator room.

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

There were exhaust louvers on the south end of the west wall but they were not for the generator room at the opposite end of the building.

Gravy

3rd March 2007, 01:09 AM

If the NIST doesn't start investigating the collapse of WTC 7 by the end of 2005, I swear I'm going to do something!

Who is with me????

Kent1

3rd March 2007, 01:44 AM

Mr. Sunder said "One possibility being considered in the NIST working hypothesis is.................[what you said]........."
There is NO evidence that this happened.
You are living in the world of possibilities, not facts.

No.
The cooling fans were on the east wall and the exhaust louvers were on the north wall of the NE generator room.

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

There were exhaust louvers on the south end of the west wall but they were not for the generator room at the opposite end of the building.

Another non reply.:confused: I see nothing incorrect in my statements.
I would suggest reading the reports.
As NIST states under finding 1b.4: "Floor 5 did not have any exterior windows but it did have exhaust vents for generators near the south and
north corners of the building. "
Also see comments about the Fuel #1120. Your latest points, moot. I'll check back Sun. but I suspect nothing will have changed.

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 01:53 AM

If the NIST doesn't start investigating the collapse of WTC 7 by the end of 2005, I swear I'm going to do something!

Here's something to do.

Read post #1082 and post something relevant instead of asinine.

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 02:20 AM

Another non reply.:confused: I see nothing incorrect in my statements.
I would suggest reading the reports.
As NIST states under finding 1b.4:
Which report? URL and page please.

"Floor 5 did not have any exterior windows but it did have exhaust vents for generators near the south and north corners of the building. "
If there was a fire in the north east generator room, smoke would be pouring out the exhaust vents.
A fire needs a lot of air, you know, breathe in, breathe out.

Kent1

3rd March 2007, 06:25 AM

Which report? URL and page please.

If there was a fire in the north east generator room, smoke would be pouring out the exhaust vents.
A fire needs a lot of air, you know, breathe in, breathe out.
Page 18
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

Already covered smoke see previous posts. I'll be back late Sat.
Cheers

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 06:39 AM

MaGZ

3rd March 2007, 08:16 AM

What caused this hole?

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

On what floors was this massive hole located?

JimBenArm

3rd March 2007, 09:11 AM

Here's something to do.

Read post #1082 and post something relevant instead of asinine.
Why should he? You never have.

Myriad

3rd March 2007, 11:56 AM

What caused this hole?

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

On what floors was this massive hole located?

What massive hole? That diagram does not show any holes. It shows the observed locations of debris damage. That's why the title and captions say "debris damage." It doesn't say "holes" anywhere.

Are you assuming that the only kind of damage falling debris can do is making holes? If a flat 5-pound piece of falling steel debris were to land on someone's head, would it make a hole? Would it do damage?

Here is a picture of some cars that were hit by falling debris near Ground Zero: http://donwiss.com/pictures/WTC/h0005.htm

Are these cars damaged?

Where are the holes located?

Did the damage to these cars occur only where there are holes in them?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 02:08 PM

Page 18
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

Already covered smoke see previous posts. I'll be back late Sat.
Cheers
Thanx for the URL

You 'covered' the smoke ?

There was NO smoke coming out of the exhaust vents.
Therefore there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

There was a concrete masonry wall that ran most of the length of floor 5 along the north core column row 58 - 79. [90 feet from the front of WTC 7]
This wall continued to the east end of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

NIST mentioned the possibility of fire north of this wall, but there is NO evidence that it actually happened.

You have taken the mention of a possibility and claimed it a fact.

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 02:13 PM

What caused this hole?

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg

On what floors was this massive hole located?

That hole did not exist.

See post #94

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 02:17 PM

Why should he? You never have.
Obviously, you have not read post #1082 or you would know that i wrote it.

Please take the time to read it.

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 02:30 PM

Obviously, you have not read post #1082 or you would know that i wrote it.

Please take the time to read it.

Chris, with all due respect, you flatter yourself if you think that you have presented any slam-dunk evidence or written any sobering expose that shuts us who believe the official story, while not perfect, is the most likely explanation of the events of that day, down.

Nice try.

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 02:32 PM

Thanx for the URL
You have taken the mention of a possibility and claimed it a fact.

For Chirst's sake STOP it. This is exactly what YOU do, and a perfect explanation of your ENTIRE ARGUMENT.

You just look like an idiot when you accuse others of doing it.

Coritani

3rd March 2007, 02:51 PM

You have taken the mention of a possibility and claimed it a fact.

Pot, kettle etc (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2349447&postcount=929)

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 02:52 PM

Chris, with all due respect, you flatter yourself if you think that you have presented any slam-dunk evidence or written any sobering expose that shuts us who believe the official story, while not perfect, is the most likely explanation of the events of that day, down.

Nice try.
Instead of a blanket denial of the facts listed in post #1082,

address the facts directly.

If you can find anything that is not true, point it out.

Be specific.

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 03:07 PM

Pot, kettle etc (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2349447&postcount=929)
OT'ers deny or write off any evidence of CD so i am pointing out that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event.
This thread is about the debris damage and fires to WTC 7.

Please address the issue at hand.

Read post #1082 and respond to it directly.

If you can find any fault in it, point it out.

Be specific.

Thank you.

tsig

3rd March 2007, 03:14 PM

Instead of a blanket denial of the facts listed in post #1082,

address the facts directly.

If you can find anything that is not true, point it out.

Be specific.

Fire is hot.

Heat weakens steel

Gravity happens

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 03:48 PM

Fire is hot.

Heat weakens steel

Gravity happens
Thank you for your amazing insight.

So that's your idea of specific?

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 03:49 PM

Instead of a blanket denial of the facts listed in post #1082,

address the facts directly.

If you can find anything that is not true, point it out.

Be specific.

Okay, then you answer post 1090.

Be specific

tsig

3rd March 2007, 04:15 PM

Thank you for your amazing insight.

So that's your idea of specific?

What part of" fire is hot" do you do you not understand?

tsig

3rd March 2007, 04:18 PM

Thank you for your amazing insight.

So that's your idea of specific?

I never mentioned specific.

What's your idea of specific?

tsig

3rd March 2007, 04:26 PM

OT'ers deny or write off any evidence of CD so i am pointing out that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event.
This thread is about the debris damage and fires to WTC 7.

Please address the issue at hand.

Read post #1082 and respond to it directly.

If you can find any fault in it, point it out.

Be specific.

Thank you.

casting pearls before swine.

tsig

3rd March 2007, 04:30 PM

Thank you for your amazing insight.

So that's your idea of specific?

specific means whatever you want it to mean

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 04:46 PM

Okay, then you answer post 1090.

Be specific
Post #1090 is a typical deniers attempt to ignore the facts and change the subject by asking a lot of rhetorical questions.

OT'ers will not directly address facts that they cannot deny.

You can run but you cannot hide from the facts.
[basic data that will not change in the 'final' report]

Christopher7

3rd March 2007, 04:47 PM

I have made a few corrections and additions to this summary.
No one has directly challenged any of the facts [with references] in this summary.
jaydeehess disputes the path that debris would have to take to reach the fuel pipe, 90' inside the building. Fair enough.
The point of that paragraph is:
Falling debris would have to break thru perimeter columns, several steel and concrete floors, a core column, eject 2 elevators, and still have enough horizontal force to break thru a concrete masonry wall and another 6 inch steel and concrete floor to damage the diesel fuel supply pipe, 90 feet inside the building.
Falling debris could not penetrate 90' into WTC 7. IMHO

There was no debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

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

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]

Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [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://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

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

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.

12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

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

Fires:

There was no diesel fuel fed fires in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open. [FEMA pg 29]

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

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

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

Fire on floor 12

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

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face

[NIST Apx. L pg 22 - 26]

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

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.

Myriad

3rd March 2007, 04:56 PM

The point of that paragraph is:
Falling debris would have to break thru perimeter columns, several steel and concrete floors, a core column, eject 2 elevators, and still have enough horizontal force to break thru a concrete masonry wall and another 6 inch steel and concrete floor to damage the diesel fuel supply pipe, 90 feet inside the building.
Falling debris could not penetrate 90' into WTC 7.

You didn't respond to what I said before about this, so let me try again.

If a piece of falling debris were to hit you, would it have to make a hole through your skin and muscles in order to break your leg?

Also, what do you think a list of all the locations in the building that were not on fire would look like? Are you assuming that there was no fire anywhere except where it was specifically reported?

Respectfully,
Myriad

JimBenArm

3rd March 2007, 05:53 PM

Obviously, you have not read post #1082 or you would know that i wrote it.

Please take the time to read it.
I read it. I know you wrote it. My comment still stands as valid.
Deal with it.

Miragememories

3rd March 2007, 05:57 PM

You didn't respond to what I said before about this, so let me try again.

If a piece of falling debris were to hit you, would it have to make a hole through your skin and muscles in order to break your leg?

Also, what do you think a list of all the locations in the building that were not on fire would look like? Are you assuming that there was no fire anywhere except where it was specifically reported?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Address the subject Myriad.

Your analogy makes zero connections with the subject at hand.

MM

mortimer

3rd March 2007, 06:33 PM

There was no debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

Using your (obviously) strong knowledge of structural engineering, kindly explain why there would necessarily have to be diesel fuel fires and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to global collapse for such fires or damage to be the cause of the initiating event.

Myriad

3rd March 2007, 06:34 PM

Address the subject Myriad.

Gladly.

A strong blow from a fist can rupture a man's spleen. It is not necessary for the fist to touch the spleen for this to happen.

Debris striking WTC7 ejected cars from elevator shafts, even though it's likely that debris did not strike the elevator cars.

It's called internal damage. (Internal injury, when it happens to a person.)

You don't need to make holes in something in order to damage it internally.

Also, if you do make a hole when damaging something internally, the size of the hole is not necessarily indicative of the amount of damage, and the location of the hole is not always indicative of the location of the internal damage.

When the force of a blow is what causes the damage, that force can be transmitted as a shock wave through structural members until an internal weak spot gives way.

Which means, unless you did a complete floor-by-floor walk-through inspection of WTC7 after the tower collapses, or you have the testimony of others who did a complete floor-by-floor walk-through inspection, you have no idea where in the building structural damage might have existed.

Therefore you have no basis to say whether the building should or should not have collapsed the way it did, based on incomplete information that's mostly about the condition of the building's exterior.

You're guessing.

There's nothing wrong with guessing, I suppose. But why should your guesses be of any interest to anyone else?

Respectfully,
Myriad

MaGZ

3rd March 2007, 06:41 PM

That hole did not exist.

See post #94

I read post 94. So there is some disagreement if a massive hole ever existed. One possible solution to this question is to present photos of the lower southern face of WTC7.

The problem is...no one can seem to find any.

I wonder why?

mortimer

3rd March 2007, 06:43 PM

Coritani

3rd March 2007, 06:44 PM

Let me guess. Because the jooooooos control the media?

Wrong.

The missile destroyed all the cameras at the scene.

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 06:45 PM

Wait a minute. I thought, according to Chris, only WE are guessing.

Don't tell me that Chris also is guessing. Shucks. And I was so rooting for him. Damn.

I defer to the experts on the ground, at the site, there during the event before I would even begin to entertain a member of the YouTube generation.

Chris, you can spin this all you want, but there were people there, and by there I mean physically there not viewing the event through YouTube goggles, who were and are qualified to judge whether a building is in imminent danger of catastrophic failure.

In fact, the vast majority of people on the ground on 911 observing WTC7, and these were not average Joes but for the most part members of FDNY, some of the best in the world at fighting multi-story fires, report a building heavily damaged, on fire, and in danger of imminent collapse.

These people's reports were listened to closely and prompted a full pull out of all fire personnel and a perimeter being set up around the building to prevent any further loss of life.

In your universe, they are either lying or incompetent. In my universe, YOU are either lying or incompetent.

MaGZ

3rd March 2007, 06:55 PM

Let me guess. Because the jooooooos control the media?

On the evening of 9/11 the FBI likely paid a visit to all television stations that had footage of the missile strike on WTC 7 and collected the station's film or gave instructions which portions of the film could be broadcasted.

The Naudet bothers had a FBI visit that evening.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

Coritani

3rd March 2007, 07:28 PM

On the evening of 9/11 the FBI likely paid a visit to all television stations that had footage of the missile strike on WTC 7 and collected the station's film or gave instructions which portions of the film could be broadcasted.

Prove it.

Cl1mh4224rd

3rd March 2007, 08:22 PM

I read post 94. So there is some disagreement if a massive hole ever existed. One possible solution to this question is to present photos of the lower southern face of WTC7.

The problem is...no one can seem to find any.

I wonder why?
Holy mother of God...

Do you wash your brain every morning, or something? There have been two threads of yours in which pictures of the south face of WTC7 have been posted.

MaGZ is a being of pure stupidity. I swear...

twinstead

3rd March 2007, 08:58 PM

The Naudet bothers had a FBI visit that evening.

Dude. You are polluting this forum with your blind ideology. Seriously, I normally will never say that because I believe that everybody has a right to voice their opinions and be respected for being true to themselves IF indeed they are.

Your ideology, your world view, is TOXIC. Everything it touches is tainted.

Everybody who reads your posts, participant or lurker, knows this.

Good luck with that.

MaGZ

3rd March 2007, 09:05 PM

Holy mother of God...

Do you wash your brain every morning, or something? There have been two threads of yours in which pictures of the south face of WTC7 have been posted.

MaGZ is a being of pure stupidity. I swear...

You must be referring to these two pictures which show WTC 7 on fire as a result of the missile strike. Look for the burning rooms on the lower floors of 11 and 12. Please note the fires were not started by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

Cl1mh4224rd

3rd March 2007, 09:14 PM

[ I'm having an entirely different discussion. This was irrelevent. Apologies. ]

SirPhilip

3rd March 2007, 09:25 PM

Not sure if anyone's posted this yet, but an example of extraordinary evidence either way:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v241/SirLouis/Temp/wtcoverhead.jpg?t=1172982291

MaGZ

3rd March 2007, 09:32 PM

Better link of Ground Zero is the 258k photo. Zoom in on the open parking area northwest of the WTC. Look for the black missile crater.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm

Kent1

4th March 2007, 12:38 AM

Thanx for the URL

You 'covered' the smoke ?

There was NO smoke coming out of the exhaust vents.
Therefore there was NO fire in the north east generator room.

There was a concrete masonry wall that ran most of the length of floor 5 along the north core column row 58 - 79. [90 feet from the front of WTC 7]
This wall continued to the east end of the building. [FEMA pg 14 - 15]

NIST mentioned the possibility of fire north of this wall, but there is NO evidence that it actually happened.

You have taken the mention of a possibility and claimed it a fact.
I never said smoke was coming out of the vents.
Your next statement is something you can't support.
Nothing left but filler. ie..hypocritical statements nonreplys and handwaving.
I see nothing new has been added to the debate since my post #1120. Only ignored. So I think its over.
As I stated before its like talking to a wall.
I would suggest people simply read my posts and the information I linked to in this thread.
Cheers

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 12:49 AM

Using your (obviously) strong knowledge of structural engineering, kindly explain why there would necessarily have to be diesel fuel fires and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to global collapse for such fires or damage to be the cause of the initiating event.
Are you honest enough to acknowledge that there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event?
If so, try to find a qualified person to go on record as believing that office fires can get hot enough to weaken the support columns in WTC 7 to the point of failure.

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
I'm just asking you to look at the data from the FEMA and NIST reports and decide for yourself.

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 01:01 AM

I read post 94. So there is some disagreement if a massive hole ever existed. One possible solution to this question is to present photos of the lower southern face of WTC7.

The problem is...no one can seem to find any.

I wonder why?
The government removed over 6,000 photographs and 6,000 video clips from public view. Now, 5 1/2 years later, you can see them all for $13,700.

I put in a request for the photographs of WTC 7 under the Freedom of information act. So far, no reply.

stateofgrace

4th March 2007, 01:29 AM

Post #1090 is a typical deniers attempt to ignore the facts and change the subject by asking a lot of rhetorical questions.

OT'ers will not directly address facts that they cannot deny.

You can run but you cannot hide from the facts.
[basic data that will not change in the 'final' report]

Incorrect and I resent your generalization.

I am not a denier I have never denied any facts or scientific evidence, I have even had the grace to not even question your analysis. Other people have rightly questioned your findings but I have not. I have simply asked you a series of follow on questions that will be asked of anybody that proposes an alternative theory.

You are unwilling or unable to answer them. Instead you choose to call me a denier, a denier of your facts and as such should shut up. I should not ask you questions because my questions are unworthy of your attention. Is this how you expect to convince an already skeptical public: Is this how you expect to run your theory by the entire engineering and scientific community?

You people are amazing, with your sweeping statements of those that find it hard to accept what you are suggesting. Then you have the nerve to hide behind banners like `ask the tough question, demand the answers`

But you will not apply the same standards to your own theories, you simply feel it is you right to demand answers from others, like myself but when I will not but simply reply with questions you get all upset and accuse me of dismissing your evidence. This is not true, if your evidence was that strong, the questions you are asked about what you are stating would be very simple to answer. They are not simple because your know that irrespective of what you are suggesting it will never stand up, it will never get by those that your really want to convince. That being the real experts.

It is one thing to question somebodies research like I do yours, or you try to do NIST’s , it is an whole new ball game to make claims that this building was demolished and the fact covered up.

Which ever way you try to play it, people will always throw questions at you and conspirators. It is noticeable you dislike being questioned, you dislike the fact you are unable to answer and to fit your theory into the bigger picture, so you simply dismiss the questions and the questioner.

Your dismissal is noted, as is you total inability to answer. Your double standards are of the highest order. This is why you will never get anywhere with this theory because you simply expect people to accept it without question.

I do not dismiss facts , but it is noticable that Cters dismiss questions, they cannot answer.

You can run but you cannot hide from these questions.

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 01:34 AM

Wait a minute. I thought, according to Chris, only WE are guessing.

Don't tell me that Chris also is guessing. Shucks. And I was so rooting for him. Damn.
You have no idea how much i appreciate your support:D

I defer to the experts on the ground, at the site, there during the event before I would even begin to entertain a member of the YouTube generation.

Chris, you can spin this all you want, but there were people there, and by there I mean physically there not viewing the event through YouTube goggles, who were and are qualified to judge whether a building is in imminent danger of catastrophic failure.

In fact, the vast majority of people on the ground on 911 observing WTC7, and these were not average Joes but for the most part members of FDNY, some of the best in the world at fighting multi-story fires, report a building heavily damaged, on fire, and in danger of imminent collapse.

These people's reports were listened to closely and prompted a full pull out of all fire personnel and a perimeter being set up around the building to prevent any further loss of life.

In your universe, they are either lying or incompetent.Quite the opposite

A lot of the data in my summary, is statements of the firefighters who were there. [as stated in the FEMA and NIST reports]

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 01:53 AM

Better link of Ground Zero is the 258k photo. Zoom in on the open parking area northwest of the WTC. Look for the black missile crater.
This thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7

Please take your missiles elsewhere.

Chris

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 02:22 AM

......you will never get anywhere with this theory because you simply expect people to accept it without question.
No

I do not dismiss facts , but it is noticable that Cters dismiss questions, they cannot answer.
I will answer relevant questions about the summary in post #1162

If you want to discuss how this fits into the 'bigger picture' please do so on another thread.

You can run but you cannot hide from these questions.You do have a way with words.

ETA: Thank you Sir Philip

mortimer

4th March 2007, 09:38 AM

Are you honest enough to acknowledge that there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event?
If so, try to find a qualified person to go on record as believing that office fires can get hot enough to weaken the support columns in WTC 7 to the point of failure.

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.
I'm just asking you to look at the data from the FEMA and NIST reports and decide for yourself.

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Answer the question.

Using your (obviously) strong knowledge of structural engineering, kindly explain why there would necessarily have to be diesel fuel fires and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to global collapse for such fires or damage to be the cause of the initiating event.

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 04:49 PM

Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Answer the question.

Using your (obviously) strong knowledge of structural engineering, kindly explain why there would necessarily have to be diesel fuel fires and/or debris damage in the area of the initiating event that led to global collapse for such fires or damage to be the cause of the initiating event.
Your question is rhetorical.
As you know, i am a contractor, not an engineer.
However
There was NO known damage to the core columns.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged but intact.
There was NO serious debris damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 below the 12th floor.
There was NO debris damage or diesel fires anywhere near trusses 1 and 2.
It is not known what ejected the elevator cars or which hallway they landed in.
To suggest that column 74 was damaged is pure speculation and highly unlikely as i pointed out in post #948.

If you want to believe that debris damage and fire in the middle and west half of WTC 7 somehow led to the initiating event, rock on.

twinstead

4th March 2007, 05:06 PM

Your question is rhetorical.
As you know, i am a contractor, not an engineer.
However
There was NO known damage to the core columns.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged but intact.
There was NO serious debris damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 below the 12th floor.
There was NO debris damage or diesel fires anywhere near trusses 1 and 2.
It is not known what ejected the elevator cars or which hallway they landed in.
To suggest that column 74 was damaged is pure speculation and highly unlikely as i pointed out in post #948.

If you want to believe that debris damage and fire in the middle and west half of WTC 7 somehow led to the initiating event, rock on.

So. Explain why the experts thought the building was in imminent danger of collapse. What do you, in your infinite hindsight vision, see now that they then did not?

MaGZ

4th March 2007, 05:15 PM

Dude. You are polluting this forum with your blind ideology. Seriously, I normally will never say that because I believe that everybody has a right to voice their opinions and be respected for being true to themselves IF indeed they are.

Your ideology, your world view, is TOXIC. Everything it touches is tainted.

Everybody who reads your posts, participant or lurker, knows this.

Good luck with that.

See, I was right.
http://movies.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---8624,00.html

The FBI confiscated the brothers' footage, but allowed them to make a copy of the moment of impact, said Variety. That brief footage has since been replayed on countless network broadcasts as credited to the Gamma photo agency, which distributed it to TV stations and print media the day after the disaster.

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 05:26 PM

So. Explain why the experts thought the building was in imminent danger of collapse. What do you, in your infinite hindsight vision, see now that they then did not?
By experts you mean Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden.
They based their assessment on the damage to the south face of WTC 7 and the fires.

Chief Norman saw the same damage and fires and did not think WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Their decision to pull everyone back was prudent but their assessment does not constitute evidence.

My 'hindsight' is based on the data in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Do you think that any of the data i listed is incorrect?

twinstead

4th March 2007, 05:49 PM

By experts you mean Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden.
They based their assessment on the damage to the south face of WTC 7 and the fires.

Chief Norman saw the same damage and fires and did not think WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Their decision to pull everyone back was prudent but their assessment does not constitute evidence.

My 'hindsight' is based on the data in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Do you think that any of the data i listed is incorrect?

So, Nigro, Fellini and Hayden are the ONLY people to have reported on the condition of WTC7?

Fires:
1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110081.PDF

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110447.PDF

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110018.PDF

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110207.PDF

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110222.PDF

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110205.PDF

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.

11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]

12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110413.PDF

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110261.PDF

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110103.PDF

Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable (just before collapse):

I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot.
So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110167.PDF

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110098.PDF

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html

Damage:

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux
4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.
Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp (http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html)

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

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

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.
We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
Q. Were you injured?
A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.
Q. The door was blocked?
A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything.
–Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.
Q. That was 7 World Trade Center?
A. I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart.
–EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 05:49 PM

See, I was right.
http://movies.zap2it.com/movies/news/story/0,1259,---8624,00.html
This thread is about WTC 7

Please stop posting stuff about missiles and the Trade Towers.

Chris

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 05:59 PM

So, Nigro, Fellini and Hayden are the ONLY people to have reported on the condition of WTC7?
No

As i have stated before, much of the data i listed in post #1162, comes from statements of the firefighters who reported the location and progress of the fires and the debris damage.

twinstead

4th March 2007, 06:26 PM

No

As i have stated before, much of the data i listed in post #1162, comes from statements of the firefighters who reported the location and progress of the fires and the debris damage.

Did you read my quotes?

So, I say again: the vast majority of expert witnesses on the ground reported that the WTC7 was in imminent danger of catastrophic failure.

Do you deny this?

Christopher7

4th March 2007, 07:15 PM

Did you read my quotes?

So, I say again: the vast majority of expert witnesses on the ground reported that the WTC7 was in imminent danger of catastrophic failure.
Wrong!

I have read those quotes before.

In that list of quotes, only Chief Fellini was concerned that WTC 7 would fall.

Charlie Vitchers:
"Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. There were warnings all over the place, just stay clear of the site until..........."

Where the hell do you get "the vast majority of witnesses... reported ....imminent danger" ?

Jennie C.

5th March 2007, 08:15 AM

You must be referring to these two pictures which show WTC 7 on fire as a result of the missile strike. Look for the burning rooms on the lower floors of 11 and 12. Please note the fires were not started by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

Could someone please orient me on these pictures (as well as Sir Philip's)? If I see water in the background, can I assume I'm facing south, or can you see water east and west from these sites as well?

I've never been to NYC. I have a map of the WTC complex and environs, but have a hard time matching it to photos when I don't know which way the photog was facing.

(in regards to these two particular pix, I don't even know where to look for WTC7...but the only thing down lower that I see as anything that looks like fire are 2 flags)

Firestone

5th March 2007, 08:40 AM

Could someone please orient me on these pictures (as well as Sir Philip's)? If I see water in the background, can I assume I'm facing south, or can you see water east and west from these sites as well?

I've never been to NYC. I have a map of the WTC complex and environs, but have a hard time matching it to photos when I don't know which way the photog was facing.

(in regards to these two particular pix, I don't even know where to look for WTC7...but the only thing down lower that I see as anything that looks like fire are 2 flags)I have the same problem.

I tried to add some markers to two of the pictures.
If they are wrong, it won't take long for someone to correct me. ;)

Picture 1 (http://i18.tinypic.com/2wfla81.jpg)
Picture 2 (http://i17.tinypic.com/33dz04p.jpg)

mortimer

5th March 2007, 10:02 AM

Your question is rhetorical.
As you know, i am a contractor, not an engineer.
However
There was NO known damage to the core columns.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged but intact.
There was NO serious debris damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 below the 12th floor.
There was NO debris damage or diesel fires anywhere near trusses 1 and 2.
It is not known what ejected the elevator cars or which hallway they landed in.
To suggest that column 74 was damaged is pure speculation and highly unlikely as i pointed out in post #948.

If you want to believe that debris damage and fire in the middle and west half of WTC 7 somehow led to the initiating event, rock on.

You miss the point. If you are going to claim that fire and debris damage didn't bring down WTC7, it is not sufficient to simply show that there was no fire or debris damage in the immediate area of where the collapse initiated. You must also show that it is impossible for fire and debris damage elsewhere to cause the collapse initiation.

I doubt that you have the expertise to do so.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 10:16 AM

I have the same problem.

I tried to add some markers to two of the pictures.
If they are wrong, it won't take long for someone to correct me. ;)

Picture 1 (http://i18.tinypic.com/2wfla81.jpg)
Picture 2 (http://i17.tinypic.com/33dz04p.jpg)
This thread is about WTC 7

Please start a thread about missiles if you want but

Stop posting about missiles and the Trade Towers here.

Thank you

Chris

Arus808

5th March 2007, 10:19 AM

Chris, the wTC 7 has been discussed to death here and that you have added nothing new to this thread since its inception, that you are sorely mistaken based on your non-expertise and understanding and that the NIST report is still a preliminary report, and you can't put your faith 100% on what a preliminary report states.

So unless YOU YOURSELF has anything new to add, WHY dont you wait till the more complete report is published?

You are becoming as bad as CHRISTOPHERA.

Sorry, but MagZ missile belief, (as stupid as it is, and not even supported by evidence) is about WTC 7's damage, even though he has nothing to support his claims.

JimBenArm

5th March 2007, 10:19 AM

This thread is about WTC 7

Please start a thread about missiles if you want but

Stop posting about missiles and the Trade Towers here.

Thank you

Chris

So, when were you made a moderator?
Oh, you weren't?
Then cool your jets, dude.

Dave Rogers

5th March 2007, 10:20 AM

There was NO known damage to the core columns.
The pedestrian bridge was damaged but intact.
There was NO serious debris damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 below the 12th floor.
There was NO debris damage or diesel fires anywhere near trusses 1 and 2.
It is not known what ejected the elevator cars or which hallway they landed in.
To suggest that column 74 was damaged is pure speculation and highly unlikely as i pointed out in post #948.

Christopher,

One question on all this. What's your evidence that there was no damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC7 below the 12th floor? I've seen photos of the eastern face of the building, showing it was intact, but the only photos of the south face I've seen are Steve Spak's pictures; these are taken from about west-south-west, and the lower end of the eastern 1/3 of the south face is invisible. Since the NIST preliminary report suggests that the collapse could have initiated from column 79, 80 or 81, and there was damage to the south face believed to go as deep into the structure as 81 (though not at that part of the building), can you be certain that there was no damage to column 81 specifically? Do you have a picture clearly showing the eastern end of the south face that would prove that no such damage occurred?

Dave

Belz...

5th March 2007, 10:36 AM

Belz...

5th March 2007, 10:39 AM

This thread is about WTC 7

So are MaGZ's missiles.

Stop flailing your arms about.

Jennie C.

5th March 2007, 10:39 AM

This thread is about WTC 7

Please start a thread about missiles if you want but

Stop posting about missiles and the Trade Towers here.

Thank you

Chris

Chris, sorry I picked on Mag's pictures to ask my question.

Being able to understand which building is which from pix has been an ongoing problem for me, because of the orientation problem. I simply took those pictures (and Sir Philip's) as an occasion to ask the question.

Firestone: thanks for your help. If I can just remember that the antenna is on the North (#1) tower, it'll help a lot. So long as the pic has the towers standing, that is :)

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 11:01 AM

Chris, the wTC 7 has been discussed to death here and that you have added nothing new to this thread since its inception, that you are sorely mistaken based on your non-expertise and understanding and that the NIST report is still a preliminary report, and you can't put your faith 100% on what a preliminary report states.

I have added the location of the tanks, pipes and generators using data from existing reports that will not change in the final report.

This information has not been discussed on this or any other thread that i know of.

You cannot dispute these facts.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 11:31 AM

Christopher,

One question on all this. What's your evidence that there was no damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC7 below the 12th floor? I've seen photos of the eastern face of the building, showing it was intact, but the only photos of the south face I've seen are Steve Spak's pictures; these are taken from about west-south-west, and the lower end of the eastern 1/3 of the south face is invisible. Since the NIST preliminary report suggests that the collapse could have initiated from column 79, 80 or 81, and there was damage to the south face believed to go as deep into the structure as 81 (though not at that part of the building), can you be certain that there was no damage to column 81 specifically? Do you have a picture clearly showing the eastern end of the south face that would prove that no such damage occurred?

Dave
This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

The east part of the south side, below floor 12, was not obscured by smoke between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

There was no debris damage reported to this area.

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

The government has withheld the photographs of the east part of the south side WTC 7 for over 5 1/2 years.

They are available now only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

I have applied for the photographs of WTC 7 but as yet have not received a reply.

mortimer

5th March 2007, 11:36 AM

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

The government has withheld the photographs of the east part of the south side WTC 7 for over 5 1/2 years.

They are available now only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

I have applied for the photographs of WTC 7 but as yet have not received a reply.

What evidence do you have that such photographs exist? And what would they prove if you saw them?

Arus808

5th March 2007, 11:43 AM

I have added the location of the tanks, pipes and generators using data from existing reports that will not change in the final report.

And so what? everyone knows where the tanks are because of the the NIST graphs and layouts of the building. We know that wont change, but a lot of other information could change. Again, you're basing all your premises on a PRELIMINARY report.

This information has not been discussed on this or any other thread that i know of.

You cannot dispute these facts.

why do these things need to be discussed? We already know what is the possible reason for its collapse. We can speculate on 100000000 other reasons to the cause of collapse, but until the NIST reports are COMPLETED, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

WHY DONT YOU WAIT UNTIL THE COMPLETE REPORT IS PUBLISHED?

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 11:54 AM

When you start with if, anything is possible. Add in 'need not have' and 'could just as easily be' and you are only limited by your imagination.

Oh, the delicious irony, Chris. The delicious irony...

Oh, the coincidence that I was thinking the very same thing.

Chris, you claim that explosives were used to take down WTC 7.

If your contention thus is backed up by any actual evidence whatsoever other than "it could have been because it looks like it" you have yet to demonstrate such evidence. In other words once you categorically reject any theories based upon the very real fact of debris damage and major fires in WTC 7 and instead go with 'it looks like' as the basis of an arguement, you are then limited only by your imagination, and thus we have space based beam weapons, missiles and explosive demolitions!

Jennie C.

5th March 2007, 12:09 PM

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

The east part of the south side, below floor 12, was not obscured by smoke between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

There was no debris damage reported to this area.

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

The government has withheld the photographs of the east part of the south side WTC 7 for over 5 1/2 years.

They are available now only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

I have applied for the photographs of WTC 7 but as yet have not received a reply.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, from 1207:
You cannot dispute these facts.

This is a gratuitous assertion. I was taught that such could be gratuitously denied.

So: Sure we can.

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 12:16 PM

I have added the location of the tanks, pipes and generators using data from existing reports that will not change in the final report.

This information has not been discussed on this or any other thread that i know of.

You cannot dispute these facts.

No one has ever disputed the locations of the fuel tanks and louvers and pipes. Your continued harping that these things will not change is a moot point. No one is argueing them.

Instead we are argueing things such as your rideiculous contention that smoke should, ,, check that,, , must be coming from the louvers if there is a fuel fire on the 5th floor. That certainly need not be the case unless the fire is actually in the generator room! No one has stated(other than you, by your insistence that smoke emanate from the louvers) that this is where the fire should be.

As for the elevator cars being ejected, you seem to be of the impression that something had to hit the cars themselves in order for them to be ejected. Again this need not be the case. Something lodged in the shaft, haveing cut the cables upon entering them, would eject the cars as they fell and ran into the debris. There are probably other modes by which the cars could be ejected as well that do not require falling debris actually hitting the cars. Yes this requires some imagination based upon the actual make up of the building and its systems and the conditions existing in the building. Instead, you simply dismiss this evidence of damage to the central core of the building that does indeed occur 90 feet (or so) into the structure.

You dismiss this because there is no direct evidence of exactly what caused the cars to be ejected, no direct evidence of the amount of damage that resulted as they were ejected from the shafts. However on the other hand you are quite convinced that explsoives were used to demolish this building despite absolutly no direct evidence that such a thing took place and extremly thin circumstantial evidence of it. A non-expert claims he "knows" and explosion when he hears one and you accept it without any question and the building fails internally and since that 'looks like' explosive demoltions that you have seen before you buy into that theory.

Given that there is vastly more circumstantial evidence including some direct evidence that debris damage and/or fire brought down this structure than there is for planted explosives I conclude that you;
a) have quite the double standard regarding evidence,
b) have a political motive for accepting the least likely mode of collapse.

Dave Rogers

5th March 2007, 01:00 PM

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

Could you give me a link to the post that contains the proof please? I've seen Steve Spak's photo and it looks pretty clear to me.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

The east part of the south side, below floor 12, was not obscured by smoke between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

There was no debris damage reported to this area.

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

Have you any evidence that such photographs were taken, or is this a belief on your part?

Dave

Belz...

5th March 2007, 01:14 PM

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

And then we actually got to see the hole.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

And no evidence to the contrary, so far ? We do know the building collapsed, we do know it was damaged by nearby collapses, we do know it was on fire, and we do know it was impossible to rig it with explosives prior to its collapse. What's your point, exactly ?

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

I wonder what kind of damage that bridge took or communicated to 7 WTC when 1 WTC came down.

Without Rights

5th March 2007, 02:00 PM

Destroying documents - when a paper-shredder would have worked just fine? An insurance scam where the guy takes the money and rebuilds, LOSING money on whole venture?

Actually Larry Silverstien made a fortune in the collapse. He his rebuilding the Freedom Tower with 2.87 Billion of the Port Authorties money. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/FREE/70222010/1058/STATIC
and not out of the $3 billion insurance claim.

Before you get out your CT whipin sticks I am not agreeing with CTer's. But that point is moot. He got more crazy rich then he already was.

JimBenArm

5th March 2007, 02:02 PM

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 02:03 PM

And so what? everyone knows where the tanks are because of the the NIST graphs and layouts of the building. We know that wont change, but a lot of other information could change. Again, you're basing all your premises on a PRELIMINARY report.
The data on where the fuel tanks, pipes and generators were is in the FEMA report.

why do these things need to be discussed? We already know what is the possible reason for its collapse. We can speculate on 100000000 other reasons to the cause of collapse, but until the NIST reports are COMPLETED, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.What you say you 'know' is the possible reason is based on the PRELIMINARY report.

WHY DONT YOU WAIT UNTIL THE COMPLETE REPORT IS PUBLISHED?Because we don't need to wait for the final NIST report to know that there were no dieisel fires in the area of the initiating event. The data on the timing and location of the fires to the area of the initiating event is not going to change in the final report.

Will you all stop saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire until the final report comes out ?

It works both ways.

How can you be so sure when NIST only says it "appears possible" ?

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 02:18 PM

Oh, the coincidence that I was thinking the very same thing.

Chris, you claim that explosives were used to take down WTC 7.

If your contention thus is backed up by any actual evidence whatsoever other than "it could have been because it looks like it" you have yet to demonstrate such evidence. In other words once you categorically reject any theories based upon the very real fact of debris damage and major fires in WTC 7 and instead go with 'it looks like' as the basis of an arguement, you are then limited only by your imagination, and thus we have space based beam weapons, missiles and explosive demolitions!
It is a very real fact that debris damage was to the middle and west part of WTC 7.

It is a very real fact that there were NO diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

FEMA pg 28
"there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system"

Firestone

5th March 2007, 02:52 PM

Actually Larry Silverstien made a fortune in the collapse. He his rebuilding the Freedom Tower with 2.87 Billion of the Port Authorties money. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/FREE/70222010/1058/STATIC
and not out of the $3 billion insurance claim.

Before you get out your CT whipin sticks I am not agreeing with CTer's. But that point is moot. He got more crazy rich then he already was.You "don't agree with CTer's", but repeat one of their most persistent and grotesque lies.

You can read in Ref's Guide (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76025) about Silverstein's "profits".

You should retract this lie, or start a thread where you explain how "Silverstein made a fortune in the collapse". But be aware that this allegation has been trashed in a number of threads already.

And now back to the "10 story hole in WTC 7" ...

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 03:03 PM

No one has ever disputed the locations of the fuel tanks and louvers and pipes. Your continued harping that these things will not change is a moot point. No one is argueing them.
Jennie C is denying it.

Instead we are argueing things such as your rideiculous contention that smoke should, ,, check that,, , must be coming from the louvers if there is a fuel fire on the 5th floor. That certainly need not be the case unless the fire is actually in the generator room! No one has stated(other than you, by your insistence that smoke emanate from the louvers) that this is where the fire should be.We agree that there was no fire in the generator room.
There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe to the east generator room was damaged. It was 90 feet inside the building.

As for the elevator cars being ejected, you seem to be of the impression that something had to hit the cars themselves in order for them to be ejected. Again this need not be the case. Something lodged in the shaft, haveing cut the cables upon entering them, would eject the cars as they fell and ran into the debris. There are probably other modes by which the cars could be ejected as well that do not require falling debris actually hitting the cars. Yes this requires some imagination based upon the actual make up of the building and its systems and the conditions existing in the building. Instead, you simply dismiss this evidence of damage to the central core of the building that does indeed occur 90 feet (or so) into the structure. You are ignoring the fact that smoke from a diesel fire would be pouring out of the very large hole made by 2 elevator cars.

You dismiss this because there is no direct evidence of exactly what caused the cars to be ejected, no direct evidence of the amount of damage that resulted as they were ejected from the shafts.All that and i don't 'believe' that falling debris could penetrate 90' into a building.
Do you know of a qualified person who will go on record and say this is possible?

However on the other hand you are quite convinced that explsoives were used to demolish this building despite absolutly no direct evidence that such a thing took place and extremly thin circumstantial evidence of it. A non-expert claims he "knows" and explosion when he hears one and you accept it without any question and the building fails internally and since that 'looks like' explosive demoltions that you have seen before you buy into that theory.Yes. I don't believe that WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single key column could lead to a global collapse.

Given that there is vastly more circumstantial evidence including some direct evidence that debris damage and/or fire brought down this structureThere is NO evidence, circumstantial or direct, that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 03:46 PM

And then we actually got to see the hole.
You mean here?

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg

How can you see a gouge in the middle [column 8] of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground.
Perhaps your x-ray vision is better than mine.

And no evidence to the contrary, so far ? We do know the building collapsed, we do know it was damaged by nearby collapses, we do know it was on fire, and

we do know it was impossible to rig it with explosives prior to its collapse. Really?

Did you know about this.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

DavidJames

5th March 2007, 03:56 PM

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.I wish for you what I wish for others like yourself.

I hope someday, a district attorney accuses you of a heinous crime based on the level of evidence you are willing to convict others.

But you know what, tin hatter. If I were on the jury and I was presented the type evidence you present, I would not vote you guilty.

I'm embarrased for you.

Arus808

5th March 2007, 04:09 PM

Did you know about this.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

with all the radio interference and problems that day, would you truly trust something that relies on radio signals to work properly, in the center of mobile/wireless/communication signals city?

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

did you know that he was off the board on or before the year 2000?

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 04:24 PM

Jennie C is denying it.

Ok, make that "very few people". For the greater part, no one denies the location or existance of those items. It is still a moot point.

We agree that there was no fire in the generator room.
There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe to the east generator room was damaged. It was 90 feet inside the building.

There is NO evidence of the the explosives you believe in. there is however evidence of significant damage to the core of the structure as illustrated by the two elevator cars that were forced out of their shafts. It has been shown to you that it is not necessary to have debris actually puncture throughto the 5th floor to cause a rupture of the fuel piping system.

You are ignoring the fact that smoke from a diesel fire would be pouring out of the very large hole made by 2 elevator cars.

On the contrary. I have a wood stove and if I punch a hole in the steel stove pipe smoke does not enter the room out that hole. Instead air is drawn into the stovepipe via that hole. The proper way to install stove pipe is to have the crimped ends facing down which means that the upper pipe fits into the one below it. This seems counterintuitive since it would seem that smoke would move through the crimps and into the room in this arrangement But the whole idea of doing it this way is to have any creosote deposits drain down inside the pipe towards the firebox rather than (if the crimped end was installed facing up) flow out onto the outside of the pipe. The reason the smoke stays inside is the draft created by the heat.

The elevator shaft could easily work as a much larger version of a chimney.

All that and i don't 'believe' that falling debris could penetrate 90' into a building.
Do you know of a qualified person who will go on record and say this is possible?

First give me a reason to believe that you are qualified to say it isn't possible.
I would venture that most engineers would state that it is not completely out of the realm of possibility. I already pointed out that an engine of the B-25 that hit the Empire State building found its way into an elevator shaft. that engine had hit a brick and steel building at 120 MPH , perpendicular to the face of the building while the plane was actually attempting to pull up and over the building.

I already pointed out that it need not be a perimeter column tree that entered WTC 7.

Yes. I don't believe that WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single key column could lead to a global collapse.

False arguement since a pristine building that was suffering damage in only one location is not the condition that WTC 7 was in that day. No ONE thing brought this building down, it was a combination of insults to the structural integrity of the building that brought it down.

There is NO evidence, circumstantial or direct, that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

Now define , "in the area of" because that refrain is getting old. Once you have done that please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be within that area in order to cause the collapse. Please include in your description how the loss of perimeter columns would affect the stresses on the core columns in question.

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 04:44 PM

You mean here?

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

It doesn't eliminate the need to load the explosives. Now please give evidence of the installation of such explosives. Rather than state that Bush's kin was the head of a security co. how about something a little more solid such as actual testimony from someone who saw work being performed on the columns in question sometime prior to Sept11/01

Fact is that any theory that involves the use of explosives MUST then establish a bona fide reason to do so. There is none that makes sense at all.
Was it to make Silverstein rich? No, contrary to the above poster's statements insurance co.'s pay out for loss. If a loss is covered by other means they don't allow you to be paid twice. You get what it takes to rebuild and they can decide to pay out in installments as construction proceeds. Silverstein may be getting loss of business money but that requires he show that he is still involved in rebuilding and suffering loss due to that.

Now was the destruction of WTC 7 part of a conspiracy to allow a neo-con agenda of military build up and war to proceed? Let's examine that. Slamming two jets into the towers and bringing them down on top of the nearest buildings would certainly suffice so what possible reason would there be to demilish #7? Certainly not to cover up the det cord running to the explosives in #1 & #2 since you have already shown that this was not necessary. certainly not to cover up anything else since a shredder would suffice for any paper trail and simply carting out a file cabinet containing any equipment used sometime after Sept 11 (my choice would be on Sept 12) would suffice. It could be part of a large scale operation to remove important files from the building(nothing suspicious about that). It is simply not required to completely demolish WTC 7 as part of any such operation. It is ridiculous overkill that would serve only to make secrecy of this plot more difficult.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 04:46 PM

I wish for you what I wish for others like yourself.

I hope someday, a district attorney accuses you of a heinous crime based on the level of evidence you are willing to convict others.

But you know what, tin hatter. If I were on the jury and I was presented the type evidence you present, I would not vote you guilty.

I'm embarrased for you.

Oh master of misinterpretation and overstatement.

I offered that information to dispel the contention that it would be 'impossible' to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 05:02 PM

with all the radio interference and problems that day, would you truly trust something that relies on radio signals to work properly, in the center of mobile/wireless/communication signals city?
That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

did you know that he was off the board on or before the year 2000?Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.

CHF

5th March 2007, 05:07 PM

Chris, why are you still insisting that WTC7 was demolished?

Show me one WTC7 video that sounds anything like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

No series of loud charges = no demolition.

JimBenArm

5th March 2007, 05:12 PM

That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.
Let's see. He was off the board in 2000. Control of security would be essential. When did 9/11 happen? Oh, yeah, 2001!
Yeah, I think I'll disregard that.

Arus808

5th March 2007, 05:13 PM

That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

you are also aware of the problems in communication that day aren't you?

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.so you're claiming they rigged WTC 7 with explosives more than year prior to 9/11/2001...even though people who worked there didn't notice this work? Despite that Bush was not on the board for most of 2000; and being on the board doesn't mean they have any control over contracted security work in that building.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 06:56 PM

Ok, make that "very few people". For the greater part, no one denies the location or existance of those items. It is still a moot point.
On the contrary, it is a very important point.
Most people did not know that the fuel supply pipe was 90' from the south side of WTC 7.

There is NO evidence of the the explosives you believe in.From Mark's list:
"you hear smaller, secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes"

Of course, when people say explosions, it's never really an explosion, it's always just something that sounds like an explosion. If it was an explosion then it was something outer than a demolition charge because nobody heard and demolition charges.

there is however evidence of significant damage to the core of the structure as illustrated by the two elevator cars that were forced out of their shafts.Whatever ejected the elevator cars may have damaged or severed a core column but given the location of the hole the piece of debris [supposedly] came thru [around floor 14, just west of center] it is unlikely that it would be a column east of center.

It has been shown to you that it is not necessary to have debris actually puncture throughto the 5th floor to cause a rupture of the fuel piping system.It has been suggested that the pipe might possibly have broken at the valve.
This is pure speculation.
As i posted earlier, NIST says that there is NO evidence that this happened.

On the contrary. I have a wood stove and if I punch a hole in the steel stove pipe smoke does not enter the room out that hole. Instead air is drawn into the stovepipe via that hole. Right.
You just try that and see what happens.

The elevator shaft could easily work as a much larger version of a chimney.Right.
No smoke will come out of a hole as big as 2 elevator cars, even though part of the south wall is gone.

First give me a reason to believe that you are qualified to say it isn't possible.Given your distaste for common sense, i have no particular 'qualifications'.
However, I find it impossible to believe that gravity could eject large sections of framework 350' to 400' horizontally, much less penetrate 90' into a building, but that's a subject for another thread.

I would venture that most engineers would state that it is not completely out of the realm of possibility.I will make you a gentleman's bet on that one.

I already pointed out that an engine of the B-25 that hit the Empire State building found its way into an elevator shaft. that engine had hit a brick and steel building at 120 MPH , perpendicular to the face of the building while the plane was actually attempting to pull up and over the building.
An F14 can climb vertically. A B25 couldn't even come close to vertical.

I already pointed out that it need not be a perimeter column tree that entered WTC 7.Right.
Concrete floors falling straight down can throw an object weighing a ton or more than 440' horizontally [the last 90' thru steel I beams and concrete floors]

False arguement since a pristine building that was suffering damage in only one location is not the condition that WTC 7 was in that day. No ONE thing brought this building down, it was a combination of insults to the structural integrity of the building that brought it down. The only 'insults' to the area of the initiating event that NIST says caused the global collapse, were office fires.

Now define , "in the area of" because that refrain is getting old. Columns 73 - 81 inclusive.

Rhetorical questions deleted.

gumboot

5th March 2007, 07:05 PM

Christopher7...

I've got a question for you... you keep demanding to know if it's realistic that a piece of debris can penetrate 90 feet into a building...

What if the piece of debris was 100 feet long?

-Gumboot

CHF

5th March 2007, 07:11 PM

From Mark's list:
"you hear smaller, secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes"

You think a controlled demolition has explosives going off every 15-20 minutes well before the collapse? And no rapid-fire sequence just prior to the collapse itself?

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 07:41 PM

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 07:50 PM

You think a controlled demolition has explosives going off every 15-20 minutes well before the collapse?

And no rapid-fire sequence just prior to the collapse itself?
Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

JimBenArm

5th March 2007, 07:54 PM

That's a dam good question.
I'm glad you recognize that. Seriously. Good for you!

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 08:14 PM

you are also aware of the problems in communication that day aren't you?
The first responders had antiquated equipment, The HiEx is state of the art.

so you're claiming they rigged WTC 7 with explosives more than year prior to 9/11/2001...even though people who worked there didn't notice this work? Despite that Bush was not on the board for most of 2000; and being on the board doesn't mean they have any control over contracted security work in that building.No

Unfit4Command

5th March 2007, 08:22 PM

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Do you think that the "clap of thunder" could have possibly been the east mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building?

CHF

5th March 2007, 08:25 PM

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Or perhaps a steel beam ripping loose from its anchor?

I reckon that would make a rather loud bang.

Listen to the...ummm:rolleyes:..."explosions" as this crane collapses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZOSosy-o4

stateofgrace

5th March 2007, 08:35 PM

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Wait a minute,are you saying that the fires set off some of the demolition charges?

By design or by accident?

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 08:52 PM

Do you think that the "clap of thunder" could have possibly been the east mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building?
No.
The penthouse collapse took 5 -7 seconds

"clap of thunder.....shock wave ripping thru the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...."

He could be describing a CD.

Note: No 2 buildings are the exactly same. The demolition sequence is tailored to the task at hand.

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 10:02 PM

On the contrary, it is a very important point.
Most people did not know that the fuel supply pipe was 90' from the south side of WTC 7.

The number of people who didn't know it is irrellvent. Those who are informed will not dispute the location of these items. Should I list everyone(including myself) who you have stated it to?

From Mark's list:
"you hear smaller, secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes"

"secondary" to what?

Of course, when people say explosions, it's never really an explosion, it's always just something that sounds like an explosion. If it was an explosion then it was something outer than a demolition charge because nobody heard and demolition charges.

Precisely, given that for an explosion to be 'secondary' there has to be a larger 'primary' explosion this witness is not being accurate. He likely means he is characterizing the sounds he heard as 'small explosions'.

Whatever ejected the elevator cars may have damaged or severed a core column but given the location of the hole the piece of debris [supposedly] came thru [around floor 14, just west of center] it is unlikely that it would be a column east of center.

Well then , you admit the possibility. That's a change from "it couldn't".

It has been suggested that the pipe might possibly have broken at the valve.
This is pure speculation.
As i posted earlier, NIST says that there is NO evidence that this happened.

Yep, a possibility. I for one have never argued more than that. You on the other hand have stated it did not happen.

Right.
You just try that and see what happens.

Actually I have. When I installed the stove pipe I did not have enough screws to connect all the sections. Code requires at least three per connection. I only had enough for two per. A few days later I bought more screws and while the fire was going I drilled another hole in each of the three connection then installed the screws. NO smoke came out that holes. I haven't tried seeing just how big a hole I can make though it would make an interesting, albeit dirty, time consuming, and expensive experiment ( not to mention having to explain myself to my wife:) )

Right.
No smoke will come out of a hole as big as 2 elevator cars, even though part of the south wall is gone.

Actually I did not say there would be no smoke, just that there would not necessarily be large amounts of it.

Given your distaste for common sense, i have no particular 'qualifications'.
However, I find it impossible to believe that gravity could eject large sections of framework 350' to 400' horizontally, much less penetrate 90' into a building, but that's a subject for another thread.I will make you a gentleman's bet on that one.

That's moving at 34 MPH if it fell for 8 seconds and went 400 feet.

I'm all for common sense. Common sense dictates that one use the data one has, that one use basic physics and engineering to postulate theories where large structures are concerned.

The bet's on, now all we have to do is poll "most" engineers.

An F14 can climb vertically. A B25 couldn't even come close to vertical.

What's that got to do with anything at all? I said he was pulling up and attempting to get over the building. He tried that as soon as he saw the building. Its all on record, he was climbing when he impacted. I did not state he was going vertical. I said he was perpendicular to the face of the building, that means he hit it at 90o to the face. He T-boned the building while climbing.

Right.
Concrete floors falling straight down can throw an object weighing a ton or more than 440' horizontally [the last 90' thru steel I beams and concrete floors]

As I said all it need be doing is 34 MPH when it left the building. After falling for about 8 seconds it would be doing well over 100 MPH vertically and still have most of that 34 MPH horizontal velocity as well.

The only 'insults' to the area of the initiating event that NIST says caused the global collapse, were office fires.
<<snip>>
Columns 73 - 81 inclusive

That's all that can be relatively certainly established. Once again we have evidence of damage to the central core, the elevators, and that illustrates the distinct possibility of damage to core columns such as 73-81 or those just west of 73-81 and fires around 73-81.
Again you seem to keep saying it just isn't possible.

Rhetorical questions deleted.

Rhetorical questions are those that the speaker does not actually want answered such as; "What's the matter with you?", "Don't you know any better?", "Have you no shame?", "How many times do I have to tell you"?

I want my question answered, please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be confined to columns 73-81.

The penthouse collapse took 5 -7 seconds

"clap of thunder.....shock wave ripping thru the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...."

So they were not in a position to see the penthouse structure falling in and are reporting on the failure at the bottom floor. Can I assume they were north of the building too? So the sound they heard and the shockwave they saw came AFTER the penthouse started its collapse. Hmmm........

The first responders had antiquated equipment, The HiEx is state of the art.

Still waiting on any evidence that anyone saw explosives and remote controlled detonators being loaded or even men working on the columns in the year 2000.

Arus808

5th March 2007, 10:10 PM

No

well you're the one that thinks Marvin Bush had anything to do with the wTC and your assumption that security would be "laxed" for someone to wire the building for demo.

So, what is it Chris?

he was only on the board till the year 2000. MOre than a year before 9/11/2001 happened. IT took 6 months to wire the tallest building to be demoed, and requied A LOT OF WORK by a LOT of people, to prep the building for that demo to happen.

Please tell us exactly when did "marvin bush" have enough power to "conveniently" make security lax to have 100 men and women wire 1000's of pounds explosives without anyone noticing who worked there on a daily if not 24/7 basis; all of this before 9/11/2001.

Unfit4Command

5th March 2007, 10:16 PM

well you're the one that thinks Marvin Bush had anything to do with the wTC and your assumption that security would be "laxed" for someone to wire the building for demo.

So, what is it Chris?

he was only on the board till the year 2000. MOre than a year before 9/11/2001 happened. IT took 6 months to wire the tallest building to be demoed, and requied A LOT OF WORK by a LOT of people, to prep the building for that demo to happen.

Please tell us exactly when did "marvin bush" have enough power to "conveniently" make security lax to have 100 men and women wire 1000's of pounds explosives without anyone noticing who worked there on a daily if not 24/7 basis; all of this before 9/11/2001.

Also don't forget about the bomb sniffing dogs inside of the WTC complex.

Sirius (http://www.novareinna.com/bridge/sirius.html), and the extra dogs due to heightened security (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story) two weeks prior to 9/11 would have found some of the demolition charges. But then again, they're government dogs so they're probably in on the conspiracy too.

jaydeehess

5th March 2007, 10:32 PM

I believe we also would have to show that Marvin Bush's successor was either incompetant or also in-on-it , or that the work done could be done in such a fashion as to go completly undetected for the better part of a year and that the perpetrators could be completely satisfied that the planted explosives would indeed not be discovered prior to 9/11/01.

Unfit4Command

5th March 2007, 10:50 PM

I wonder how the explosives could have even made it into the building without at least one of the bomb sniffing dogs discovering at least one of the loads. It's impossible, the most incompetant secuirty force ever would have been required at the WTC's for this to have occured.

Maybe the bomb sniffing dogs were in-on-it as well.

Christopher7

5th March 2007, 11:37 PM

Could you give me a link to the post that contains the proof please? I've seen Steve Spak's photo and it looks pretty clear to me.
Post #94 and #1222

Have you any evidence that such photographs were taken, or is this a belief on your part?

DaveElementary, my dear Dave and Mortimer

The photographer that took this photograph did not think the pedestrian bridge would collapse.
They had to walk in front of WTC 7 to get to where they took this photograph.
Are you with me so far?
A photographer, while in transit to and from this location, would take a picture of WTC 7, perhaps several.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6717/copyof6ux6.jpg

Christopher7

6th March 2007, 12:50 AM

Yep, a possibility. I for one have never argued more than that. You on the other hand have stated it did not happen.
I have stated that the there was no fire in the generator room and that there is NO EVIDENCE the supply pipe was damaged or broken.

Actually I have. When I installed the stove pipe I did not have enough screws to connect all the sections. Code requires at least three per connection. I only had enough for two per. A few days later I bought more screws and while the fire was going I drilled another hole in each of the three connection then installed the screws. NO smoke came out that holes. I haven't tried seeing just how big a hole I can make though it would make an interesting, albeit dirty, time consuming, and expensive experiment ( not to mention having to explain myself to my wife:) )Good point.
BTW, you've got your stove pipe in upside down. I suggest you rectify this when she's out of town.:rolleyes:

Actually I did not say there would be no smoke, just that there would not necessarily be large amounts of it.Diesel fuel makes a lot of smoke. With part of the south wall gone, smoke would be pouring out of the missing wall in the hallway. IMO
In your scenario, the fire would need a great deal of air flow to pull all the smoke 'up the chimney' [elevator shaft]
If there was no ventilation in that area of floor 5, then the only source of air intake is the debris hole.

That's all that can be relatively certainly established. Once again we have evidence of damage to the central core, the elevators, and that illustrates the distinct possibility of damage to core columns such as 73-81 or those just west of 73-81 and fires around 73-81.
Again you seem to keep saying it just isn't possible.
No
It is not possible that the debris [if that is what ejected the elevator cars] damaged columns 76 - 81.
It is unlikely that the debris damaged columns 73 - 75.

I want my question answered, please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be confined to columns 73-81.I don't have time to respond to every question in every post.
Choise mine.

Ans:
It is not.

westprog

6th March 2007, 02:49 AM

Given your distaste for common sense, i have no particular 'qualifications'.
However, I find it impossible to believe that gravity could eject large sections of framework 350' to 400' horizontally, much less penetrate 90' into a building, but that's a subject for another thread.I will make you a gentleman's bet on that one.

Have you calculated the energy released when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed? It's an easy calculation, and doesn't require extensive qualifications. Just use Google and Wikipaedia (or whatever source you wish) to find the formula for potential energy and the statistics relating to the weight of the WTC.