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

jaydeehess

17th March 2007, 03:03 PM

The area of the initiating event is under the penthouse and it is not going to change.

They could look at a hundred different scenarios as to where in this area the collapse started. So what?

Until NIST comes up with something more definitive than "appears possible",
you [all] should stop saying that debris damage and fire caused WTC 7 to implode.

Chris you seem to miss the entire point of a scientific investigation. I am not surprised, to say the least.

What part of investigating all possible senarios that encompass all that is known about the contents and construction of building 7 do you take issue with? Your tilting at the diesel fire issue now makes sense to me. You will rail on against any and all senarios that are the least likely in the vain hope that this will call into disrepute the investigation by NIST or FEMA. Of course they looked at the fuel left in the tanks and of course they looked at the distribution of that fuel and of course they came up with the possible senarios that take these facts into account. Few, if any here have stated that there WAS a diesel fuel fire. You on the other hand seem to possess some special ESP that allows you to make absolute statements that there WAS NO diesel fuel fire in specific locations near the columns in question.

Despite the fact that there is no direct evidence of such a fire and the lack of any but the slimest circumstantial evidence(missing fuel) there is a possibility that there was such a fire but you steadfastly refuse to accept even the remote possibility. This is ironicomical given your insistence that WTC was demolished using explosives despite there being no empirical evidence and the slimest of circumstantial evidence (two guys claim "it sounded like...." and the building fell down) to back that contention.

So no empirical evidence and very little circumstantial evidence results in a definitive yes in one case and a definitive no in another. You are a hypocrite, a sophist and a apologist for the people who actually caused the deaths and damage on 9/11.

cloudshipsrule

17th March 2007, 03:28 PM

You can't hang your hat on
"No evidence that it didn't happen"

Are you kidding me? You're hanging your whole damn wardrobe on "no evidence that what you say happened happened".

Miragememories

17th March 2007, 04:58 PM

No, MM, it's quite the opposite. Skeptics consider,

Skeptics are a special breed? Elitest maybe? People who don't agree with skeptics do what?...just think evil thoughts?

study, and research facts and evidence.

Well I guess there are few genuine skeptics on JREF most seem to spend their time mocking those who don't comply with the JREF rhetoric.

Most "Truthers" on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge reality,

I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror C. Think back to when you were..oh about 18 and not so much concerned with the approval of others. Take a good hard look at reality.

make up all manner of nonsense,
It's only nonsense if it's illogical. Making it up...sigh..well that's what you are doing..stating as fact something that is nothing more than your prejudiced belief.

refuse to acknowledge their lack of expertise,
And what may I ask fair C. is your expertise beyond reciting the opinions and research of others? You live in a world of petty crime where truth takes second stage to the convincing lie. How much do you understand and how much do you blindly accept because it's easier to let others think for you?

pretend that "common sense" trumps all, knock themselves out with high fives all around, and trumpet their stupidity all over the internet in the process.

Pretend? Meanwhile you live in your smug fantasyland believing that all is well in the world and that good always triumphs over evil. You stupidly look at the evidence and apply your mind to distorting it into a form that you can digest rather than considering any new point of view that would alienate you from the JREF clowns and your no-it-all firefighter mate.

You, for instance, have not provided any substantive posts whatsoever in your time here.

Oh how good it must feel to say that which you so much want to believe.
You revel in absolute statements. There is no gray in your world. It's black or it's white. There is no sometimes, there is no maybe, no a "little". Maybe you believe the words that you spew. Do you really think you still retain the capacity to change your mind? This is where lying to yourself is a problem. It's such an easy path to maintain especially when you know your other half will never accept you thinking in opposition.

You have simply parroted tinhat theories that you've found on conspiracy fantasist sites and you have heaped unsubstantiated abuse upon those who have tried in good faith to provide you with rational, substantive and substantiated facts, evidence, and knowledge.

You have no problem self proclaiming yourself qualified to judge the merits of my opinions and the sources I refer to. What makes you so special? We both know that the JREF 'rank 'n file' will stand behind any criticism you make of a non-skeptic no matter how ridiculous or unproven. You are so smug in your unsupported declarations it leaves me to believe if you were ever called to the bar, it was never to practise law.

You appear to be incapable of rational response,

Probing for buttons to push are we? You appear to be incapable of forming your own opinions. Many here have presented thoughtful arguments but you seem content to regurgitate and mock for the crowd..the JREF lone cheerleader.

and you appear to be impervious to reason, facts, evidence, and logic. These are traits which are, sadly, typical among members of the "Truth" movement and which are, thankfully, alien to skeptics.

Well you are certainly loaded with labels to heap upon those who don't puff up your pillow princess.

MM

stateofgrace

17th March 2007, 05:15 PM

Skeptics are a special breed? Elitest maybe? People who don't agree with skeptics do what?...just think evil thoughts?

Huh ?
Well I guess there are few genuine skeptics on JREF most seem to spend their time mocking those who don't comply with the JREF rhetoric

Sorry have you actually got any facts ?

I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror C. Think back to when you were..oh about 18 and not so much concerned with the approval of others. Take a good hard look at reality.

Yes maybe you should.

It's only nonsense if it's illogical. Making it up...sigh..well that's what you are doing..stating as fact something that is nothing more than your prejudiced belief.

Yes you do.

And what may I ask fair C. is your expertise beyond reciting the opinions and research of others? You live in a world of petty crime where truth takes second stage to the convincing lie. How much do you understand and how much do you blindly accept because it's easier to let others think for you?

Not like you, nobody fools you hey? Oh wait you bought into the truth movement, so what does that make you ?

Pretend? Meanwhile you live in your smug fantasyland believing that all is well in the world and that good always triumphs over evil. You stupidly look at the evidence and apply your mind to distorting it into a form that you can digest rather than considering any new point of view that would alienate you from the JREF clowns and your no-it-all firefighter mate.

Em no and I don't need a paranoid kook to point out the worlds problems to me.

You revel in absolute statements. There is no gray in your world. It's black or it's white. There is no sometimes, there is no maybe, no a "little". Maybe you believe the words that you spew. Do you really think you still retain the capacity to change your mind? This is where lying to yourself is a problem. It's such an easy path to maintain especially when you know your other half will never accept you thinking in opposition.

The is no maybe pal it is fact or fiction. You promote fiction, fact.

You have no problem self proclaiming yourself qualified to judge the merits of my opinions and the sources I refer to. What makes you so special? We both know that the JREF 'rank 'n file' will stand behind any criticism you make of a non-skeptic no matter how ridiculous or unproven. You are so smug in your unsupported declarations it leaves me to believe if you were ever called to the bar, it was never to practise law.

Insults, insults oh dear how desperate are you ?

Probing for buttons to push are we? You appear to be incapable of forming your own opinions. Many here have presented thoughtful arguments but you seem content to regurgitate and mock for the crowd..the JREF lone cheerleader.

Yes you are incapable of forming your own opinion. You are fodder for the ridiculous movement that feeds off naive juvenile idiots, pretty much like you in fact.
You allow a few idiots who promote unsubstantiated claims of mass murder to feed you your daily BS. You suck it all up. You believe it all and promote it all because you a paranoid gullible nobody who thinks he is important.
You,like this movement are irreverent; you have proved your irrelevance time and time again. Now go back to you teenage audience at the LC forum and try to impress them. You have failed miserably here.

Christopher7

17th March 2007, 05:22 PM

Chris you seem to miss the entire point of a scientific investigation. I am not surprised, to say the least.
You seem to have missed the point that:

You cannot say that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire when the experts say it "appears possible".

You [all] should take your own advice and stop saying that DD/F caused WTC 7 to collapse until the 'final report' comes out.

What part of investigating all possible senarios that encompass all that is known about the contents and construction of building 7 do you take issue with? Your tilting at the diesel fire issue now makes sense to me.Diesel fuel fires are an important element in the DD/F hypothesis.

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Of course they looked at the fuel left in the tanks and of course they looked at the distribution of that fuel and of course they came up with the possible senarios that take these facts into account.Right, and they came up with:

FEMA Ch 5 pg 28 - 29

"The following is, therefore, a hypothesis [set of assumptions] based on potential rather than demonstrated fact"

3) ...........this hypothesis assumes that is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed

Miragememories

17th March 2007, 05:23 PM

Huh ?

Anything to run your post count up eh stateofgrace?

I wasn't responding to you but apparently that doesn't stop you from answering other people's concerns.

MM

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 05:24 PM

MM:

Welcome back.

I know you were responding to LashL, but given your comments were public, and on a public forum, I wanna make a few observations/comments (you knew I would)...

Skeptics are a special breed? Elitest maybe? People who don't agree with skeptics do what?...just think evil thoughts?

CTists and Debunkers are both "skeptics" in the purist form of the word, in that they are both "skeptical" of something.

Well I guess there are few genuine skeptics on JREF most seem to spend their time mocking those who don't comply with the JREF rhetoric.

No, the mockery comes when people provide no evidence for their outrageous claims.

I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror C. Think back to when you were..oh about 18 and not so much concerned with the approval of others. Take a good hard look at reality.

Man, when I was 18, I was concerned about what others thought more than at any other point in my life before or after. Once you actually grow up, you begin to care less about what others think, except for your family and friends.

It's only nonsense if it's illogical. Making it up...sigh..well that's what you are doing..stating as fact something that is nothing more than your prejudiced belief.

No comment.

And what may I ask fair C. is your expertise beyond reciting the opinions and research of others? You live in a world of petty crime where truth takes second stage to the convincing lie. How much do you understand and how much do you blindly accept because it's easier to let others think for you?

That is actually wild. You voiced your negative OPINION about someone daring to voice their OPINION. There must be a name for such a thing.

Pretend? Meanwhile you live in your smug fantasyland believing that all is well in the world and that good always triumphs over evil. You stupidly look at the evidence and apply your mind to distorting it into a form that you can digest rather than considering any new point of view that would alienate you from the JREF clowns and your no-it-all firefighter mate.

Last I checked life was going good for most people. Yes adolesence sucks, Illness sucks, war sucks, fear sucks, but over all, most people, in the civilized, and modernized world, live relatively good and peaceful lives. If you want to make the world a better place, start focusing on the poor and the needy, rather than raging against the machine (and I already know you are going to make some comment about how the machine is the cause of those problems, so dont bother).

Oh how good it must feel to say that which you so much want to believe.
You revel in absolute statements. There is no gray in your world. It's black or it's white. There is no sometimes, there is no maybe, no a "little". Maybe you believe the words that you spew. Do you really think you still retain the capacity to change your mind? This is where lying to yourself is a problem. It's such an easy path to maintain especially when you know your other half will never accept you thinking in opposition.

I know those comments were directed at LashL, but you have directed them at me before, and at the JREFers in general.

I have lots of room for "maybe" and "grey" in my life, but not when it comes to accusing individuals of mass murder. In my opinion there is a plethora of evidence against the hijackers, and hence in my mind they are guilty. Noone so far has presented anything close to evidence that the USG carried out 9/11, so forget "maybe".

You have no problem self proclaiming yourself qualified to judge the merits of my opinions and the sources I refer to. What makes you so special? We both know that the JREF 'rank 'n file' will stand behind any criticism you make of a non-skeptic no matter how ridiculous or unproven. You are so smug in your unsupported declarations it leaves me to believe if you were ever called to the bar, it was never to practise law.

nice personal attack. did it make you feel better?

Probing for buttons to push are we? You appear to be incapable of forming your own opinions. Many here have presented thoughtful arguments but you seem content to regurgitate and mock for the crowd..the JREF lone cheerleader.

No, I'll join in a cheer, as most of the comments LashL makes are sound in my opinion.

Well you are certainly loaded with labels to heap upon those who don't puff up your pillow princess.
MM

another smack down...congratulations.

Now I know you will whine or complain that I am butting in, but really, if you want to keep others from commenting on your squabble, than take it to PM.

TAM:

stateofgrace

17th March 2007, 05:30 PM

Anything to run your post count up eh stateofgrace?

I wasn't responding to you but apparently that doesn't stop you from answering other people's concerns.

MM

No MM, just responding,as is my right,to you for attacking people on this forum. That is allowed is it? Or would you prefer that people who find your ridiculous accusations offensive be silenced?

I don't care who you was responding to and I don't care who you think you are. You post on a public forum and people can respond.

Is that acceptable?

Miragememories

17th March 2007, 05:37 PM

MM:

Welcome back.

I know you were responding to LashL, but given your comments were public, and on a public forum, I wanna make a few observations/comments (you knew I would)...

Yes I can't say as I'm surprised.

I guess it's ok for someone you agree with to make personal attacks about my record but heaven forbid I respond in kind.

Your hypocracy is duly noted Tammy.

You JREFers never see yourselves, you spend all your time defining others.

I'm glad you think we live it such good times Tammy. For the moment, those of us living in the West do have it pretty good. It's a only a bubble though and we all know what happens to them. Enjoy it while you can.

MM

LashL

17th March 2007, 05:46 PM

Blah blah blah MM

Like I said, MM:

No, MM, it's quite the opposite. Skeptics consider, study, and research facts and evidence. Most "Truthers" on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge reality, make up all manner of nonsense, refuse to acknowledge their lack of expertise, pretend that "common sense" trumps all, knock themselves out with high fives all around, and trumpet their stupidity all over the internet in the process.

You, for instance, have not provided any substantive posts whatsoever in your time here. You have simply parroted tinhat theories that you've found on conspiracy fantasist sites and you have heaped unsubstantiated abuse upon those who have tried in good faith to provide you with rational, substantive and substantiated facts, evidence, and knowledge. You appear to be incapable of rational response, and you appear to be impervious to reason, facts, evidence, and logic. These are traits which are, sadly, typical among members of the "Truth" movement and which are, thankfully, alien to skeptics.

Your latest post is simply more evidence of that which I posted above.

As an aside, if you seriously doubt that I am who and what I say I am, you should take me up on my offer to meet you in person, at which time I will be happy to show you my credentials.

twinstead

17th March 2007, 08:39 PM

So. Have we been presented with any compelling evidence that the WTCs were destroyed with explosives, or are we still playing tit-for-tat with pedantic crap and ideological board games?

MM and Christopher7 it must really chap your hides that although you obviously 'know' that 911 was an inside job, the only evidence you have is conjecture.

I feel your pain.

If only somebody would come forward who was there AND has the expertise to defend their position, or some kind of physical evidence would surface that supports a CD theory.

If only, huh?

Good luck with this whole cloak and dagger conspiracy thingy.

jaydeehess

17th March 2007, 08:47 PM

You seem to have missed the point that:

You cannot say that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire when the experts say it "appears possible".

You [all] should take your own advice and stop saying that DD/F caused WTC 7 to collapse until the 'final report' comes out.

Might I point out that you have no problem stating quite definitly that explosives brought the building down.

Ok then though, I will state that given the evidence supporting DD/F and the lack of evidence otherwise I believe that DD/F is the most likely cause of the collapse of WTC 7.

Diesel fuel fires are an important element in the DD/F hypothesis.

It is? Where in NIST's or FEMA's reports so far has diesel fire been claimed to be an 'important part' of the hypothesis on the collpase?

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Other than the fact that the supply pipe ran within feet of a door to the trusses and the missing fuel. Correct.

Right, and they came up with:

FEMA Ch 5 pg 28 - 29

"The following is, therefore, a hypothesis [set of assumptions] based on potential rather than demonstrated fact"

3) ...........this hypothesis assumes that is possible that both the inner and outer pipes were severed

Now that answers one question. FEMA does not consider diesel fuel fires an 'important part' of the debris damage/fire collapse hypothesis.

It is ONE senario that was brought up. Why? Because given the existance of a lot of diesel fuel in the building it was prudent and neccessary to look into possibile senarios that would have this as a contributing factor. Perhaps the full report will have more evidence for such a fire in which case the prudence of looking into even less probable senarios will be illustrated. If no further evidence is found for such fires than it may remain as a less probable senario.

You have ignored my query a few times now
Are YOU willing to admit that there is no empirical evidence of the existance, or use of, explosives in the collapse of WTC 7? Do you still deny that there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence for the debris/fire damage collapse while the amount of circumstantial evidence for a controlled explosive demolition is sparse and weak(at best)?

jaydeehess

17th March 2007, 09:08 PM

Anyone have pictures of the Vesey Street side (that's the south side) of the post office building? (or description of the damage)

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 10:37 PM

Yes I can't say as I'm surprised.

I guess it's ok for someone you agree with to make personal attacks about my record but heaven forbid I respond in kind.

Your hypocracy is duly noted Tammy.

You JREFers never see yourselves, you spend all your time defining others.

I'm glad you think we live it such good times Tammy. For the moment, those of us living in the West do have it pretty good. It's a only a bubble though and we all know what happens to them. Enjoy it while you can.

MM

MM:

I didnt catch what your qualifications/career actually is. If you are an expert at something, as LashL is in Law, and I am in medicine, please tell us, and then tell us where someone doubted those qualifications.

As for your repeated attempts, now with bold for added emphasis, to try and insult me by calling me a woman, when you know I am not, well it is, well...juvenile even for you. Can't say I am surprised.

TAM:)

Belz...

18th March 2007, 06:08 AM

No

Please read post #1282.

There were NO diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event
that led to the collapse of WTC 7

Excuse me. You seem to have missed some of my posts.

Specifically the ones where I mention that the point of initiation of the collapse NEED NOT be where the initial DAMAGE took place.

Please at least tell me if you understand this point.

Belz...

18th March 2007, 06:21 AM

Skeptics are a special breed? Elitest maybe? People who don't agree with skeptics do what?...just think evil thoughts?

Debater 1: "Baseball players are better at batting then football players."
Miragememories: "Are baseball players a special breed ? Elitest maybe ?"

What part of the definition of "Skeptic" don't you understand ?

Well I guess there are few genuine skeptics on JREF most seem to spend their time mocking those who don't comply with the JREF rhetoric.

I'm sorry, what was that ? I was too busy mocking you.

I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror C. Think back to when you were..oh about 18 and not so much concerned with the approval of others. Take a good hard look at reality.

Coming from a Dylan Avery groupie, that's actually very funny.

It's only nonsense if it's illogical. Making it up...sigh..well that's what you are doing..stating as fact something that is nothing more than your prejudiced belief.

Speaking of prejudice, would you mind stating for the record your personal opinion of the American government in general and the Bush administration in particular PRIOR to 9/11 ?

You live in a world of petty crime where truth takes second stage to the convincing lie. How much do you understand and how much do you blindly accept because it's easier to let others think for you?

You've been watching too much X-files, son. The exact opposite, extreme view isn't healthier.

Meanwhile you live in your smug fantasyland believing that all is well in the world and that good always triumphs over evil.

Strawman.

You stupidly look at the evidence and apply your mind to distorting it into a form that you can digest rather than considering any new point of view that would alienate you from the JREF clowns and your no-it-all firefighter mate.

Are we going to discuss evidence at some point ? Or is this tomato-throwing contest going to last forever ?

You revel in absolute statements.

"9/11 was an inside job".

There is no gray in your world.

There is nothing BUT gray.

Do you really think you still retain the capacity to change your mind? This is where lying to yourself is a problem. It's such an easy path to maintain especially when you know your other half will never accept you thinking in opposition.

This is one of the problems with truthers. You are so utterly, completely convinced that your nonsense MUST be true because it is so immediately obvious to you, that the only possible explanation for dissention is willfull dishonesty on the part of your opponents. Isn't that "black and white" thinking ?

You have no problem self proclaiming yourself

Redundancy.

What makes you so special?

More special than armchair analysts thinking they know more about building construction and demolition than real experts in those fields ?

Belz...

18th March 2007, 06:26 AM

The area of the initiating event is under the penthouse

That's rather vague, don't you think ?

and it is not going to change.

You keep saying that as though you knew.

[/B] They could look at a hundred different scenarios as to where in this area the collapse started. So what?

"So what" ? Is this how you treat scientific investigations? "So what" ?

Until NIST comes up with something more definitive than "appears possible",
you [all] should stop saying that debris damage and fire caused WTC 7 to implode.

And you should stop thinking it was explosives, then. It seems that knowledge is impossible, with you.

Belz...

18th March 2007, 06:44 AM

Yes I can't say as I'm surprised.

I guess it's ok for someone you agree with to make personal attacks about my record but heaven forbid I respond in kind.

Your hypocracy is duly noted Tammy.

You JREFers never see yourselves, you spend all your time defining others.

I'm glad you think we live it such good times Tammy. For the moment, those of us living in the West do have it pretty good. It's a only a bubble though and we all know what happens to them. Enjoy it while you can.

MM

It's interesting to see that you post insults, and no actual evidence, and when people respond to you, you either ignore their posts or merely respond that your points were not directed at them. I'd say that makes you quite the coward. And considering that you're a nameless, faceless person on the internet, such cowardice is hard to understand.

T.A.M.

18th March 2007, 06:47 AM

Funny, when I go to make a cast with my fishing pole, the majority of movement in the pole is seen at the top, yet where does the motion initiate?

TAM:)

Christopher7

18th March 2007, 02:40 PM

Might I point out that you have no problem stating quite definitly that explosives brought the building down.

Ok then though, I will state that given the evidence supporting DD/F and the lack of evidence otherwise I believe that DD/F is the most likely cause of the collapse of WTC 7.
We disagree about evidence for a CD.
This thread is about evidence for DD/F.

The only evidence for DD/F is that there were office fires in the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
By 4:45 p.m., the fire on floor 12 had burned out.

It is? Where in NIST's or FEMA's reports so far has diesel fire been claimed to be an 'important part' of the hypothesis on the collpase?
FEMA pg 1
"...it appears the collapse was primarily due to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers

NIST pg 34
"....fire appears to have played a key role...."

Other than the fact that the supply pipe ran within feet of a door to the trussesThat is NOT evidence of a fire in that area.

and the missing fuel.That is NOT evidence of fire in the area of the initiating event.

Fractured or severed supply pipes and diesel fuel fires were likely to have happened in the SW corner of WTC 7 where the heavy debris damage occurred.

Now that answers one question. FEMA does not consider diesel fuel fires an 'important part' of the debris damage/fire collapse hypothesis.Wrong. If it were not important, then why are they looking ioto the possibility?
In the FEMA report pages 13 - 16, they lay out where the fuel tanks, pumps, risers and supply pipes were located.
On page 28 - 30 they base their 5th floor scenario on diesel fuel fires.

In the NIST report Summary pg 51
2) "Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of debris damage to the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

It is ONE senario that was brought up. Why? Because given the existance of a lot of diesel fuel in the building it was prudent and neccessary to look into possibile senarios that would have this as a contributing factor.It is neither prudent or logical to investigate diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event when there is NO EVIDENCE that such a fire existed.

Perhaps the full report will have more evidence for such a fire in which case the prudence of looking into even less probable senarios will be illustrated.Wishful thinking

If no further evidence is found for such fires than it may remain as a less probable senario.Further evidence? There is NO evidence.

You have ignored my query a few times nowThis thread is about DD/F, NOT CD.

When faced with the reality that there is

NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event,

you try to shift the subject rather than admit that the ONLY evidence for DD/F is the office fires on several floors.

twinstead

18th March 2007, 02:56 PM

Christopher7, speaking of 'no evidence', now perhaps is the time you present your evidence that explosives brought WT7 down.

Christopher7

18th March 2007, 03:05 PM

Excuse me. You seem to have missed some of my posts.
Specifically the ones where I mention that the point of initiation of the collapse NEED NOT be where the initial DAMAGE took place.
Please at least tell me if you understand this point.
[italic mine]
Yes.
There is NO evidence of damage in the area of the initiating event.

It is impossible to determine the point of initiation because the physical evidence was destroyed.

Miragememories

18th March 2007, 03:49 PM

It's interesting to see that you post insults, and no actual evidence, and when people respond to you, you either ignore their posts or merely respond that your points were not directed at them. I'd say that makes you quite the coward. And considering that you're a nameless, faceless person on the internet, such cowardice is hard to understand.

You pretty much described yourself belz.

I ignore posts that are rhetorical or are just pissing in the wind.

Yours for instance.

MM

twinstead

18th March 2007, 04:32 PM

You pretty much described yourself belz.

I ignore posts that are rhetorical or are just pissing in the wind.

Yours for instance.

Oh for crying out loud, MM. It's not as if all your posts are studies in clear, rational thought. Speaking for the many lurkers and semi-lurkers on this forum any attempt by you to chastise anybody for rhetorical posts or pissing in the wind is so incredibly ironic as to be high comedy.

GlennB

18th March 2007, 04:51 PM

You pretty much described yourself belz.

I ignore posts that are rhetorical or are just pissing in the wind.

Yours for instance.

MM

MM - you have made 254 posts here.
Please point out a few of them that offer evidence, as opposed to rhetoric.

GlennB

18th March 2007, 05:01 PM

....
Fractured or severed supply pipes and diesel fuel fires were likely to have happened in the SW corner of WTC 7 where the heavy debris damage occurred....

My bolding.

Is this minor damage, by your thinking? It sure ain't in the SW corner -
Repeating the same nonsense many times doesn't make up for its defects, Chris.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/WTC7_South_damage.jpg

Christopher7

18th March 2007, 05:55 PM

The area of the initiating event is under the penthouse and it is not going to change.

That's rather vague, don't you think ?
You keep saying that as though you knew
The one thing OT'ers and CT'ers can agree on is that the collapse began under the east penthouse.

NIST determined the most likely area of the initiating event by reviewing videos and photographs.
[see post #1503 for ref.]

"So what" ? Is this how you treat scientific investigations? "So what" ?When there is NO evidence for a remote possibility,

it is NOT a scientific investigation,

it is a fishing expedition.

jaydeehess

18th March 2007, 09:21 PM

We disagree about evidence for a CD.
This thread is about evidence for DD/F.

Well isn't that special!
You abandoned the thread in which I invited you to spell out the evidence that convinces you that it was CD. Now you take the stance that we don't discuss it on this thread.
I'll take that as an admission that you gots nuttin!
You had nothing to offer in the other thread and refuse to admit, except by refusal to discuss it, that all you have is a few people who say it 'sounded like an explosion" and the fact that the building fell in the direction of the force due to gravity on the Earth's surface just like they do when they are demolished by explosives.

The only evidence for DD/F is that there were office fires in the east half of WTC 7 on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13.
By 4:45 p.m., the fire on floor 12 had burned out.

Office fires, and debris damage. The debris damage that can be seen is only what was visible in the pictures of the building through the smoke but circumstantially we know that there were clear pictures of the SW corner where the damage was very severe and we can certainly extrapolate a possibility that there was an area of damage of similar severity elsewhere in the building. One also has to factor in the unknown trajectory and type of debris that entered the structure. You instead assume you know the exact trajectory and type of all debris that actually hit the building.(otherwise you could not make the definitive statements you do)

FEMA pg 1
"...it appears the collapse was primarily due to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers

NIST pg 34
"....fire appears to have played a key role...."

My turn to claim mis-quote. I asked where FEMA or NIST said , as you claimed, that diesel fires were "very important" to the DD/F hypothesis.

That is NOT evidence of a fire in that area.

That is NOT evidence of fire in the area of the initiating event.

It is circumstantial evidence that makes such a fire a possibility. You really have to look up the definition of 'possible'. You seem to confuse it with 'probable' and 'definite'.

Fractured or severed supply pipes and diesel fuel fires were likely to have happened in the SW corner of WTC 7 where the heavy debris damage occurred.

Ok, I have no problem with that. Have I ever said it couldn't be.

Wrong. If it were not important, then why are they looking ioto the possibility?

Again look up the different meanings of possible,probable and definite.

In the FEMA report pages 13 - 16, they lay out where the fuel tanks, pumps, risers and supply pipes were located.
On page 28 - 30 they base their 5th floor scenario on diesel fuel fires.

In the NIST report Summary pg 51
2) "Fires were not observed on Floor 5, but this may be due to the lack of windows. The presence of a fuel distribution system and the possibility of debris damage to the south face from WTC 1 debris impact, indicates that fires may have been present on Floor 5."

It is neither prudent or logical to investigate diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event when there is NO EVIDENCE that such a fire existed.

There were fires on multiple floors, damage of varying degrees over the entire south face and there were multiple diesel fuel tanks and piping systems throughout the structure. It is therefore prudent and logical to map out those fuel systems and take stock of the remaining fuel. To not do so would be a gross incompetance.

Further evidence? There is NO evidence.

I use a future tense of possible new evidence and you make the present tense definitive statement that there IS NO evidence. Pray tell, what is the stock market going to do next week given your great ability to KNOW the future? Better yet perhaps you'd like to take the Randi Challenge and make $million.

This thread is about DD/F, NOT CD.

Addressed above. If you don't want to go into it here then go back to the thread that IS about CD and answer it there. It is YOUR deeply held belief , I find it curious why , instead of defending it you choose instead to concentrate all your energies on attacking the senarios concerning DD and fires. Even more curious is your attacking the diesel fuel fire so hard given that it recognized as not the most probable cause of fire damage.

When faced with the reality that there is

NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event,

you try to shift the subject rather than admit that the ONLY evidence for DD/F is the office fires on several floors.

Once again you simply refuse/ignore anyone telling you that the damage need not be exactly along column 79,80 or 81 in order for one of those to be the first to fail. There was damage to the structure by debris and the exact nature of the effect on the structure has not been investigated thoroughly. You are making the definitive statement only because there is no EMPIRICAL evidence of damage or fire directly affecting these columns yet will adhere to another theory which has zero EMPIRICAL evidence and extremely scant circumstantial evidence to back it.

Once again I ask you why your burden of proof is so very high for the DD/F hypothesis while it is so very low for CD? If you do not want to answer that in this thread feel free to search out the other thread.
http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=73444

jaydeehess

18th March 2007, 09:36 PM

The one thing OT'ers and CT'ers can agree on is that the collapse began under the east penthouse.

NIST determined the most likely area of the initiating event by reviewing videos and photographs.
[see post #1503 for ref.]

When there is NO evidence for a remote possibility,

it is NOT a scientific investigation,

it is a fishing expedition.

CD is about the most remote possibility yet you adhere to it.

Seems that by your twisted logic the videos of the collapse are the most important evidence as far as determining what caused the collapse. That is truly ridiculous. It seems that you feel that the extensive investigation of the construction of the building and its contents was a great waste of time and money. I truly hope you are never in charge of any investigatory group, hell I hope you are never on a jury. Justice would be not be served well by your logic.

Christopher7

19th March 2007, 01:27 AM

Well isn't that special!
You abandoned the thread in which I invited you to spell out the evidence that convinces you that it was CD. Now you take the stance that we don't discuss it on this thread.
I'll take that as an admission that you gots nuttin!
You had nothing to offer in the other thread and refuse to admit, except by refusal to discuss it, that all you have is a few people who say it 'sounded like an explosion" and the fact that the building fell in the direction of the force due to gravity on the Earth's surface just like they do when they are demolished by explosives.
You [all] deny any evidence presented.
I don't have time to answer all the long word bending posts on both threads so i am focusing on this one where i can use the very documents that you use as evidence for DD/F to show that it's all speculation ending in "appears possible".

As i said before, when you are cornered, rather than give an inch, you try to subject shift to CD.

Office fires, and debris damage. The debris damage that can be seen is only what was visible in the pictures of the building through the smoke but circumstantially we know that there were clear pictures of the SW corner where the damage was very severe and we can certainly extrapolate a possibility that there was an area of damage of similar severity elsewhere in the building. You can extrapolate possibilities all you want but don't call it circumstantial evidence. It is just speculation

One also has to factor in the unknown trajectory and type of debris that entered the structure. You instead assume you know the exact trajectory and type of all debris that actually hit the building.(otherwise you could not make the definitive statements you do)

There you go again. I have made no such claim.
Read post #1282 and #1308 again.
I am looking at the data in the reports Gravy and others here have insisted that i read and pointing out the stuff you [all] ignored.

My turn to claim mis-quote. I asked where FEMA or NIST said , as you claimed, that diesel fires were "very important" to the DD/F hypothesis. You are a very clever wordsmith. They did not specifically say diesel fires were an important part of the collapse hypothesis but FEMA spent 4 pages talking about diesel fire potential and it is the basis for their 5th floor scenario. NIST included this possibility in their Summary.

The reports say that the collapse was "due primarily to fire" and "fire appears to have played a key role"

If they did not think diesel fires important, why did they spend so much time and energy investigating and talking about them?

If you do not think diesel fires are important then why are you fighting so hard to avoid admitting that

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7 ?

It is circumstantial evidence that makes such a fire a possibility. You really have to look up the definition of 'possible'. You seem to confuse it with 'probable' and 'definite'.Saying something is possible does not give it any validity as 'circumstantial evidence'. You are talking in circles.

There is NO circumstantial evidence that there was a diesel fuel fire in the east half of WTC 7!

There is only speculation.

There were fires on multiple floors, damage of varying degrees over the entire south faceWRONG!
There was no damage reported to the east 1/3 of WTC 7.
The area below the 12th floor was NOT obscured by smoke.
There is NO debris damage to the area east of center that we can see in this photo.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

You can spin words in a vain attempt to ingore the facts, but you can't get arround the fact that

There is NO evidence of debris damage or deisel fuel fires in the area of the [I]initiating event!

and there were multiple diesel fuel tanks and piping systems throughout the structure.

Now you are lying. You know that is NOT TRUE.

See post #1282 for the locations of the diesel fuel tanks, pumps, risers and distribution pipes.

Once again you simply refuse/ignore anyone telling you that the damage need not be exactly along column 79,80 or 81 in order for one of those to be the first to fail. There was damage to the structure by debris and the exact nature of the effect on the structure has not been investigated thoroughly. You are making the definitive statement only because there is no EMPIRICAL evidence of damage or fire directly affecting these columns yet will adhere to another theory which has zero EMPIRICAL evidence and extremely scant circumstantial evidence to back it. By using the word 'exactly' you give yourself some wiggle room.

NIST Apx. L pg 51
"damage....of core framing is not known"

Will you ever be able to bring yourself to admit that

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the [I]initiating event

or will you just keep spinning words to infer that there was ?

Once again I ask you why your burden of proof is so very high for the DD/F hypothesis So high?

What part of

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

don't you understand?

Christopher7

19th March 2007, 01:58 AM

Is this minor damage, by your thinking? It sure ain't in the SW corner
There were no diesel fuel supply pipes above the 9th floor.

Christopher7

19th March 2007, 02:33 AM

Correction:
See FEMA pg 14 - 16, for the locations of the diesel fuel tanks, pumps, risers and distribution pipes.

Belz...

19th March 2007, 05:42 AM

[italic mine]
Yes.
There is NO evidence of damage in the area of the initiating event.

It is impossible to determine the point of initiation because the physical evidence was destroyed.

Irrelevant.

I'll take your post as an admission that, indeed, factors from neighboring areas could have caused the initiating event, and that, even if the fires or impact damage didn't reach the initiating event point as you claim, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Belz...

19th March 2007, 05:43 AM

You pretty much described yourself belz.

Really ? Did you just say that as a tu quoque ? Or do you really think that I'm using insults instead of actual arguments or evidence, that I'm ignoring posts or responding inadequately ?

Belz...

19th March 2007, 05:49 AM

The one thing OT'ers and CT'ers can agree on is that the collapse began under the east penthouse.

Yes, but the thing was bloody large, wasn't it ? So, which column was it ?

When there is NO evidence for a remote possibility,

it is NOT a scientific investigation,

it is a fishing expedition.

I'm not interested in hyperbole. You said "They could look at a hundred different scenarios as to where in this area the collapse started. So what?".

A scientific investigation looks at all possibilities, even the remote ones. You seem to be thinking that they should be focusing on YOUR pet theory.

That you think "NO" evidence exists of our theories doesn't really matter. Before they STUDY the evidence, there's no way to know WHICH theory has any evidence as support.

Further evidence? There is NO evidence.

Actually, there is. See Jay's post.

Belz...

19th March 2007, 05:52 AM

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

Again, why is that significant ?

You are aware that the various structural elements of 7 WTC were connected, right ?

Christopher7

19th March 2007, 07:01 PM

Irrelevant.
The intentional distruction of evidence is relevant and wrong.

I'll take your post as an admission that, indeed, factors from neighboring areas could have caused the initiating event,No

and that, even if the fires or impact damage didn't reach the initiating event point as you claim, it wouldn't make much of a difference.I am stating facts from government reports.
Your characterization of 'claim' is incorrect.
Do you accept the statements by FEMA and NIST that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Gravy

19th March 2007, 08:06 PM

If NIST doesn't investigate this WTC 7 thing, I'm going to throw a tantrum! I swear!

Damn them for not investigating WTC 7!

jaydeehess

19th March 2007, 10:20 PM

You [all] deny any evidence presented.
I don't have time to answer all the long word bending posts on both threads so i am focusing on this one where i can use the very documents that you use as evidence for DD/F to show that it's all speculation ending in "appears possible".

As i said before, when you are cornered, rather than give an inch, you try to subject shift to CD.

YOU have stated that it WAS controlled demolition, not that is was possible and you have extremely little to base even a speculation of such an occurance on.
On the other hand the possibilities inherent due to the fact of fires and debris damage have been investigated to back up the 'speculation' that they were the cause of the collapse.
I don't deny your evidence. I find it sparse and very much lacking in substance on which to hang a speculative CD hypothesis on let alone a definitive statement such as you have made. I would put it at less probable than a diesel fuel fire right up next to column 79 given the 'evidence' you have illustrated.

You can extrapolate possibilities all you want but don't call it circumstantial evidence. It is just speculation

Then you would agree that CD is highly speculative?

There you go again. I have made no such claim.
Read post #1282 and #1308 again.
[/SIZE]I am looking at the data in the reports Gravy and others here have insisted that i read and pointing out the stuff you [all] ignored.

Sure you have. You have stated several times that debris Could not have damaged any core columns in the eastern part of the building.

You are a very clever wordsmith. They did not specifically say diesel fires were an important part of the collapse hypothesis
but you did claim that very thing but FEMA spent 4 pages talking about diesel fire potential and it is the basis for their 5th floor scenario. NIST included this possibility in their Summary.

Yes, and as you point out they do state that it is a lesser probability senario.

The reports say that the collapse was "due primarily to fire" and "fire appears to have played a key role"

Yes..........

If they did not think diesel fires important, why did they spend so much time and energy investigating and talking about them?

So as to better understand the possibility. Where's the beef?

If you do not think diesel fires are important then why are you fighting so hard to avoid admitting that

I simply want you to understand that it is ONE possibility. The possibility of a diesel fuel fire IS important. So is understanding the probability of one.

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7 ?

Saying something is possible does not give it any validity as 'circumstantial evidence'. You are talking in circles.

There is NO circumstantial evidence that there was a diesel fuel fire in the east half of WTC 7!

A man stands accused of killing his wife. The police time how long it would take to travel from where he says he was to the scene of the murder and find that there is a time period during which he could have driven to the scene, killed her and returned. THAT is circumstantial evidence!
In this matter we have a fuel system nearby and apparently missing fuel. THAT is circumstantial evidence.

WRONG!
There was no damage reported to the east 1/3 of WTC 7.
The area below the 12th floor was NOT obscured by smoke.
There is NO debris damage to the area east of center that we can see in this photo.

Given broken windows on the south side of the Post Office Building I am quite sure the eastern part of WTC was not unscathed.
Let's see a picture of the lower south east face.
You can see the east side of the building in that picture?

You can spin words in a vain attempt to ingore the facts, but you can't get arround the fact that

Ignore what FACTS? That a couple of guys claim that what they heard had to be explosives and that only CD could cause a building to come down mostly within its original footprint? That is all you have.

There is NO evidence of debris damage or deisel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event!

There is NO evidence of explosives anywhere in building 7 other than the two circumstantial points listed above. There is a lot of empirical evidence of fires and damage in various places of WTC 7 which circumstantially suggests that debris damage and/or fire caused the collapse.

Now you are lying. You know that is NOT TRUE.

<<sighs>>
How about; there were multiple diesel fuel tanks and piping systems scattered on various lower floors, mostly on the west side of the structure.. Feel better?

By using the word 'exactly' you give yourself some wiggle room.

You are the one demanding empirical evidence so as to pinpoint what damage WOULD have caused the collapse. Odd that you will simply NOT apply the same measure to your own hypothesis.

NIST Apx. L pg 51
"damage....of core framing is not known"

Will you ever be able to bring yourself to admit that

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

or will you just keep spinning words to infer that there was ?

I will not make such a definitive statement even though I do admit that deisel fuel fire in the east part of the building has a lesser probability than other senarios. Debris damage to the eastern part is by no means ruled out.

So high?

What part of

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

don't you understand?

You assume that all the evidence presented rules out such damage. That is a leap of logic.

You refuse to apply the same measure of evidence to CD that you insist must apply to DD/F. WHY?

WHY?WHY?WHY?

Christopher7

20th March 2007, 01:09 AM

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

I will not make such a definitive statement even though I do admit that deisel fuel fire in the east part of the building has a lesser probability than other senarios. Debris damage to the eastern part is by no means ruled out.

I am not asking you to make a definitive statement,
I am just asking you to acknowledge the above.

You can comfort yourself with
"there is still a remote possibility that there was diesel fires and/or debris damage to the area of the initiating event.
Maybe there will be some proof in the final report."

How many ways can you avoid dealing with reality?

Subject change, nitpick and babble, play word games, put up long posts with anything and everything but an honest acknowledgement of the truth:

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

This is what the 'official' government documents say.

FEMA pg 28: " there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

NIST pg 50: Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis

"the following sequence of events appears possible"

NIST pg 51: "damage.....of core framing is not known"

Belz...

20th March 2007, 05:49 AM

The intentional distruction of evidence is relevant and wrong.

But it IS irrelevant to the point.

I'll take your post as an admission that, indeed, factors from neighboring areas could have caused the initiating event,

No

Therefore, let's make this clear, you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for stress of any kind, ELSEWHERE in the building, to have caused, in ANY WAY, damage (let's call it "indirect damage") in the initiating area ?

I am stating facts from government reports.
Your characterization of 'claim' is incorrect.

I am making a hypothetical, something you seem to be unable to either do or accept. That kind of black-and-white, yes-or-no thinking on your part cannot lead to a functional theory.

Do you accept the statements by FEMA and NIST that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Whether or not I do is irrelevant to my point.

Belz...

20th March 2007, 05:52 AM

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

And somehow that doesn't help your theory.

twinstead

20th March 2007, 06:03 AM

Okay, Chris, in a contest of competing conjectures, exactly how much evidence to you have for yours?

The coup de gras, the 'pwonage' that you so dearly want to give to the official story could be delivered in one clean swift stroke:

Show us some real evidence of explosives. A rational person would expect that a CD large enough to collapse a building of that size to leave plenty of evidence. Give us some residue, give us some audio of CD-type explosions going off just before the building goes down. Something more than a couple anomalous witnesses claiming they heard something that sounded like explosions. Without that you have nothing, and your CD theory is even more conjecture than the official story.

You certainly don't have enough to claim that the only thing that could have felled the building is CD in such a bold way that you do. Only somebody ideologically predisposed to believe in a conspiracy would think that.

Belz...

20th March 2007, 08:14 AM

The coup de gras

That would translate from French as "fat hit".

The expression you're looking for is "coup de grâce".

twinstead

20th March 2007, 08:17 AM

That would translate from French as "fat hit".

The expression you're looking for is "coup de grâce".

Hey. Maybe I meant fat hit? :rolleyes:

Belz...

20th March 2007, 10:02 AM

Just trying to help.

jaydeehess

20th March 2007, 11:57 AM

You can comfort yourself with
"there is still a remote possibility that there was diesel fires and/or debris damage to the area of the initiating event.
Maybe there will be some proof in the final report."

How many ways can you avoid dealing with reality?

Subject change, nitpick and babble, play word games, put up long posts with anything and everything but an honest acknowledgement of the truth:

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event

This is what the 'official' government documents say.

FEMA pg 28: " there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

NIST pg 50: Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis

"the following sequence of events appears possible"

NIST pg 51: "damage.....of core framing is not known"

There is no direct, empirical evidence of debris damage or deisel fires in the immediate vicinity of the columns 76 to 81.

It is absolutly undeniable that there was indeed debris damage, in places very severe damage, to WTC 7 and that fires , many of which would be classified by the NYFD as large and dangerous, in WTC 7 and in combination they provide circumstantial evidence that they each contributed to the initiation and totality of the collapse.

On your side of the arguement you have NO direct empirical evidence of the existance or use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7. You have very scant circumstantial evidence of the use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7.

As pointed out above , when weighing the evidence , as it stands now, the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused the collapse vastly out weighs, out does, and out classes the evidence of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Why can't you be bothered to address that?
WHY, WHY, WHY??

jaydeehess

20th March 2007, 12:02 PM

Miragememories

20th March 2007, 01:30 PM

BTW, I am not sorry that I try to explain my POV using so many words Chris.
To my mind using words is not to be considered a bad thing.

If you were upset in school when you were told to read "Wuthering Heights" or "Heart of Darkness" and that has stuck with you through to adult life that cannot be helped by me.

Yes jaydeehess the nice thing about words is that you can say anything you want and use as many as you want.

Apparently you prefer 'flights of fantasy' which explains why you are so at odds with Christopher's non-fiction research.

MM

Christopher7

20th March 2007, 07:10 PM

The intentional destruction of evidence is relevant and wrong

But it IS irrelevant to the point.
If the physical evidence had not been destroyed, this investigation would have concluded years ago with a definitive answer as to what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Therefore, let's make this clear, you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for stress of any kind, ELSEWHERE in the building, to have caused, in ANY WAY, damage (let's call it "indirect damage") in the initiating area ?
Indirect damage? No. Perhaps you mean stress.
Damage elsewhere would put stress on the entire building, not just the area of the initiating event.

I am making a hypothetical, something you seem to be unable to either do or accept. That kind of black-and-white, yes-or-no thinking on your part cannot lead to a functional theory.Your hypothetical is just a word game.
I'm talking about facts and statements in the official government reports that you site as evidence for your hypothesis.

Do you accept the statements by FEMA and NIST that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Whether or not I do is irrelevant to my point.You just can't do it. You can't be honest and acknowledge that

FEMA and NIST state that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiation event.

You [all] will allude to it, dance around it, change the subject, make up a hypathetical, etc.

You can fool yourself with cleverly crafted words, but anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size can see that you [all] refuse to acknowledge anything, even from FEMA and NIST, that might burst your bubble.

jaydeehess

20th March 2007, 10:02 PM

Yes jaydeehess the nice thing about words is that you can say anything you want and use as many as you want.

Apparently you prefer 'flights of fantasy' which explains why you are so at odds with Christopher's non-fiction research.

MM

I have yet to see you write a consise post concerning any evidence of the extrodinary claims you hold as 'true'.

The nice thing about words is that they are very useful in describing one's point of view. Unfortunatly the ability to do so is a skill that is not taught in today's education system in many parts of N.America. In fact if you and Chris are to be examples of said system then it would appear that such a skill (wordsmith as C7 called it) has become something to be derided.

As for the 'flight of fantasy' that is the CD hypothesis, I reiterate; "It is absolutly undeniable that there was indeed debris damage, in places very severe damage, done to WTC 7, and that fires , many of which would be classified by the NYFD as large and dangerous, in WTC 7, and considered in combination they provide circumstantial evidence that they each contributed to the initiation and totality of the collapse.

On your side of the arguement you have NO direct empirical evidence of the existance or use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7. You have very scant circumstantial evidence of the use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7.

As pointed out above , when weighing the evidence , as it stands now, the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused the collapse vastly out weighs, out does, and out classes the evidence of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Why can't you be bothered to address that?
WHY, WHY, WHY??"

Chris has yet to explain why a lack of direct empirical evidence for damage and fire in a specific area of WTC 7 is required to back a probable collapse senario yet that same lack of evidence is not a factor concerning his(and your?) belief in a CD of WTC 7.

I certainly don't expect you to answer that since you seem to be the type that might have trouble following the plot in a "Little Lulu" comic book.

Christopher7

21st March 2007, 12:40 AM

"It is absolutly undeniable that there was indeed debris damage, in places very severe damage, done to WTC 7, and that fires , many of which would be classified by the NYFD as large and dangerous, in WTC 7, and considered in combination they provide circumstantial evidence that they each contributed to the initiation and totality of the collapse.
You do have a way with words.
The debris damage was to the west half of the south face and did NOT contribute to the initiating event.
The stresses caused by the missing perimeter columns were transferred throughout the building.
Those large and dangerous fires were office fires.

On your side of the arguement you have NO direct empirical evidence of the existance or use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7. You have very scant circumstantial evidence of the use of explosives in the collapse of WTC 7.
As pointed out above , when weighing the evidence , as it stands now, the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused the collapse vastly out weighs, out does, and out classes the evidence of a controlled demolition using explosives.

Why can't you be bothered to address that?
WHY, WHY, WHY??

Chris has yet to explain why a lack of direct empirical evidence for damage and fire in a specific area of WTC 7 is required to back a probable collapse senario yet that same lack of evidence is not a factor concerning his(and your?) belief in a CD of WTC 7.

I certainly don't expect you to answer that since you seem to be the type that might have trouble following the plot in a "Little Lulu" comic book.:D :D :D

I started this thread about DD/F specifically to avoid subject shift.

When facing a reality that you can't deal with, you jump to "my dog is still bigger that your dog"

This thread is NOT about CD, it is about DD/F!

Belz...

21st March 2007, 05:55 AM

If the physical evidence had not been destroyed, this investigation would have concluded years ago with a definitive answer as to what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Which is, AGAIN, irrelevant to the point.

Indirect damage? No. Perhaps you mean stress.

Which is why I said this:

Therefore, let's make this clear, you believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for stress of any kind, ELSEWHERE in the building, to have caused, in ANY WAY, damage (let's call it "indirect damage") in the initiating area ?

Damage elsewhere would put stress on the entire building, not just the area of the initiating event.

Not necessarily, but assuming that you're correct, there would still need to be AN initiating area. So why would this particular area fail first ? Any ideas ?

Your hypothetical is just a word game.

I don't see how it's a word game. You are incapable of admitting that damage to one part of the building could damage ANOTHER part of the building in such a way as to cause a collapse STARTING from that second point.

Now, I'm no engineer or architect, so perhaps someone can correct me, but this seems a reasonable assumption, so why can't you admit that it's a definite possibility, especially in light of the damage we SEE in 7 WTC ?

I'm talking about facts and statements in the official government reports that you site as evidence for your hypothesis.

Well, I'm not. I'm trying to see if your mind is set on another possibility, which has ZERO evidence for it, and if that blinds you to any other possibility.

You just can't do it. You can't be honest and acknowledge that

FEMA and NIST state that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiation event.

Irrelevant. Please answer my question. Any further dodging on your part will be construed, by me, as an admission that you are incapable of even considering another possibility than your pet CD theory.

You [all] will allude to it, dance around it, change the subject, make up a hypathetical, etc.

Useless rhetoric. I await your answer.

You can fool yourself with cleverly crafted words, but anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size can see that you [all] refuse to acknowledge anything, even from FEMA and NIST, that might burst your bubble.

I guess that makes you a shoe.

Christopher7

21st March 2007, 07:18 PM

Which is, AGAIN, irrelevant to the point.
Wrong
Inspecting the physical evidence could have determined what you referred to as the point of initiation. [which is where this started]

Not necessarily, but assuming that you're correct, there would still need to be AN initiating area. So why would this particular area fail first ? Any ideas ?No
The NIST hypothesis suggests debris damage and fire but there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event. That leaves office fires.
You want avoid these facts by asking an endlessly arguable question.

I don't see how it's a word game. You are incapable of admitting that damage to one part of the building could damage ANOTHER part of the building in such a way as to cause a collapse STARTING from that second point.If you want to believe that damage to the west half of the south side could damage massive core columns in the east central part of the building, go right ahead. I don't think so.

Now, I'm no engineer or architect, so perhaps someone can correct me, but this seems a reasonable assumption, so why can't you admit that it's a definite possibility, especially in light of the damage we SEE in 7 WTC ?It is not a reasonible assumption. IMO

I'm talking about facts and statements in the official government reports that you site as evidence for your hypothesis.

Well, I'm not.Of course not.
You will not talk about or even acknowledge the facts that show your DD/F hypothesis
depends on office fires alone.

I'm trying to see if your mind is set on another possibility, which has ZERO evidence for it, and if that blinds you to any other possibility.On the contrary, i am reading the reports you site as evidence for the DD/F hypothesis and noting the
facts that you would like to ignore.
Not surprisingly, i think you are the one who is blind to the facts and statements that you don't like.

FEMA and NIST state that there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Irrelevant. Please answer my question. Any further dodging on your part will be construed, by me, as an admission that you are incapable of even considering another possibility than your pet CD theory.
If you think these facts and statements in the FEMA and NIST reports are irrelevant, then perhaps it is you who is incapable of considering a possibility other than your pet DD/F theory.

Belz...

22nd March 2007, 05:48 AM

Wrong
Inspecting the physical evidence could have determined what you referred to as the point of initiation. [which is where this started]

Which is, for the fourth time, irrelevant to the point. I'm starting to wonder if you read other people's posts at all.

The NIST hypothesis suggests debris damage and fire but there is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event. That leaves office fires.
You want avoid these facts by asking an endlessly arguable question.

No, I want to make sure if you understand that a failing column on one side of the building can cause its load to transfer onto another column, or pull on supports that might cause other columns to fail as well, even though they weren't damaged.

If you want to believe that damage to the west half of the south side could damage massive core columns in the east central part of the building, go right ahead. I don't think so.

It is not a matter of belief. I'm making a statement of possibility, a strong possibility, in my opinion. But at least this time you gave me an answer.

It is not a reasonible assumption. IMO

Good, good. Therefore the only possibility you accept is a column failing because it was itself damaged, either by debris or fire (diesel or office, doesn't matter).

See ? That wasn't so hard.

You will not talk about or even acknowledge the facts that show your DD/F hypothesis depends on office fires alone.

_I_ have no hypothesis, because I'm not qualified to invent one. I can only read the conclusions of other people who ARE qualified, and apply some logic to it to show that the twoofers are wrong.

On the contrary, i am reading the reports you site as evidence for the DD/F hypothesis and noting the facts that you would like to ignore.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Not surprisingly, i think you are the one who is blind to the facts and statements that you don't like.

Personally, I don't care whether there was a diesel fire in that building. The facts are not dependent upon it.

If you think these facts and statements in the FEMA and NIST reports are irrelevant, then perhaps it is you who is incapable of considering a possibility other than your pet DD/F theory.

That's because you're too much of a shoe to realise why I was going through this mental exercice.

aggle-rithm

22nd March 2007, 07:10 AM

I started this thread about DD/F specifically to avoid subject shift.

When facing a reality that you can't deal with, you jump to "my dog is still bigger that your dog"

This thread is NOT about CD, it is about DD/F!

OK, look at it this way.

The building was hit by debris from a falling skyscraper. It caught fire, and after burning for a few hours, collapsed.

Your task is to convince us that it collapsed from some cause UNRELATED to the building falling on it and the fires that followed.

Do you think you are succeeding in this task?

(Frankly, your trying to poke uninformed holes in the preliminary NIST report just doesn't do it for me. I need something a lot more compelling. )

Miragememories

22nd March 2007, 07:49 AM

OK, look at it this way.

The building was hit by debris from a falling skyscraper. It caught fire, and after burning for a few hours, collapsed.

Your task is to convince us that it collapsed from some cause UNRELATED to the building falling on it and the fires that followed.

Do you think you are succeeding in this task?

(Frankly, your trying to poke uninformed holes in the preliminary NIST report just doesn't do it for me. I need something a lot more compelling. )

Your task aggle-rithm, as one who obviously believes that the high speed, symmetrical WTC7 collapse was simply due to debris and fire damage; is to prove that it is even remotely possible for such an event to occur without the assistance of controlled demolition!

So far, in spite of all their resources, NIST has been unable to risk a definitive report supporting your belief. I suspect they'll need maybe 100,000 pages this time.

MM

Belz...

22nd March 2007, 10:21 AM

jaydeehess

22nd March 2007, 11:22 AM

So far, in spite of all their resources, NIST has been unable to risk a definitive report supporting your belief. I suspect they'll need maybe 100,000 pages this time.

If a thorough job requires one million pages then that is what will be required to get the job done RIGHT.

Your position seems to be that if it is longer than a comic book, and has more text than pictures, you will consider this obfuscation on the part of the gov't!

jaydeehess

22nd March 2007, 11:35 AM

I started this thread about DD/F specifically to avoid subject shift.

When facing a reality that you can't deal with, you jump to "my dog is still bigger that your dog"

This thread is NOT about CD, it is about DD/F!

,,,, and I started a thread specifically on the subject of CD.

You have now ignored that thread for quite some time. Therefore I bring it up here in order to try to drag out of you just what you think is so compelling about a CD hypothesis that requires one to assume unseen installation of unseen explosives and unnoticed explosions AND that outweighs the facts; that this building had been hit and damaged , in some places known to be very severe; and had several fires, many of which would have been classified by the NYFD as severe; which support the hypothesis that debris damage/and/or fires caused the collapse.

So far in this thread you just keep harping away that "This thread is NOT about CD, it is about DD/F!".

If you refuse to discuss CD here and will not discuss it in the thread I started then what conclusions about your hypothesis do you suspect will result?

(that was a rhetorical question Chris 7 , I know that you know the answer)

jaydeehess

22nd March 2007, 11:57 AM

http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?t=73444&page=4
Christopher 7 did say that he believes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition BUT in his thread about WTC7 and NIST appendix L he states;

Quote:
Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's on this thread
Ok then perhaps we need this, a separate thread for C7 to discuss CD.

Have at it Christopher 7 ......................

Chris's last post Feb 09/07

4 pages there as opposed to 40 pages here.

Much of the 4 pages there is devoted to Chris's 'evidence' of CD being that there is no evidence of CD.
Other topics include two guys who 'know an explosion when they hear it' (a paraphrase) and the fact that most of the structure (by no means all) came to rest on the original area the building occupied.

I'll even bump the thread for you Chris 7.

Mancman

22nd March 2007, 11:59 AM

aggle-rithm

22nd March 2007, 12:02 PM

Your task aggle-rithm, as one who obviously believes that the high speed, symmetrical WTC7 collapse was simply due to debris and fire damage; is to prove that it is even remotely possible for such an event to occur without the assistance of controlled demolition!

MM

Hey, weren't you paying attention? THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

I am not an expert in structural engineering or demolition, but I know that WTC7 collapsed, and the only precipitating event that occured was a large skyscraper falling on it. Based on this, I think it's reasonable to accept this as proof that it's possible for a building to collapse exactly the way WTC7 did, as the result of debris and fire damage, because that's exactly what happened.

To say otherwise is to make an extraordinary claim, and thus the onus is on you to prove it is NOT possible.

Christopher7

22nd March 2007, 08:34 PM

Which is, for the fourth time, irrelevant to the point.
What point?

No, I want to make sure if you understand that a failing column on one side of the building can cause its load to transfer onto another column, or pull on supports that might cause other columns to fail as well, even though they weren't damaged.The load will be transferred to the surrounding columns. That could, but did not, cause other columns to fail. The collapse started at the other end of the building. Any stress would have been bourn by everything in between.

Good, good. Therefore the only possibility you accept is a column failing because it was itself damaged, either by debris or fire (diesel or office, doesn't matter).
See ? That wasn't so hard.How can a failed perimeter column cause a core column at the other end of the building to fail without causing all the columns between to fail?

I have no hypothesis, because I'm not qualified to invent one. I can only read the conclusions of other people who ARE qualified, and apply some logic to it to show that the twoofers are wrong.The 'conclusion' of the qualified people at NIST is "appears possible"
That's a double maybe. Hardly what you could call 'definitave'.

Why don't you [all] take your own advice and

Stop saying that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F when your experts say it "appears possible".

Stop saying or implying that there was debris damage in the area of the initiating event because there is NO evidence to support that claim.

Stop saying or implying that diesel fires contributed to the initiating event, because there is NO evidence that this happened.

When the 'final report' comes out, and IF it says something more definitive, then, and only then, can you make those claims.

Personally, I don't care whether there was a diesel fire in that building. The facts are not dependent upon it.So, you understand that there is NO evidence for diesel fires in the area of the initiating event. Can you bring yourself to say that?

That's because you're too much of a shoe to realise why I was going through this mental exercice.On the contrary my good sir. I realize that you are in denial when you say that the facts and statements in the FEMA and NIST reports are irrelevant.

Christopher7

22nd March 2007, 09:07 PM

OK, look at it this way.

The building was hit by debris from a falling skyscraper. It caught fire, and after burning for a few hours, collapsed.

Your task is to convince us that it collapsed from some cause UNRELATED to the building falling on it and the fires that followed.
My current task is to inform you that

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

I'm trying to get you [all] to acknowledge these facts that are stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Do you think you are succeeding in this task? No one here can bring themselves to admit it, but i think some of you are beginning to accept this reality.

(Frankly, your trying to poke uninformed holes in the preliminary NIST report just doesn't do it for me. I need something a lot more compelling. )Uninformed?
Dude, i'm reading and quoting the reports that you are using as the basis for your belief.

Please read post #1282 and check the references. Inform yourself.

tonicblue

22nd March 2007, 09:11 PM

Cnristopher7 habe you seen this photo?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

What is your take on it?

Christopher7

22nd March 2007, 09:22 PM

Strawman. 7 WTC did not collapse symmetrically, and controlled demolitions are not characteristically symmetrical. Your entire position is based on ignorance.
You can argue semantics if you like but the CD in this video is what some would call symmetrical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_czyNCNhDI

They are not exactly the same but they both fall [mostly] straight down.

People in Europe as well as here can see the obvious.

Perhaps you think that the people who produced this program are twoofers.

After all, anyone who questions the 'official story' is just being stupid. Right?

Christopher7

22nd March 2007, 09:37 PM

Cnristopher7 habe you seen this photo?

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

What is your take on it?
Awesome! Thank you very much.

Honestly, the dark area looks too perfect to have been made by debris.

Do you know where the video is ?

ETA: this 'could be' the 20 story hole [starting at the roof] that Boyle described.

In any case, it is in the wast half of WTC 7 and far from the initiating event.

tonicblue

22nd March 2007, 09:41 PM

Awesome! Thank you very much.

Honestly, the dark area looks too perfect to have been made by debris.

Do you know where the video is ?

Go here http://www.911blogger.com/node/7118

This new 911 archive is a very rich resource of footage and images. I think we have to accept the damage was serious.

What are you saying caused the dark area?

Christopher7

22nd March 2007, 10:19 PM

Go here http://www.911blogger.com/node/7118

This new 911 archive is a very rich resource of footage and images. I think we have to accept the damage was serious.

What are you saying caused the dark area?
Thank you for the video. It's a lot more compelling than a single frame.

It is unlikely, but not impossible, that debris could make such a perfect hole.

I'm still skeptical but i would not discount the possibility or probability that this is debris damage.

Belz...

23rd March 2007, 05:50 AM

What point?

The one you're answering in your next sentence:

The load will be transferred to the surrounding columns. That could, but did not, cause other columns to fail. The collapse started at the other end of the building. Any stress would have been bourn by everything in between.

Well, now I guess it all depends on what the damage was to 7 WTC when the collapse began.

The bolded part shows that you still have that knack for voicing opinions as though they were divine truth.

How can a failed perimeter column cause a core column at the other end of the building to fail without causing all the columns between to fail?

Well, for the specifics, we'd need someone far more knowledgeable than either of us in that field, and we'd also need a detailed plan of the building, methinks. But at least we're on the right track.

The 'conclusion' of the qualified people at NIST is "appears possible"
That's a double maybe. Hardly what you could call 'definitave'.

I never said it was definitive. It's possible that we won't know for sure what happened.

Stop saying that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F when your experts say it "appears possible".

Is there ANY other scenario they consider "possible" ?

Stop saying or implying that there was debris damage in the area of the initiating event because there is NO evidence to support that claim.

Stop saying or implying that diesel fires contributed to the initiating event, because there is NO evidence that this happened.

Why is it possible to the experts if there is no evidence at all ?

When the 'final report' comes out, and IF it says something more definitive, then, and only then, can you make those claims.

Hopefully you'll stop making your own claims, as well.

So, you understand that there is NO evidence for diesel fires in the area of the initiating event. Can you bring yourself to say that?

I can.

On the contrary my good sir. I realize that you are in denial when you say that the facts and statements in the FEMA and NIST reports are irrelevant.

Again, that's because, as you proved four times, five with this one, you don't understand why it's irrelevant.

Belz...

23rd March 2007, 05:54 AM

You can argue semantics if you like but the CD in this video is what some would call symmetrical.

I'm not arguing semantics. People say that the collapse was symmetrical and "within its own footprint" while in reality this is clearly false. If by it you mean "mostly" symmetrical and "mostly" within its own footprint then YOU're the one who's playing with words.

And as far as the controlled demolition analogy goes, they are not characteristically symmetrical, anyway.

After all, anyone who questions the 'official story' is just being stupid. Right?

Oh, no. Beign skeptical is good. It's when you take your personal bias against authority as gospel that it blinds you. THAT makes people stupid.

Honestly, the dark area looks too perfect to have been made by debris.

They are the TOP floors of 7 WTC, not the middle or bottom ones.

aggle-rithm

23rd March 2007, 09:05 AM

My current task is to inform you that

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

I'm trying to get you [all] to acknowledge these facts that are stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

And, clearly, you are using this statement to suggest that WTC7 collapsed from some cause other than the heavy damage suffered by falling debris and fires.

If this is not what you're doing, then this is all a collosal waste of time. Who CARES whether your statement is true or not, if it has no bearing on the question of whether falling buildings led to the collapse of WTC7?

aggle-rithm

23rd March 2007, 09:06 AM

I'm not arguing semantics. People say that the collapse was symmetrical and "within its own footprint" while in reality this is clearly false. If by it you mean "mostly" symmetrical and "mostly" within its own footprint then YOU're the one who's playing with words.

"He's only MOSTLY dead."

Arus808

23rd March 2007, 10:58 AM

"He's only MOSTLY dead."

<derail>
Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I'll ask him.
Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
</derail>

I love that movie...

aggle-rithm

23rd March 2007, 12:35 PM

<derail>
Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I'll ask him.
Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
</derail>

I love that movie...

Loose Change?

Belz...

23rd March 2007, 01:01 PM

I love that movie...

Which movie would that be ?

Arus808

23rd March 2007, 01:04 PM

The Princess Bride (wow, it was made in 1987...dang I was only 13 when it came out....)

Belz...

23rd March 2007, 05:43 PM

Never saw it. Sounds more interesting than Chris' theory.

Arus808

23rd March 2007, 05:51 PM

Never saw it. Sounds more interesting than Chris' theory.

Its an excellent movie directed by Rob Reiner. Not one of his usual "fares" of movies, but an excellent romanitc, adventure comedy. Some of the best quotes have come from this movie.

I had watched it so many times that I could recite the movie from beginning to end, including the theme song.

Rawkarma

23rd March 2007, 07:08 PM

Belz, you should watch it. It's one of the movies from my youth that I can also recall in vivid detail from the amount times I watched it. I know its going drastically off topic, but this is one of my favorite scenes from The Princess Bride:

The Man In Black: The Battle of Wits

Vizzini: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Man in black: You're that smart?

Vizzini: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in black: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons!

Man in black: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.

Vizzini: For the princess? [Man in black nods] To the death? [Man in black nods again] I accept!

Man in black: Good, then pour the wine. [Vizzini pours the wine] Inhale this but do not touch.

Vizzini: [taking a vial from the man in black] I smell nothing.

Man in black: What you do not smell is Iocaine powder. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in liquid and is among the more deadly poisons known to man.

Vizzini: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.

Man in black: [turning his back, and adding the poison to one of the goblets] Alright, where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink - and find out who is right, and who is dead.

Vizzini: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in black: You've made your decision then?

Vizzini: [happily] Not remotely! Because Iocaine comes from Australia. As everyone knows, Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.

Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?

Man in black: Australia.

Vizzini: Yes! Australia! And you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

Man in black: You're just stalling now.

Vizzini: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the poison in your own goblet trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me!

Man in black: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.

Vizzini: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the poison is!

Man in black: Then make your choice.

Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?

Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.

Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]

Man in black: What's so funny?

Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.
[They both drink]

Man in black: You guessed wrong.

Vizzini: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

[Vizzini continues to laugh hysterically. Suddenly, he stops and falls right over. The Man in black removes the blindfold from the princess.]

Buttercup: Who are you?

Man in black: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.

Buttercup: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned.

Man in black: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up immunity to iocaine powder.

Apologies for that short intermission, back to the original topic...

fezzic

23rd March 2007, 08:58 PM

I would admit from examining the diagrams of the fuel system layout and probable debris damage that C7 does have a point. I do think it was highly unlikely that diesel fuel fires from the Salomon emergency power system occurred in the eastern half of the building near the critical columns. Aside from the general idea that it might be too low in the building.

I also found a writeup that suggested the possibilty that the large areas supported by each critical column in the eastern side and the ordinary office fires on and around the 12th floor may have resulted in circumstances leading to the buckling of critical columns which initiated the collapse. The writeup suggested a situation (floor sag, for instance) leading to column(s) being pulled off-center enough to initiate buckling.

I would state that I find the idea of a clandestine act to demolish 7 WTC to be unfounded at this point. A lack of evidence is a big part. If NIST were to find that it was possible to initiate the collapse deliberately, without breaking windows or creating explosive sounds, I'd admit to plausibility but would otherwise be unconvinced.

Christopher7

23rd March 2007, 09:02 PM

There is NO evidence of debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
And, clearly, you are using this statement to suggest that WTC7 collapsed from some cause other than the heavy damage suffered by falling debris and fires.
Yes

Who CARES whether your statement is true or not, if it has no bearing on the question of whether falling buildings led to the collapse of WTC7?No bearing?

As it turns out, there is clear evidence for office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

The statement is a summary of statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

It is true. [see post #1282 for references]

Food for thought

All the severe debris damage to the west half of the south side of WTC 7 could make the west end of the building collapse first but it could not make the east central part collapse first.
Funny you should use the word bearing because the columns in the west half and central part of WTC 7 would be bearing the load of the missing perimeter columns.

Belz...

24th March 2007, 06:24 AM

Its an excellent movie directed by Rob Reiner. Not one of his usual "fares" of movies, but an excellent romanitc, adventure comedy. Some of the best quotes have come from this movie.

I had watched it so many times that I could recite the movie from beginning to end, including the theme song.

Okay, GO!

MaGZ

24th March 2007, 07:36 AM

Awesome! Thank you very much.

Honestly, the dark area looks too perfect to have been made by debris.

Do you know where the video is ?

ETA: this 'could be' the 20 story hole [starting at the roof] that Boyle described.

In any case, it is in the wast half of WTC 7 and far from the initiating event.

Christopher 7,
Just what is the initiating event your are referring to and where did it occur?

MaGZ

24th March 2007, 07:44 AM

T.A.M.

24th March 2007, 07:54 AM

From the NIST Interim Report on WTC7:

WTC 7 suffered a global collapse. The initiating cause or causes of this collapse, and its sequence of
events, are still being investigated though fire appears to have played a key role and there may have been
some physical damage on the south side of the building.
To develop a working hypothesis for the collapse sequence, it is useful to subdivide the problem into
several phases. Many factors and structural components may have contributed to the start of the collapse,
but there must have been an initiating event. After the collapse initiated, it progressed to other parts of
the building, leading to their failure as well. From the observations of the collapse (see Section L.2), it
appears that first there was a vertical failure progression, from some point in the lower eastern portion of
the building up to the east penthouse. After a time lag of approximately five seconds, the screenwall and
west penthouse were observed to begin sinking into the core area. This suggests that there was a
horizontal progression of the collapse towards the west. Since the screenwall and west penthouse fell
almost simultaneously, it is reasonable to assume that the horizontal progression captured all the columns
that support these building parts.

Full article available at NIST site.

TAM:)

Unfit4Command

24th March 2007, 11:55 AM

Here are some photos of office fires on the 12 floor of WTC 7.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG

That's where the missile hit, right MaGZ?

slugmancs

24th March 2007, 12:11 PM

Now there is that picture of the vertical gouge, could that be what they mean?

MaGZ

24th March 2007, 01:45 PM

That's where the missile hit, right MaGZ?

Jack Taliercio with the local Fox News WNYW-TV Channel 5 was one of the first cameramen to appear on the scene after the crash of Flight 11 into WTC 1. He was in the WTC plaza and focused his camera at the base of WTC 1 filming the burning tower above him. He then filmed WTC 2 being hit by the second plane. A few seconds later there was a blast into WTC 7 near the floors which shows the fires. Taliercio also caught this on film. Yes, a missile started the fires on floors 11 and 12 of WTC 7.

twinstead

24th March 2007, 08:02 PM

Yes, a missile started the fires on floors 11 and 12 of WTC 7.

Oh for Christ's sake give it up already. You are the only person in the WHOLE WORLD who thinks that.

I wonder why that is?

jaydeehess

24th March 2007, 09:27 PM

Quote: C7
The 'conclusion' of the qualified people at NIST is "appears possible"
That's a double maybe. Hardly what you could call 'definitave'.

Quote:Belz
I never said it was definitive. It's possible that we won't know for sure what happened.

ditto
Only Chris 7 has been hard and heavy with the definitive statements.

MaGZ

24th March 2007, 09:35 PM

Oh for Christ's sake give it up already. You are the only person in the WHOLE WORLD who thinks that.

I wonder why that is?

Do you care to explain the two photos of the burning floors of WTC 7? Reflecting sunlight is not an acceptable answer since the lower half of WTC 7 is in a dark shadow.
Do you have an answer?
I do.

jaydeehess

24th March 2007, 09:39 PM

Do you care to explain the two photos of the burning floors of WTC 7? Reflecting sunlight is not an acceptable answer since the lower half of WTC 7 is in a dark shadow.
Do you have an answer?
I do.

Oddly when I click those links I get pics of WTC towers burning and WTC 2 collapsing, not WTC 7.

Christopher7

25th March 2007, 02:22 AM

Christopher 7,
Just what is the initiating event your are referring to and where did it occur?

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1337/areaofinitiatingeventli5.png

Christopher7

25th March 2007, 03:19 AM

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

*NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33
http://img96.imageshack.us.img96/1337/areaofinitiatingeventli5.png

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]

- No heavt debris in lobby area [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage...of core framing is not known [NIST Apx. L pg 51]

- 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

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

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

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 [Spak#] to damage core columns in the area of the initiating event.

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

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

Fires:

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

FEMA pg 28

Fuel oil was distributed through the 5th floor in a double wall pipe.
A portion of the piping was in close proximity to Truss 1
However, there is [B]no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system.

The following is, therefore, a hypothesis based on potential rather than demonstrated fact.
Assume that the distribution piping system was severed.....

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.

Belz...

25th March 2007, 12:09 PM

Yes, a missile started the fires on floors 11 and 12 of WTC 7.

No, it didn't.

There.

Do you care to explain the two photos of the burning floors of WTC 7? Reflecting sunlight is not an acceptable answer since the lower half of WTC 7 is in a dark shadow.

"Hey! If I alter reality, maybe they won't notice!"

PhantomWolf

25th March 2007, 07:06 PM

Here are some photos of office fires on the 12 floor of WTC 7.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

Did you notice ever the colour of your "fires" compared to the actual fires visible in WTC 1?

Christopher7

26th March 2007, 03:27 AM

Here are some photos of office fires on the 12 floor of WTC 7.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG
Ain't no way i'm buyin' into the missle thing but that first photo is interesting.
You cannot say definitively that there is fire there but it is a possibility.

However, my primary concern is the lack of debris damage or diesel fires in the area of the initiating event. [post #1601]
I would prefer that you comment on post #1602

Thank you

Chris

Christopher7

26th March 2007, 03:58 PM

I would admit from examining the diagrams of the fuel system layout and probable debris damage that C7 does have a point. I do think it was highly unlikely that diesel fuel fires from the Salomon emergency power system occurred in the eastern half of the building near the critical columns. Aside from the general idea that it might be too low in the building.
Thank you

I also found a writeup that suggested the possibilty that the large areas supported by each critical column in the eastern side and the ordinary office fires on and around the 12th floor may have resulted in circumstances leading to the buckling of critical columns which initiated the collapse. The writeup suggested a situation (floor sag, for instance) leading to column(s) being pulled off-center enough to initiate buckling.
Key words here are suggested and may have.

I would state that I find the idea of a clandestine act to demolish 7 WTC to be unfounded at this point. A lack of evidence is a big part. If NIST were to find that it was possible to initiate the collapse deliberately, without breaking windows or creating explosive sounds, I'd admit to plausibility but would otherwise be unconvinced.Daryl said "we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and all the windows busted out"

jaydeehess

26th March 2007, 04:22 PM

jaydeehess

26th March 2007, 04:29 PM

Daryl said "we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and all the windows busted out"

Which is exactly what would be expected if a large structural member snapped and the column(s) going up underneath the east penthouse were sinking. There very well may be a visible vibration of the building as the column(s) sink, culminating in the east penthouse coming down.

Christopher7

26th March 2007, 05:00 PM

Which is exactly what would be expected if a large structural member snapped and the column(s) going up underneath the east penthouse were sinking. There very well may be a visible vibration of the building as the column(s) sink, culminating in the east penthouse coming down.
You always talk about what else it could have been but you just can't bring yourself to admit that it also could have explosive devices going off all together or in very rapid succession.

ETA Your scenerio depends on a large structural member snapping.
The penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse.
Daryl heard a clap like thunder and then about a second later the bottom floor caved out.
He did not hear the framing under the penthouse break and fall.

Arus808

26th March 2007, 08:30 PM

Found this :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jx96_f2347wtc7onfirebeforewtccollapse

cloudshipsrule

27th March 2007, 01:07 AM

Daryl heard a clap like thunder and then about a second later the bottom floor caved out.

Was Daryl simply hearing the penthouse structure collapsing?

Christopher7

27th March 2007, 01:53 AM

Was Daryl simply hearing the penthouse structure collapsing?
Good grief CB

What part of " the penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse"
didn't you understand?

Please read the post again.

Christopher7

27th March 2007, 02:11 AM

Found this :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jx96_f2347wtc7onfirebeforewtccollapse
Optical illusion

That's Tower 1, not WTC 7 on fire.

In the video, WTC 1 & 2 are still standing

http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/9223/copyof7xd6.jpg

(http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6207)

cloudshipsrule

27th March 2007, 03:51 AM

Already read it. Are you saying this list:

ETA Your scenerio depends on a large structural member snapping.
The penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse.
Daryl heard a clap like thunder and then about a second later the bottom floor caved out.
He did not hear the framing under the penthouse break and fall.

is in chronological order, because you did not specify that it was.

If it was in chronological order, then was Daryl watching the penthouse section fall?

Coritani

27th March 2007, 05:17 AM

Daryl said "we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and all the windows busted out"

ETA Your scenerio depends on a large structural member snapping.
The penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse.
Daryl heard a clap like thunder and then about a second later the bottom floor caved out.
He did not hear the framing under the penthouse break and fall.

Chris. Don't. We've been over the Daryl issue before.

Belz...

27th March 2007, 05:48 AM

Ain't no way i'm buyin' into the missle thing but that first photo is interesting.

"Interesting" as in "suspicious" ?

You always talk about what else it could have been but you just can't bring yourself to admit that it also could have explosive devices going off all together or in very rapid succession.

One "clap" of thunder isn't anything in rapid succession.

You're just grasping, here.

Arus808

27th March 2007, 10:29 AM

why are we still arguing about a preliminary report states?

Belz...

27th March 2007, 10:38 AM

Because it's all we've got <cries>

aggle-rithm

27th March 2007, 10:52 AM

Yes

No bearing?

As it turns out, there is clear evidence for office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

The statement is a summary of statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

It is true. [see post #1282 for references]

Food for thought

All the severe debris damage to the west half of the south side of WTC 7 could make the west end of the building collapse first but it could not make the east central part collapse first.

How do you know? Structural engineering is full of counterintuitive things. For instance, when I had an engineer look at my house last year because of a cracked slab and walls, he said that walls will often crack on the OPPOSITE end of the house from where the slab is sinking, because the top of the house is more stable than the bottom, and it pulls upward on the opposite end. Something similar could be going on here -- for instance, as columns fail, weight is transferred to other columns, which might hold up for a while, then collapse. Is the "initiating event" to be found where the first column failed, or where the subsequent failures occured?

I don't know. I'm not a structural engineer. And neither are you.

Jennie C.

27th March 2007, 10:58 AM

Is MaGZ all choked up about the point of light visible on WTC 7 in the pictures of the towers burning?

Well MaGZ that is the south side of the building. Well not exactly, that side of the building runs about runs about ESE/WSW and the Sun would have been about at the SE. It could be a reflection, it could even be a double reflection, it could be office lights.

One thing is for sure, if it is a fire then there is video of it, there are reports from the people who were inside WTC 7 at the time, there are reports from the fire Dept of this fire. Where are those things MaGZ? Where are even the pictures from another angle that show this supposed fire?

If what he's talking about is the small areas of red at the bottom of the first picture, they look like flags to me. I can't use photoshop here, but at home, I blew this pic up (Not with explosives, I assure you :p ) and that's what they appeard to be.

Linky to the picture I'm talking about since this is a reply to a reply:

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

jaydeehess

27th March 2007, 11:14 AM

Found this :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jx96_f2347wtc7onfirebeforewtccollapse

The tower burning in the background is WTC 2. This is obvious due to the location of the fire floors in the that building.
But WTC 1 is closest to WTC 7 so where is WTC 1? It's east face is barely hidden by the east face of WTC 7 and the smoke coming from that direction is from WTC 1 NOT WTC 7.

jaydeehess

27th March 2007, 11:17 AM

If what he's talking about is the small areas of red at the bottom of the first picture, they look like flags to me. I can't use photoshop here, but at home, I blew this pic up (Not with explosives, I assure you :p ) and that's what they appeard to be.

Linky to the picture I'm talking about since this is a reply to a reply:

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

The red objects are indeed flags on that thing that looks like a big fan (an air boat perhaps)

JimBenArm

27th March 2007, 11:48 AM

The red objects are indeed flags on that thing that looks like a big fan (an air boat perhaps)
I believe he's actually talking about the reflections off the windows on WTC7, which is off to the left and towards the bottom part of the visible portion of the building.

jaydeehess

27th March 2007, 12:04 PM

Good grief CB

What part of " the penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse"
didn't you understand?

So the penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to collapse but the "building" took 6 seconds AFTER the penthouse had collapsed. That is what you are saying correct? The penthouse is therefore not part of the "building".

Now don't go telling me I am being all wordy and such. This is what you are now saying.

Christopher 7 writes:

As it turns out, there is clear evidence for office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

The statement is a summary of statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

It is true. [see post #1282 for references]

Food for thought

All the severe debris damage to the west half of the south side of WTC 7 could make the west end of the building collapse first but it could not make the east central part collapse first.
Funny you should use the word bearing because the columns in the west half and central part of WTC 7 would be bearing the load of the missing perimeter columns.

Actually the missing perimeter columns would be adding both vertical load to the western columns, AND shear loading as the load from core to perimeter is now a catenary load.

Here's a senario:
This would be pulling the core columns to the south and west. The heavy flooring at the 5th and 7th floor may have been transferring this shear throughout the building. That would mean that all core columns would be under shear force pulling them south and west certainly utilizing the design margins in the columns for that type of force.
Then the fires further weaken the steel until the column(s) 79,80,81 fail to be able to hold the load any longer. This also serves to increase the shear load on the rest of the core west of the failed column(s). It also puts a very large shear load on the transfer trusses 1&2 pulling them west. Those trusses are anchored very securly to the east so they themselves may not fail but their connections to the west columns would be more likely to. This would serve to detach the portion of the building below floor 7 and west of the line of columns 79,80,81 from the portion of the building east of those columns. That reduces the ability of the western section to resist the shear forces pulling those columns further west at the 5th to 7th floor. As they are pulled in that direction they pull the upper section of the building, at the core, downward. The columns, now being well off their center cannot support the mass above them and fail completely allowing the screenwall/west penthouse to start to fall. The cantilever trusses carrying the mass of the upper 41 stories above the existing Co-Ed building are also pulled west at their south end causing them to fail and pull inward and down on the north facade, while the upper 41 stories also are drawn inward and down by the collapse of the core. the north end of the cantilever trusses were extended beyond the north facade, As they were twisted and tilted they would also be drawn southward causing the north face columns they were attached to, to buckle southward thus dropping the north face downward.

If the tranfer truss #1 let go, then as the eastern section collapsed it would be caused to twist to the NE as it fell.

This senario IMHO, explains the collapse of the east penthouse, the sequence of collapse of the screenwall/west penthouse and perimeter as well as the direction of collapse of the western and eastern portions of the building.

Could this all have been acomplished by using explosives? Yes. Could what Darryl heard be an explosive? Yes. But it would also require that the resultant from this one explosion act in such a way as to cause the structure to do what was seen to occur.

You always talk about what else it could have been but you just can't bring yourself to admit that it also could have explosive devices going off all together or in very rapid succession.

Chris, Chris , Chris, I have always said that I find the evidence supporting DD/F to be much more convincing that that supporting the CD hypothesis. What part of that don't you understand?

Now IF this was a multitude of explosives going off in very quick succession
such that they are indistinquishable from one large explosion the sequence of collapse that was observed would not occur. Instead the entire core section would collapse at the same time not inthe relatively slow horizontal progression.

Belz...

27th March 2007, 01:03 PM

I believe he's actually talking about the reflections off the windows on WTC7, which is off to the left and towards the bottom part of the visible portion of the building.

Ditto.

INRM

27th March 2007, 07:10 PM

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2609178/video/x5tv6_wtc7cutter/1

Look at the top right side of the building... looks like several puffs.

What's the cause?

JimBenArm

27th March 2007, 07:29 PM

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2609178/video/x5tv6_wtc7cutter/1

Look at the top right side of the building... looks like several puffs.

What's the cause?
OK, I'm going to speculate. Want to make it clear it's speculation, because I have no way of knowing.
However, if we're looking at the same thing, it could be from where the penthouse has just collapsed, leaving a hole in the roof. Then, as it collapsed, smoke gets forced out the hole.
Reasonable? Or am I just blowing smoke?:D

Christopher7

27th March 2007, 09:47 PM

Already read it. Are you saying this list:

is in chronological order, because you did not specify that it was.

If it was in chronological order, then was Daryl watching the penthouse section fall?
My bad. Let me clear that up.

The penthouse took 5 - 7 seconds to collapse

Daryl did not hear the penthouse fall.

He heard "....sounded like a clap of thunder.....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out...."

The bottom floor caving out is the beginning of the exterior walls falling.

The 5 - 7 second collapse of the floors under the penthouse he did not hear.

How about the 'horizontal' collapse, they happened about a half second before the exterior walls.

1 core column supposedly pulled 5 core columns sideways until they all snapped making a sound like a clap of thunder.

What Daryl heard and saw fits hand in glove with a CD.

You can deny that if you want. You say "it must have been something else" but can you bring yourself to admit that what Daryl heard and saw could have been a CD?

Note: every CD it tailored to the task at hand.

Christopher7

27th March 2007, 10:21 PM

How do you know? Structural engineering is full of counterintuitive things. For instance, .....
I don't know. I'm not a structural engineer. And neither are you.
I'm a carpenter and i understand the basic principles of framing.

They are pretty much the same for wood or steel.

The surrounding columns would bear the weight of the failed columns.

The stress would be bourn by the entire building because it is essentially one piece.

cloudshipsrule

27th March 2007, 10:55 PM

He heard "....sounded like a clap of thunder.....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out...."

The bottom floor caving out is the beginning of the exterior walls falling.

The 5 - 7 second collapse of the floors under the penthouse he did not hear.

How about the 'horizontal' collapse, they happened about a half second before the exterior walls.

1 core column supposedly pulled 5 core columns sideways until they all snapped making a sound like a clap of thunder.

What Daryl heard and saw fits hand in glove with a CD.

You know it also fits hand in glove with a standard, 1-each, building collapse due to structural damage and fire.

What about the timeline? Daryl could have heard the penthouse sections collapsing as the thunder. You haven't produced any timeline to dispute this. How does he know it wasn't the penthouse and structure underneath collapsing if he wasn't watching the penthouse collapse.

Where was Daryl when he heard this? How far from the building?

Christopher7

28th March 2007, 12:02 AM

You know it also fits hand in glove with a standard, 1-each, building collapse due to structural damage and fire.
If you say so.

What about the timeline? Daryl could have heard the penthouse sections collapsing as the thunder.

You haven't produced any timeline to dispute this. How does he know it wasn't the penthouse and structure underneath collapsing if he wasn't watching the penthouse collapse.What part of "about a (1) second later the bottom floor caved out" don't you understand?

cloudshipsrule

28th March 2007, 12:04 AM

What part of "If he didn't watch the penthouse structure fall how in hell does he know what he heard wasn't the final stages of the penthouse collapsing" do you not understand?

Edited to make my point more clear.

This is my understanding of what you're saying:

The penthouse collapsed in about 5 to 7 seconds, then Daryl heard the thunder, then about a second later the bottom floorm caved out.

IF HE WAS NOT WATCHING THE PENTHOUSE FALL, HOW DOES HE KNOW HE WASN'T HEARING THE PENTHOUSE AND STRUCTURE BENEATH THE PENTHOUSE CRASHING DOWN ON THE BOTTOM FLOORS? According to your time line he heard the thunder just at the 7 second mark. What makes it impossible for this thunder to be the final stages of the penthouse collapse?

Christopher7

28th March 2007, 12:37 AM

What part of "If he didn't watch the penthouse structure fall how in hell does he know it was a second later" do you not understand?
He didn't see or hear the penthouse fall.
The (1) second later refers to the exterior walls starting to fall.

By the numbers

1) penthouse starts to fall

2) 4 - 6 seconds later there is a

3) clap of thunder

4) 1 second after that, the bottom floor caves out
[exterior walls start to fall]

Note:
The exterior walls started falling 5 - 7 seconds after the penthouse started falling.

I hope this clears up any remaining confusion.

cloudshipsrule

28th March 2007, 12:48 AM

Thanks!

1) penthouse starts to fall

2) 4 - 6 seconds later there is a

3) clap of thunder

Where was Daryl standing when he heard the thunder? How far away? How can you discount the penthouse falling as the thunder clap if the penthouse took 5 to 7 seconds to fall, and he heard the sound 4 to 6 seconds into the penthouse collapse event?

GlennB

28th March 2007, 02:19 AM

Dave Rogers

28th March 2007, 02:56 AM

By the numbers

1) penthouse starts to fall

2) 4 - 6 seconds later there is a

3) clap of thunder

4) 1 second after that, the bottom floor caves out
[exterior walls start to fall]

So you're saying that the event you're identifying as charges going off took place 4-6 seconds after the initiating event?

Dave

Belz...

28th March 2007, 05:29 AM

Say, chris, what's this :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4832)

If not a 25+ floor hole ?

chipmunk stew

28th March 2007, 06:46 AM

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2609178/video/x5tv6_wtc7cutter/1

Look at the top right side of the building... looks like several puffs.

What's the cause?
Read a short but great analysis starting halfway down this page (http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm).

aggle-rithm

28th March 2007, 12:28 PM

I'm a carpenter and i understand the basic principles of framing.

They are pretty much the same for wood or steel.

The surrounding columns would bear the weight of the failed columns.

The stress would be bourn by the entire building because it is essentially one piece.

The basic principles of framing have been understood for hundreds of years, and yet it's only been in the last century that we've had the technology to build skyscrapers. Only a few decades that we've been able to build the light, steel-framed structures like WTC7.

So, I would say that your carpentry experience is insufficient to understand the principles involved here.

aggle-rithm

28th March 2007, 12:31 PM

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/2609178/video/x5tv6_wtc7cutter/1

Look at the top right side of the building... looks like several puffs.

What's the cause?

They're certainly not explosions. If explosives moved that slowly when they detonated, they wouldn't be good for much, would they?

FactCheck

28th March 2007, 12:37 PM

Here is a possible collapse by fire hypothesis...

debunking911.com/pull.h1.jpg

It seems very reasonable to me. It matches the video and other evidence.

I can not post this as an image because I'm new to the forum.

alexg

28th March 2007, 12:45 PM

Found this :

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jx96_f2347wtc7onfirebeforewtccollapse

and this is interesting, appears to show fires before tower collapse, or am I missing something? - any thoughts?

chipmunk stew

28th March 2007, 01:05 PM

and this is interesting, appears to show fires before tower collapse, or am I missing something? - any thoughts?
That's the north tower burning. WTC7 angles back--two thirds or so of what looks like the east wall of WTC7 is actually the north tower. 7 is reddish, the north tower is grayer.

alexg

28th March 2007, 01:37 PM

Wow, I think you are correct. What an illusion! If that had been 7 we would have seen that smoke in some other shots, of course.

jaydeehess

28th March 2007, 04:34 PM

He didn't see or hear the penthouse fall.
The (1) second later refers to the exterior walls starting to fall.

By the numbers

1) penthouse starts to fall

2) 4 - 6 seconds later there is a

3) clap of thunder

4) 1 second after that, the bottom floor caves out
[exterior walls start to fall]

Note:
The exterior walls started falling 5 - 7 seconds after the penthouse started falling.

I hope this clears up any remaining confusion.

So the building began coming apart 5 - 7 seconds before the west side roof and then the rest of the building began to fall and 4 - 6 seconds before the lone 'clap of thunder'.

So what do you deduce this 'clap of thunder' was exactly?
It certainly was NOT a series of closely spaced explosions taking out the core since the core had already been coming apart(you hate referring to the core as part of the collapse so we'll stick to 'coming apart'). We know that core columns had failed because the east penthouse goes first and the screenwall/west penthouse also starts falling in before the exterior walls.

With the upper part of the core moving down this would, as I have pointed out, cause the cantilever trusses to tilt down on their interior side pushing out on the lower part of the north wall. Thus you have the upper part of the north wall moving inward due to the core column failures and the lower part on the north wall being kicked out by the cantilever trusses.

I suppose that the 'clap of thunder' could be explosives going off and severing the columns supporting the south end of the cantilever trusses all at once but this still does not explain the sequence that was seen to occur. That is , the east penthouse starts to sink, it is gone from the roof completely for a few seconds and then the screenwall and west penthouse also begin to drop and before they can completely fall through the roof the entire north wall also begins to drop down and tilt southward(on the western portion at least)

Christopher7

28th March 2007, 10:25 PM

So the building began coming apart 5 - 7 seconds before the west side roof and then the rest of the building began to fall and 4 - 6 seconds before the lone 'clap of thunder'.So what do you deduce this 'clap of thunder' was exactly?
A lot of explosions going off at once or in very rapid sequence.

It certainly was NOT a series of closely spaced explosions taking out the core since the core had already been coming apartBy very close i mean 100ths of a second, sounding like a single explosion.

My guess is, the columns under the penthouse were taken out one at a time to clear an area so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Daryl didn't have to run from the dust cloud so he was probably back around the 600' safety perimeter. He didn't hear the single devices going off one at a time but he did hear the big bang of the rest of the core columns and anything else they needed to blow.

Demolitions companies have a variety of demolition devices, some louder than others.
We are not experts on what they have, when they use different devices, or why.
We can only speculate, endlessly.

You are looking for a reason to deny that what Daryl heard and saw could have been a CD.

*

cloudshipsrule

28th March 2007, 10:29 PM

You are looking for a reason to deny that what Daryl heard and saw could have been a CD.

You make statements like this using the word 'could', then you turn around a post a definitive statement that it 'was' a CD. Do you believe 100% that it was CD or do you believe it 'might' have been, and are undecided?

Christopher7

28th March 2007, 11:53 PM

You make statements like this using the word 'could', then you turn around a post a definitive statement that it 'was' a CD. Do you believe 100% that it was CD or do you believe it 'might' have been, and are undecided?
I believe it was.

What Darly heard and saw could have been a CD.

This is just one piece of evidence, not conclusive by itself.

The clap of thunder occurred about 1/2 second before the screen wall and west penthouse fell, and about 1 second before bottom floor caved out.

This is consistent with blowing the other 18 core columns [6 under east penthouse]

As GlennB noted that a building in the process of collapse makes a deep rumbling sound.
I would add, no very loud clap in the middle of the collapse.

ETA: this belongs on the Christopher7 C7 & C4" thread. please respond there.

Christopher7

29th March 2007, 12:21 AM

Say, chris, what's this :

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg

If not a 25+ floor hole ?
I'm skeptical about the symmetry, but this could be the 20 story hole that Boyle described.

In any case, it is west of center and far above the area of the initiating event.

cloudshipsrule

29th March 2007, 12:50 AM

This is just one piece of evidence, not conclusive by itself.

It's about one of two, both circumstantial. Nothing scientific backs this up. Nothing.

Belz...

29th March 2007, 05:35 AM

A lot of explosions going off at once or in very rapid sequence.

And you accuse OTHERS of speculating without evidence ?

Someone hears a single "clap" and you think it means several explosions went off.

By very close i mean 100ths of a second, sounding like a single explosion.

Yes, of course. Because otherwise it doesn't make sense. The problem with your current hypothesis is that it cannot be tested, and is actually contrary to evidence.

Demolitions companies have a variety of demolition devices, some louder than others.
We are not experts on what they have, when they use different devices, or why.
We can only speculate, endlessly.

I'll remember that one the next time you chastise someone for speculating.

Belz...

29th March 2007, 05:37 AM

I'm skeptical about the symmetry

Whatever do you mean ?

but this could be the 20 story hole that Boyle described.

20 ? By all accounts this went right to the ground, which means you're looking at a 47-floor hole.

In any case, it is west of center and far above the area of the initiating event.

Again, you fail to see the point.

The fact that a large hole was cut into the building over dozens of floors doesn't tell you anything about the building's structural integrity following 1 WTC's collapse ?

Dave Rogers

29th March 2007, 07:57 AM

The clap of thunder occurred about 1/2 second before the screen wall and west penthouse fell, and about 1 second before bottom floor caved out.

In other words, about 4-6 seconds after the initiating event. Do you agree that there was no loud noise heard at the time of the initiating event?

Dave

Miragememories

29th March 2007, 05:10 PM

In other words, about 4-6 seconds after the initiating event. Do you agree that there was no loud noise heard at the time of the initiating event?

Dave

The JREF defence has been reduced to "who heard a loud noise"..how pathetic.

Who ever heard of an initiating event that was capabable of collapsing a 47-storey highrise that didn't make some noise?

Shall we start analyzing noises to qualify structural failure from controlled demolition induced structural failure?

What's the point?

You won't open your eyes regardless.

I can isolate visuals that indicate controlled demolition and which must have made explosive noises, but you will ignore them. It's what knee jerk JREFers do.

The often viewed video of the squibs moving up the side of WTC7 for instance obviously made explosive noises but I haven't heard an actual recording of them.

The fact is, there was so much noise happening prior and during the collapse, there aren't many good recordings that aren't so over modulated that they can be entered as evidence.

MM

T.A.M.

29th March 2007, 05:13 PM

nice antagonistic post MM...have a bad day at work?

TAM:)

Miragememories

29th March 2007, 05:36 PM

nice antagonistic post MM...have a bad day at work?

TAM:)

Antagonistic?

I had a busy day at work since you ask.

Feel free to pm me T.A.M. if you ever want to really speak your mind without fear of violating JREF protocal.

Back to my post though. I thought my comments about 'sound' evidence were quite valid.

Okay, maybe I got a bit judgemental about my characterization of the JREF response. It's difficult to be nice when few respond in similar fashion.

MM

T.A.M.

29th March 2007, 05:45 PM

Antagonistic?

I had a busy day at work since you ask.

Feel free to pm me T.A.M. if you ever want to really speak your mind without fear of violating JREF protocal.

Back to my post though. I thought my comments about 'sound' evidence were quite valid.

Okay, maybe I got a bit judgemental about my characterization of the JREF response. It's difficult to be nice when few respond in similar fashion.

MM

I dont like to PM, it makes things too personal, and to be honest, I dont like it to get that way.

That said, I am calling you on behaviour, so you can feel free to call me on it when you see me "at it".

I do not tow the JREF line, or protocol. That is insinuating that I do so, knowing I do not believe it, but simply to "get along". I believe in everything I say here, and If it meshes with the "JREF" line, than so be it.

I think I speak my mind here. Do you think I am holding back some secret belief that I am afraid to post here...not so.

Sorry for the hard day at work. I get those to. They're a biotch.

TAM:)

Christopher7

29th March 2007, 08:30 PM

cloudshipsrule:

Belz:

Dave Rogers:

I responded on the 'Christopher7 - C7 & C4' Thread

ETA: No one responded to post #1602

You [all] cannot dispute the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports and you cannot deal with the fact that your hypothesis depends on office fires alone to account for the initiating event. So rather than acknowledge this, you choose to ignore it.

Dave Rogers

30th March 2007, 03:35 AM

The JREF defence has been reduced to "who heard a loud noise"..how pathetic.

C7 was presenting a loud noise as evidence of CD. The loud noise was after the initiating event. I highlighted that in exactly the same way C7 has been highlighting his comments about damage and fires. So how come suddenly turnabout isn't fair play? [1]

I can isolate visuals that indicate controlled demolition and which must have made explosive noises, but you will ignore them. It's what knee jerk JREFers do.

"Must have" isn't evidence. You can isolate visuals that, in combination with audio evidence, would indicate CD, but on their own are easily explained as window breakages.

The often viewed video of the squibs moving up the side of WTC7 for instance obviously made explosive noises but I haven't heard an actual recording of them.

Wrong - if they were explosives they must have made explosive noises, if they were windows blowing out they would have made breaking glass noises. The way to tell is to check for explosive noises, and they aren't there, so we can't really resolve this one.

The fact is, there was so much noise happening prior and during the collapse, there aren't many good recordings that aren't so over modulated that they can be entered as evidence.

I have no argument with the conclusion that there is no audio evidence for CD. Try looking somewhere else.

Dave

[1] Personally I'd have said something about sauce for the goose not being sauce for the gander, but I suspect most of the readers of this forum are American so I translated.

Belz...

30th March 2007, 05:38 AM

The JREF defence has been reduced to "who heard a loud noise"..how pathetic.

Interesting. So debating questionable evidence is "pathetic" ? What a good lawyer you'd make.

- "Your honour. The defense is attempting to call the sincerity of the witness into question. That's just pathetic."
- "Overruled."

Who ever heard of an initiating event that was capabable of collapsing a 47-storey highrise that didn't make some noise?

It did. It just didn't make hundreds of noises that were too close to one another to be distinguished, as Chris is claiming.

What's the point?

Understanding reality.

You won't open your eyes regardless.

Fallacy.

I can isolate visuals that indicate controlled demolition and which must have made explosive noises, but you will ignore them. It's what knee jerk JREFers do.

Fallacy. You're trying to avoid having to present evidence because you claim your opponents will not accept it. You are tacitly admitting that your evidence is unconvincing.

The often viewed video of the squibs moving up the side of WTC7 for instance obviously made explosive noises but I haven't heard an actual recording of them.

"Squibs" is not a demolitions term. Please give it up.

Who the hell blows up structural elements while the building is falling ?

Belz...

30th March 2007, 05:40 AM

You [all] cannot dispute the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports and you cannot deal with the fact that your hypothesis depends on office fires alone to account for the initiating event. So rather than acknowledge this, you choose to ignore it.

So, chris. Did you see that 47-storey hole ? I'd like to hear what effect you think this had on the structure.

chipmunk stew

30th March 2007, 07:15 AM

your hypothesis depends on office fires alone to account for the initiating event.
Why is this a problem?

Christopher7

30th March 2007, 04:50 PM

Why is this a problem?
Office fires have never caused a global collapse nor could they IMO.
There are several cases of large fires in modern steel frame high rise buildings and there was no collapse.
The Windsor Tower in Madrid is a poor comparison because it is a different design and only suffered a partial collapse of the outer, light weight columns over a period o f time.

There has been a lot of talk here and on other forums about diesel fires contributing to the collapse. As it turns out, there is no evidence of this happening.
There is still a lot of talk about debris damage and many people think that the debris damage had something to do with the collapse in spite of the fact that there was no debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

MaGZ

30th March 2007, 06:17 PM

That's the north tower burning. WTC7 angles back--two thirds or so of what looks like the east wall of WTC7 is actually the north tower. 7 is reddish, the north tower is grayer.

This video does show WTC 7 on fire before the collapse of the first tower WTC 2. WTC 2 is in the background. WTC 7 is on the right and flames are seen coming out of the east side of the building. Do a zoom of the video and you will see flames coming out of WTC 7 around the 32nd floor. An errant missile strike on WTC 7 occurred at 9:03 as a fighter attempted to shoot down Flight 175 as it was crashing into WTC 2. The missile struck on the 14th floor created a large hole that was described by firemen. A fire burning several floors above the missile strike presents some problems. Perhaps a second missile hitting WTC 7 at a higher floor would be one explanation how a fire could have started on floor 32.

The east side of WTC 7 looks light because of the reflection of the sun. This video was takend between 9:03 and 9:59.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

jaydeehess

30th March 2007, 10:29 PM

This video does show WTC 7 on fire before the collapse of the first tower WTC 2. WTC 2 is in the background. WTC 7 is on the right and flames are seen coming out of the east side of the building. Do a zoom of the video and you will see flames coming out of WTC 7 around the 32nd floor.

No, it is an optical illusion that has the east side of WTC 1 very close to being in line(parralax) with the SE corner of WTC 7 in the video.

One must ask oneself why this is only a 4 second clip of video. What is seen before and after this 4 second snippet? Does the camera move forward(towards WTC 2), or to the left, exposing the obvious nature of this smoke and flame coming from WTC 1?

Where's the rest of it MaGZ?
You are too afraid to find out aren't you?

jaydeehess

30th March 2007, 10:41 PM

There has been a lot of talk here and on other forums about diesel fires contributing to the collapse. As it turns out, there is no evidence of this happening.
There is still a lot of talk about debris damage and many people think that the debris damage had something to do with the collapse in spite of the fact that there was no debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

Actually it seems to me it is only you on this forum who has stated that desiel fires are a cornerstone of the fire hypothesis. NIST/FEMA put this as a lesser probability. You are rewriting NIST/FEMA.

It has been pointed out many times that the severed perimeter columns would be producing a shear force on the core to the south and west which would reduce the ability of them to absorb additional damage such as fire weakening. You point out that an office fire is quite large near the area of the 'initiating event' which would qualify as additional damage. You choose to believe that the perimeter damage could not possibly cause stress to teh columns 79,80 or 81.

You know that something caused the elevators near columns 79,80 and 81 to be ejected from the shaft yet you steadfastly refuse to believe that this is any indication of forces acting upon the core columns.

MaGZ

31st March 2007, 06:30 AM

No, it is an optical illusion that has the east side of WTC 1 very close to being in line(parralax) with the SE corner of WTC 7 in the video.

One must ask oneself why this is only a 4 second clip of video. What is seen before and after this 4 second snippet? Does the camera move forward(towards WTC 2), or to the left, exposing the obvious nature of this smoke and flame coming from WTC 1?

Where's the rest of it MaGZ?
You are too afraid to find out aren't you?

OK, I agree you are right and I am wrong on this one. However I still maintain WTC 7 was burning on floors 11 and 12 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc23.JPG

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc38.JPG

chipmunk stew

31st March 2007, 10:35 AM

Office fires have never caused a global collapse nor could they IMO.
False.
There are several cases of large fires in modern steel frame high rise buildings and there was no collapse.
The Windsor Tower in Madrid is a poor comparison because it is a different design and only suffered a partial collapse of the outer, light weight columns over a period o f time.
There was a hell of a lot about 9/11 that was unprecedented. Precedence is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that unmitigated office fires, particularly in combination with stresses introduced by blunt force damage, are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures.

There has been a lot of talk here and on other forums about diesel fires contributing to the collapse.
False. There's been some talk about it, but most are in agreement that...
As it turns out, there is [little] evidence of this happening.
There is still a lot of talk about debris damage and many people think that the debris damage had something to do with the collapse in spite of the fact that there was no debris damage to the area of the initiating event.
The debris damage likely had no direct involvement in the initiating event, but I would expect some indirect involvement in the form of stresses introduced by shifting loads.

Disbelief

31st March 2007, 11:40 AM

A lot of explosions going off at once or in very rapid sequence.

By very close i mean 100ths of a second, sounding like a single explosion.

My guess is, the columns under the penthouse were taken out one at a time to clear an area so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Daryl didn't have to run from the dust cloud so he was probably back around the 600' safety perimeter. He didn't hear the single devices going off one at a time but he did hear the big bang of the rest of the core columns and anything else they needed to blow.

Since you are apparently an expert at CD, let me ask a few questions that might enlighten me.

Isn't the purpose of a CD to being down columns in a specific order? Now, would explosions milliseconds apart not allow this to happen? What I am saying is, a member has to fall a certain distance before the next member blew, so would this be enough time or would they fall simultaneously, thus disrupting the CD?

Can the timers be set to an accuracy of milliseconds apart and how reliable is that setting?

Do linear cutter charges (I would assume that this is what you are saying is used) cut completely through the steel or do precuts have to be made?

ellindsey

31st March 2007, 11:55 AM

Isn't the purpose of a CD to being down columns in a specific order? Now, would explosions milliseconds apart not allow this to happen? What I am saying is, a member has to fall a certain distance before the next member blew, so would this be enough time or would they fall simultaneously, thus disrupting the CD?

Here's a related point that occurs to me. A series of simultaneous explosions will only sound like a single explosion if they are all roughly equidistant to the observer. Cutting charges in the demolition of a large building are going to be spread over hundreds of feet. When they explode there will be a time delay between when they explode to when the observer hears them depending on the distance between the observer and the explosion.

In order for a large number of charges going off throughout a building to sound like a single explosion to an observer, the timing of those explosions will have to be not simultaneous, but timed just right so that the sound from all explosions reach the observer exactly at the same time. That timing is dependent on the exact location of the observer, and it will be impossible to time the explosions such that all observers hear them as simultaneous. A person in just the right spot might hear one explosion, but someone standing a thousand feet to the side will hear a series of explosions.

Therefore demolition charges going off in WTC7 cannot possible sound like a single explosion to all observers. Even if they were perfectly simultaneous, the limited speed of sound and the necessity of the charges being spaced throughout the building will cause it to sound like a series of closely spaced explosions rather than a single one.

Christopher7

31st March 2007, 12:57 PM

Actually it seems to me it is only you on this forum who has stated that desiel fires are a cornerstone of the fire hypothesis. NIST/FEMA put this as a lesser probability. You are rewriting NIST/FEMA.
You are misquoting me again.
Show me where i said 'cornerstone'.
The diesel fires are an important part of the FEMA/NIST hypothesis because office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the massive core columns.

It has been pointed out many times that the severed perimeter columns would be producing a shear force on the core to the south and west which would reduce the ability of them to absorb additional damage such as fire weakening.The stress was primarily to the core columns closest to the severed perimeter columns and to a lesser extent to the core columns at the east end of WTC 7.
Furthermore, as you said, the shear force was to the south and west. In the NIST hypothesis, the initiating event is a core column buckling to the east and pulling the othercore columns to the east. [NIST Apx. L pg 49 & 50]

You point out that an office fire is quite large near the area of the 'initiating event' which would qualify as additional damage. You choose to believe that the perimeter damage could not possibly cause stress to teh columns 79,80 or 81.You are misquoting me again.
I have said that the stress would be bourn by the entire building as it is essentially one piece.

You know that something caused the elevators near columns 79,80 and 81 to be ejected from the shaft yet you steadfastly refuse to believe that this is any indication of forces acting upon the core columns.There are NO elevators anywhere near columns 79, 80 and 81.

It is not known which elevator cars were ejected or if a core column was severed in the process.

NIST Apx. L pg 51: "damage... of core framing is not known"

Christopher7

31st March 2007, 01:30 PM

False.

There was a hell of a lot about 9/11 that was unprecedented. Precedence is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that unmitigated office fires, particularly in combination with stresses introduced by blunt force damage, are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures.

Fact? The blunt force damage was far from the initiating event. It might cause a collapse in the area of the damage but not in the other end of the building.

False. There's been some talk about it, but most are in agreement that...
As it turns out, there is [little] evidence of this happening.[B]There is NO evidence diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7. [FEMA pg 28 & 29]

The debris damage likely had no direct involvement in the initiating event, but I would expect some indirect involvement in the form of stresses introduced by shifting loads.The stress was pulling to the south and west. According to NIST the initiating event was a core column buckling to the east.

Christopher7

31st March 2007, 01:46 PM

Since you are apparently an expert at CD, let me ask a few questions that might enlighten me.

Isn't the purpose of a CD to being down columns in a specific order? Now, would explosions milliseconds apart not allow this to happen? What I am saying is, a member has to fall a certain distance before the next member blew, so would this be enough time or would they fall simultaneously, thus disrupting the CD?

Can the timers be set to an accuracy of milliseconds apart and how reliable is that setting?

Do linear cutter charges (I would assume that this is what you are saying is used) cut completely through the steel or do precuts have to be made?
The sequence of demolition is tailored to the task at hand and the desired effect.
Only the people who worked out what devices would be used and the sequence would know precisely why it was done in the manner it was done.

Disbelief

31st March 2007, 01:56 PM

The sequence of demolition is tailored to the task at hand and the desired effect.
Only the people who worked out what devices would be used and the sequence would know precisely why it was done in the manner it was done.

So, you don't know and you refuse to find out. Why don't you research and ask questions of experts instead of trying to act like you know what you are talking about concerning CDs. Find a demolition where the sequence is so close together that separate blasts are indistinguishable. Also, answer the other questions I put to you instead of cherry picking.

Because something looks like a CD doesn't mean it is. Because something sounds like a bomb, doesn't mean it is. Here is an example. I work in manufacturing and we use resistance welding to put together steel. These weld guns are cooled, some by water and some by air depending on various conditions. To change the weld caps (the part that contacts the metal) on the guns that are water cooled, the water needs to be turned off. Now, if the water is not turned back on, steam builds up in the cable. When enough pressure builds up, the cable explodes and it sounds like a shotgun going off. If I only hear it, I do not immediatley think that a gun went off, even though that is what it sounds like.

Christopher7

31st March 2007, 02:26 PM

Here's a related point that occurs to me. A series of simultaneous explosions will only sound like a single explosion if they are all roughly equidistant to the observer.
Therefore demolition charges going off in WTC7 cannot possible sound like a single explosion to all observers. Even if they were perfectly simultaneous, the limited speed of sound and the necessity of the charges being spaced throughout the building will cause it to sound like a series of closely spaced explosions rather than a single one.
The only place where Daryl could have seen the bottom floor of WTC 7 from 600 feet away was from Greenwich street. [to the north]
The distance between the north core column row and the south core column row is about 50 feet.
The time delay from Daryl's location would be minimal.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7693/copy2ofwtcmapiu7.jpg

jaydeehess

31st March 2007, 03:11 PM

You are misquoting me again.
Show me where i said 'cornerstone'.
The diesel fires are an important part of the FEMA/NIST hypothesis because office fires don't burn hot enough to weaken the massive core columns.

"Important" differs oh so much from "cornerstone". Ok, you said "important". Except desiel fires aren't as important to the NIST hypothesis as you pretend they are and yes, office fires can and do damage even large steel columns.

The stress was primarily to the core columns closest to the severed perimeter columns and to a lesser extent to the core columns at the east end of WTC 7.

Did you miss that the shearing force would be translitted to all columns via the mechanical floors.

Furthermore, as you said, the shear force was to the south and west. In the NIST hypothesis, the initiating event is a core column buckling to the east and pulling the othercore columns to the east. [NIST Apx. L pg 49 & 50]

My point was that the force was acting in the direction of south and west, not acting upon the columns in the south and west.

You are misquoting me again.
I have said that the stress would be bourn by the entire building as it is essentially one piece.

That makes little sense. yes the stresses would be distributed by the structural members of the building but each would be taking it differently. It would not be evenly distributed throughout the entire structure. Do you or don't you believe that the loss of the perimeter columns would be adding lateral stresses to the core columns? How about collapsed flooring? How about fires on the south side on relativly less damaged floors(buckling trusses)?
How about the office fires near columns 79,80,81?

There are NO elevators anywhere near columns 79, 80 and 81.

Yes there is. There is a bank of elevators between the row of columns 76,77,78 and the row 79,80,81 IIRC It is not known which elevator cars were ejected or if a core column was severed in the process.

NIST Apx. L pg 51: "damage... of core framing is not known

It is not definitively known if, where or how much but the very FACT that elevators that were in shafts in the core of the building were ejected from their shafts obviously suggests that there was damage to the core.

jaydeehess

31st March 2007, 03:15 PM

The only place where Daryl could have seen the bottom floor of WTC 7 from 600 feet away was from Greenwich street. [to the north]
The distance between the north core column row and the south core column row is about 50 feet.
The time delay from Daryl's location would be minimal.

Actually sound takes about 0.05 of a second to travel 50 feet. Much longer than the supposed 0.01 of a second timing. Gee, Chris, your explosions get farther apart all the time.

A W Smith

31st March 2007, 03:31 PM

if there are no fires on the eastern half of building 7. where is all that smoke coming from?

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 04:39 PM

The often viewed video of the squibs moving up the side of WTC7 for instance obviously made explosive noises but I haven't heard an actual recording of them.

Wrong - if they were explosives they must have made explosive noises, if they were windows blowing out they would have made breaking glass noises. The way to tell is to check for explosive noises, and they aren't there, so we can't really resolve this one.

Can we now?

Of course squibs reveal windows blowing out. Sigh..why do I waste my time replying to such drivel.

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP! Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward. Ponder that challenging thought for a while Dave Rogers!

MM

A W Smith

31st March 2007, 04:43 PM

Can we now?

Of course squibs reveal windows blowing out. Sigh..why do I waste my time replying to such drivel.

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP! Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward. Ponder that challenging thought for a while Dave Rogers!

MM

Odd that the corner of the building where... ahem "squibs" were seen was the slowest to fall.

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 04:46 PM

"Squibs" is not a demolitions term. Please give it up.

Really?

Your knowledge of demolition work is phenomenal Belz.

MM

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 05:00 PM

False.

There was a hell of a lot about 9/11 that was unprecedented. Precedence is irrelevant.

My my aren't we the omnipotent expert. Excuse me for implying that some thing that had never before occured throughout history was relevant oh wise one. I love how you can dismiss unique events in such a ho hum manner.

The debris damage likely had no direct involvement in the initiating event, but I would expect some indirect involvement in the form of stresses introduced by shifting loads.

I'm sure every beer bottle ever thrown against the building had some 'indirect' effect on it's condition at the time of collapse as well. And yes why not toss in some buzz words like 'stresses' and 'shifting loads' just to make it sound all that more credible.

MM

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 05:17 PM

So, you don't know and you refuse to find out. Why don't you research and ask questions of experts instead of trying to act like you know what you are talking about concerning CDs. Find a demolition where the sequence is so close together that separate blasts are indistinguishable. Also, answer the other questions I put to you instead of cherry picking.

Well aren't you the little prince! If Christopher is wrong, and believe me he's done a helluva lot more work than your sorry azz has, prove him wrong. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say "prove it..prove it..prove it".
I suggest you prove you have a point before you demand others cater to your whims!

Because something looks like a CD doesn't mean it is. Because something sounds like a bomb, doesn't mean it is. Here is an example. I work in manufacturing and we use resistance welding to put together steel. These weld guns are cooled, some by water and some by air depending on various conditions. To change the weld caps (the part that contacts the metal) on the guns that are water cooled, the water needs to be turned off. Now, if the water is not turned back on, steam builds up in the cable. When enough pressure builds up, the cable explodes and it sounds like a shotgun going off. If I only hear it, I do not immediatley think that a gun went off, even though that is what it sounds like.

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

MM

twinstead

31st March 2007, 05:48 PM

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

I suppose you don't think that we could come up with any number of well-respected demolitions experts, more than just the ONE you have, that disagree with Jowenko, right?

What that means is you tend to believe anybody who agrees with you even if they are in the minority.

Unless you don't think Jowenko is in the minority. Do you?

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 06:03 PM

I suppose you don't think that we could come up with any number of well-respected demolitions experts, more than just the ONE you have, that disagree with Jowenko, right?

What that means is you tend to believe anybody who agrees with you even if they are in the minority.

Unless you don't think Jowenko is in the minority. Do you?

And you don't?

MM

Disbelief

31st March 2007, 06:34 PM

Well aren't you the little prince! If Christopher is wrong, and believe me he's done a helluva lot more work than your sorry azz has, prove him wrong. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say "prove it..prove it..prove it".
I suggest you prove you have a point before you demand others cater to your whims!

Nice personal attacks. Why do I need to prove him wrong when he is making a claim that has already been proven wrong? I asked him for specific information, hoping he could enlighten me. If he has done so much work on trying to find out what happened and not just how to make things fit his theory, it should be easy for him.

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

MM

Obviously the analogy went over your head - no big surprise. So, if there is only one expert, who was only shown a video and given no information, says it was a CD yet EVERY OTHER CD expert in the world says that it was not a CD, you believe the one? What's the term they use... newb. You would be a newb.

A W Smith

31st March 2007, 06:44 PM

MerryMelodies please explain why the corner of building seven where your so called "squibs" were seen was the slowest to collapse?

Miragememories

31st March 2007, 06:47 PM

Nice personal attacks. Why do I need to prove him wrong when he is making a claim that has already been proven wrong? I asked him for specific information, hoping he could enlighten me. If he has done so much work on trying to find out what happened and not just how to make things fit his theory, it should be easy for him.

And if you weren't so lazy, you'd read the whole thread and realize it was far more than theory.

Obviously the analogy went over your head - no big surprise. So, if there is only one expert, who was only shown a video and given no information, says it was a CD yet EVERY OTHER CD expert in the world says that it was not a CD, you believe the one? What's the term they use... newb. You would be a newb.

Again if you weren't the lazy newbie you'd do your own research before you put your foot in your mouth. Jowenko has carefully reviewed all the information available regarding WTC7's collapse since the original video interview in which he declared unequivocably that it was a controlled demolition.

I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.

MM

Disbelief

31st March 2007, 06:53 PM

And if you weren't so lazy, you'd read the whole thread and realize it was far more than theory.

I have read it. It is theory and not a very good one.

Again if you weren't the lazy newbie you'd do your own research before you put your foot in your mouth. Jowenko has carefully reviewed all the information available regarding WTC7's collapse since the original video interview in which he declared unequivocably that it was a controlled demolition.

I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.

MM
Point still stands, one of many. I would like to see more of Jowenko than just his original comments.

Silence from the majority? How about the experts who were involved in the studies? They are in on some great conspiracy I suppose? How many CD experts would need to write analyses for you to believe?

chipmunk stew

31st March 2007, 06:54 PM

Fact?
Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?

[B]There is NO evidence diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7. [FEMA pg 28 & 29]
It doesn't say there's no evidence of diesel fires in the building. But let's not get off track. I agree that diesel fires, if present at all, had no direct influence on the initiating event.

The stress was pulling to the south and west. According to NIST the initiating event was a core column buckling to the east.
Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?

twinstead

31st March 2007, 08:12 PM

And you don't?

Jowenko is an anomaly. You know that. All that does is makes us not able to say that NO demolition experts question the official story. Sadly, it still makes you have to come up with the your usual mental gymnastics about why all the OTHER thousands of experts every bit as capable as he are not coming forward to denounce the official story. Silence of the majority my ass.

You can spin this all you want. It is a horrible kink in your theory.

jaydeehess

31st March 2007, 08:23 PM

Quote Chris:
The stress was pulling to the south and west. According to NIST the initiating event was a core column buckling to the east.
Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?

Yes, why? I'd like to know where in Appendix L it states the initiating event had columns fail to by moving east.

Chris, to complete the sentence from NIST that you keep repeating I offer;(bolding mine)
The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

So damage to the core is very much suggested at just to the west of the column row of 79,80,81. If that area of the core is damaged the result would be a pulling to the west of 79,80,81. Add to that the south side loss of perimeter columns pulling the core to the south and then add an increasing weakening of some core columns on fire floors and something is going to give.

(I was incorrect in placing the elevators in a post just above)

Christopher7

1st April 2007, 04:56 PM

Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?
Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.

It doesn't say there's no evidence of diesel fires in the building. But let's not get off track. I agree that diesel fires, if present at all, had no direct influence on the initiating event.Thank you

Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?Debris from the vertical collapse possibly causing floors 5 and 7 to fail leading to the failure of Truss 1 or 2.

In any case, the damage to the west half of the south face played no part in the initiating event.

NIST pg 36:
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

chipmunk stew

1st April 2007, 06:38 PM

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.
What a ridiculously ignorant statement. There are fire rating standards that every new building must meet. Even with intact, state-of-the-art fireproofing, a rating of 4 hours is considered excellent. This means that, even in modern high-rise steel-framed buildings, a structure that survives an unchecked fire for more than four hours is considered a great success.

Read (http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/pdf/GCR04_872.pdf), and educate thyself.

Debris from the vertical collapse possibly causing floors 5 and 7 to fail leading to the failure of Truss 1 or 2.

In any case, the damage to the west half of the south face played no part in the initiating event.
That's not what the following quote from NIST says.

NIST pg 36:
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.
It says that the initiating event was not due to the damage, not that the damage played no part in the initiating event. To dismiss the redistribution of loads as a possible factor in the initiating event is naive.

Again, though, this is arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The current working hypothesis has the fire as the primary factor contributing to the initiating event. The fire doomed the building, regardless of the prior damage. The damage probably had some role in accelerating the building's weakening up to the initiating event.

jaydeehess

1st April 2007, 09:52 PM

The damage probably had some role in accelerating the building's weakening up to the initiating event.

,, and I would conjecture that it also played a role in the direction of the debris feild in that the western portion went south while the eastern section went almost in the opposite direction.

Christopher7

1st April 2007, 11:38 PM

Yes, why? I'd like to know where in Appendix L it states the initiating event had columns fail to by moving east.
Page 49 & 50 have graphics of columns 76 & 77 buckling to the east.
The columns must buckle to the east to cause the horizontal collapse.

Chris, to complete the sentence from NIST that you keep repeating I offer;(bolding mine)

"damage to elevators cars and shafts were reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at floors 8 or 9"The NIST statement is incorrect.
It should read: columns 66 to 75

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9813/wtc7fl8edit2vh6.png

Gravy

1st April 2007, 11:42 PM

If NIST doesn't investigate this "building 7," I'm going to be very angry.

Someone should write them a strongly-worded letter.

Better yet, Christopher 7, why don't you start an online petition? Those have the force of law in most mental states where conspiracists live.

Dave Rogers

2nd April 2007, 03:55 AM

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP! Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward. Ponder that challenging thought for a while Dave Rogers!

You obviously didn't read my post where I answered that point. How about comparing notes - I'll explain why air pressure blowouts should move upwards, then you can explain why they'd move downwards? Because at the moment you've advanced no evidence or argument to support tht assertion.

My argument is this. Air inside the building is compressed in the collapse zone, which in WTC7 was low down in the building. The air pressure would initially, therefore, be highest on the lower floors. Internal walls and floors would impede the movement of air into the higher parts of the structure, so the higher floors would initially be unpressurised. The resistance to airflow would be limited, however, so as the collapse progresses the higher floors would be pressurised. The high pressure zone, and therefore the zone in which windows were being blown out, would be expected to propagate upwards, exactly as seen in the WTC7 collapse. In general, air pressure blowouts would be expected to move away from the collapse zone i.e. upwards in WTC7, downwards in WTC1 and 2.

OK, that's my argument as to why air pressure blowouts would be expected to move upwards. Can I see yours as to why they would be expected to move downwards?

Dave

Gravy

2nd April 2007, 04:15 AM

And yes why not toss in some buzz words like 'stresses' and 'shifting loads' just to make it sound all that more credible.

Another intellectual masterpiece from another utterly incompetent truther.

The building had severe, uncontrolled fires on many floors.

The building was visibly bulging over three stories.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

The building had a huge gouge in its south face.

The 47-story building was groaning and creaking.

Talk to some high-rise engineers and see what they think about all that. But be warned: they may introduce difficult concepts such as "stress" and "shifting loads."

If you won't talk to them and learn about these things, what does that say about your interest in the truth?

You have your assignment. Get to it, or stop whining.

chipmunk stew

2nd April 2007, 07:17 AM

You obviously didn't read my post where I answered that point. How about comparing notes - I'll explain why air pressure blowouts should move upwards, then you can explain why they'd move downwards? Because at the moment you've advanced no evidence or argument to support tht assertion.

My argument is this. Air inside the building is compressed in the collapse zone, which in WTC7 was low down in the building. The air pressure would initially, therefore, be highest on the lower floors. Internal walls and floors would impede the movement of air into the higher parts of the structure, so the higher floors would initially be unpressurised. The resistance to airflow would be limited, however, so as the collapse progresses the higher floors would be pressurised. The high pressure zone, and therefore the zone in which windows were being blown out, would be expected to propagate upwards, exactly as seen in the WTC7 collapse. In general, air pressure blowouts would be expected to move away from the collapse zone i.e. upwards in WTC7, downwards in WTC1 and 2.

OK, that's my argument as to why air pressure blowouts would be expected to move upwards. Can I see yours as to why they would be expected to move downwards?

Dave
Dave, you're confusing him with buzzwords.

aggle-rithm

2nd April 2007, 07:21 AM

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.

Based on your vast carpentry experience, correct?

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 08:16 AM

This video does show WTC 7 on fire before the collapse of the first tower WTC 2.

No. It doesn't.

OK, I agree you are right and I am wrong on this one. However I still maintain WTC 7 was burning on floors 11 and 12 before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

So... no matter how wrong you are, you'll still cling to your theory ??

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 08:18 AM

Office fires have never caused a global collapse nor could they IMO.

Do I smeel an argument from incredulity ?

There are several cases of large fires in modern steel frame high rise buildings and there was no collapse.

There were also firefighters in most of those cases, no ?

The blunt force damage was far from the initiating event. It might cause a collapse in the area of the damage but not in the other end of the building.

And how do you know this ?

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 10:02 AM

Can we now?

Of course squibs reveal windows blowing out. Sigh..why do I waste my time replying to such drivel.

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP!

After the building had begun to collapse.

Really?

Your knowledge of demolition work is phenomenal Belz.

Yours is abysmal.

But please, do provide a link to the term "squib" related to demolitions.

My my aren't we the omnipotent expert. Excuse me for implying that some thing that had never before occured throughout history was relevant oh wise one. I love how you can dismiss unique events in such a ho hum manner.

Following your logic, nothing can ever happen.

I'm sure every beer bottle ever thrown against the building had some 'indirect' effect on it's condition at the time of collapse as well. And yes why not toss in some buzz words like 'stresses' and 'shifting loads' just to make it sound all that more credible.

Just because you don't understand those big words doesn't mean they don't count.

Well aren't you the little prince!

Are you going to present evidence at one point, or is this a flame contest for you ?

If Christopher is wrong, and believe me he's done a helluva lot more work than your sorry azz has, prove him wrong. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say "prove it..prove it..prove it".

Irony of the day.

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

And that ONE expert, opposed to all these OTHER experts, is somehow right ?

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 10:08 AM

I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.

Your mode of thinking is incompatible with reality, Memories. You seem to think that the ONE expert who speaks out is right because the others don't speak out. I don't know what kind of fallacy that is, but it's psychologically interesting, I'm sure. That is, of course, assuming you're right about the whole "silence" thing, which you're not.

And here's from chris, whom you claim has done a lot of research on the subject:

Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.

You call this well-versed ? The man doesn't even know that fires destroy buildings.

Miragememories

2nd April 2007, 10:22 AM

Another intellectual masterpiece from another utterly incompetent truther.

New found confidence comes with the removal of your old embarassing avatar apparently.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p95/dukeeeey/fake.jpg
Oh this missing corner? Maybe your missing a few bricks as well Binglybert Slaptyback?

You have your assignment. Get to it, or stop whining.

You have your assignment Binglybert Slaptyback, I suggest you stop blowing hot air and get to it!

MM

Dave Rogers

2nd April 2007, 10:26 AM

You have your assignment Binglybert Slaptyback, I suggest you stop blowing hot air and get to it!

Hi there, MM. Care to explain why you'd expect the sequence of windows blown out by air pressure to go downwards in a bottom-up collapse yet?

Dave

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 10:38 AM

New found confidence comes with the removal of your old embarassing avatar apparently.

So, Memories. Got any evidence, recently ?

Miragememories

2nd April 2007, 10:40 AM

Hi there, MM. Care to explain why you'd expect the sequence of windows blown out by air pressure to go downwards in a bottom-up collapse yet?

Dave

Sure Dave but there's a problem.

You are talking about windows blown out by air pressure.

I'm talking about explosive squibs moving up the side of the building.

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?

Of course I'm assuming you are really interest is in the collapse of WTC7?

MM

Belz...

2nd April 2007, 10:48 AM

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?

Faked ? Oh, please. More, more.

chipmunk stew

2nd April 2007, 10:53 AM

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?
:jshark

Dave Rogers

2nd April 2007, 11:57 AM

Sure Dave but there's a problem.

You are talking about windows blown out by air pressure.

I'm talking about explosive squibs moving up the side of the building.

So when you said
Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward.

you weren't talking about windows being blown out by air pressure? It certainly looked like you were.

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?

Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.

Dave

jaydeehess

2nd April 2007, 12:07 PM

Page 49 & 50 have graphics of columns 76 & 77 buckling to the east.
The columns must buckle to the east to cause the horizontal collapse.

I would have liked NIST to have a convention of showing views either from the south or north, instead they choose one or the other for every instance. Yes they show the columns failing to the east in the horizontal progression of collapse, opposite of what I had expected. However I also see their reasoning. In those diagrams it supposes that the damage to the trusses occured at columns 79 and 81 which indeed would pull those trusses down on their east end.

This has to do with the horizontal collapse though and not the initiating event which was the direct cause of the original vertical progression. That initiating event need not have occured on the 7th floor or lower. It is the original vertical collapse that is supposed would damage the truss(es) 1&2. That would have heavy debris plunging from the roof top through to the 7th floor(at least) and failing the truss(es).

Another possibility is that the column splices just above floor 7 fail when a large debris load is dropped onto floor 7(but floor 7 buckles downward but does not immediatly fail).

I am not an engineer but I still wonder at the lateral stress that would be imposed on floors 5 and 7 due to the loss of south perimeter columns. IMHO it would be pulling those floors to the south at the position of the lost columns which would have the lateral load at columns 79,80,81 due to that damage being towards the south and west, if the floors 5 and 7 had some ability to twist and strictly to the south if they acted more rigidly.

The NIST statement is incorrect.
It should read: columns 66 to 75

At any rate the fact that the elevators were ejected greatly suggests that there was core damage that had pulled the core columns out of vertical. Whether the column was being pulled south, east or west would not be known. If it was the result of perimeter column damage then it would be to the south, if debris had entered the core (ie. into the elevator shaft itself)then it would depend on which side of the elevator that the damage occured, east or west.

twinstead

2nd April 2007, 12:12 PM

Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.

This is so obvious, too. A textbook example of the technique. In fact, claiming the pictures of the damage are 'fake' was specifically designed to make us immediately turn the debate towards that asinine statement instead of noting his inability to deal with things that are contrary to his position.

Miragememories

2nd April 2007, 12:16 PM

So when you said

you weren't talking about windows being blown out by air pressure? It certainly looked like you were.

[b]

Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.

Dave

Are you interested in the truth about WTC7 Dave Rogers or are you just into "pissing contests"?

Someone comes up with a real 'smoking gun' issue like a faked photograph of the corner damage to WTC7 (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9316/b1bz1.jpg), and you show absolutely no interest?

Here's the full thread; http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6685

MM

Miragememories

2nd April 2007, 12:24 PM

This is so obvious, too. A textbook example of the technique. In fact, claiming the pictures of the damage are 'fake' was specifically designed to make us immediately turn the debate towards that asinine statement instead of noting his inability to deal with things that are contrary to his position.

And ignoring 'hard evidence' in favour of soft inconsequential issues, is obviously the JREF way of avoiding unpleasant realities.

I think a faked photograph, the only photo NIST distributed as proof of that WTC7 corner damage is more important.

You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.

MM

HyJinX

2nd April 2007, 12:26 PM

R.Mackey

2nd April 2007, 12:35 PM

Are you interested in the truth about WTC7 Dave Rogers or are you just into "pissing contests"?

Someone comes up with a real 'smoking gun' issue like a faked photograph of the corner damage to WTC7 (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9316/b1bz1.jpg), and you show absolutely no interest?

Here's the full thread; http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6685
Against my better judgment, I followed that Loose Change thread.

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

This isn't proof of anything.

Arus808

2nd April 2007, 12:36 PM

the images provided are not photoshopped. anyone experienced in the program can easily verify if it was.

Dave Rogers

2nd April 2007, 12:46 PM

You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.

And yet it was debate worthy when you thought you had a point. Every piece of evidence your movement has produced collapses on close inspection, which is why you keep changing the subject to avoid close inspection. If someone comes up with a counter-argument to your "faked" photograph, you'll ignore it and start complaining that they're not addressing the next fantasy you've dreamed up. As a result, your arguments have no credibility.

By your refusal to discuss a point which doesn't support your case, you've shown yourself to be uninterested in determining the truth; you're just pushing a pre-determined agenda, as usual.

Dave

A W Smith

2nd April 2007, 01:50 PM

Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig02L.jpg

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/8074/wtc7damagecomparison2de3.jpg

Look four floors below the yellow circle to the last relatively intact veneer spandrel. You will see a piece of debris hanging out an opening. compare that debris to the same debris in the right photo. below that is where the major damage begins and all but three floors below is obscured by the WFC, the winter garden, and smoke in the right comparison photo.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg

sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.

Kent1

2nd April 2007, 02:27 PM

Against my better judgment, I followed that Loose Change thread.

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

This isn't proof of anything.
Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.
http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

jaydeehess

2nd April 2007, 04:31 PM

I haven't been following MM's 'faked photo' $4it but I take it that the imageshack image that MM links to shows two separate photos of the SW corner superimposed next to each other, one from NIST(though it does not look exactly like picture L-22a in NIST's appendix L) and the other from I believe Spak's photos.

Aside from focal length differences and different angles, I see the same damage done in both pictures.

jaydeehess

2nd April 2007, 04:38 PM

Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison
................
sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.

I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.

e^n

2nd April 2007, 04:42 PM

Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.

Yep I see that too, I'll go post it over at LC so none of you have to venture in :)

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

I hope you're not referring to one of my posts there, I simply remarked that the photoshop morphing of the image to line up with the one taken from w-s-w could confuse some people into thinking that was the original picture and it is obviously fake. The two actual photos provide very little ability for analysis.

I wanted to point this out because I've read quite a lot of your posts and I must admire your approach to the subject :)

Christopher7

2nd April 2007, 10:38 PM

The building had severe, uncontrolled fires on many floors.

The building was visibly bulging over three stories.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

The building had a huge gouge in its south face.

The 47-story building was groaning and creaking.

Talk to some high-rise engineers and see what they think about all that. But be warned: they may introduce difficult concepts such as "stress" and "shifting loads."

If you won't talk to them and learn about these things, what does that say about your interest in the truth?
Have you read what the engineers at NIST said?

Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

PG 41:
"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads due to the redundancy of the moment frame.

The severed and damaged perimeter columns put 'stress' on the the entire building, the loads were 'shifted' to the surrounding columns.

The stress would have been pulling to the south and west.
The initiating event has a column failure to the east.
The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckling to the east.

Christopher7

2nd April 2007, 11:00 PM

I would have liked NIST to have a convention of showing views either from the south or north, instead they choose one or the other for every instance. Yes they show the columns failing to the east in the horizontal progression of collapse, opposite of what I had expected. However I also see their reasoning. In those diagrams it supposes that the damage to the trusses occured at columns 79 and 81 which indeed would pull those trusses down on their east end.

This has to do with the horizontal collapse though and not the initiating event which was the direct cause of the original vertical progression. That initiating event need not have occured on the 7th floor or lower. It is the original vertical collapse that is supposed would damage the truss(es) 1&2. That would have heavy debris plunging from the roof top through to the 7th floor(at least) and failing the truss(es).

Another possibility is that the column splices just above floor 7 fail when a large debris load is dropped onto floor 7(but floor 7 buckles downward but does not immediatly fail).

I am not an engineer but I still wonder at the lateral stress that would be imposed on floors 5 and 7 due to the loss of south perimeter columns. IMHO it would be pulling those floors to the south at the position of the lost columns which would have the lateral load at columns 79,80,81 due to that damage being towards the south and west, if the floors 5 and 7 had some ability to twist and strictly to the south if they acted more rigidly.
The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

At any rate the fact that the elevators were ejected greatly suggests that there was core damage that had pulled the core columns out of vertical.I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

Whether the column was being pulled south, east or west would not be known. If it was the result of perimeter column damage then it would be to the south, if debris had entered the core (ie. into the elevator shaft itself)then it would depend on which side of the elevator that the damage occured, east or west.The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.

jaydeehess

2nd April 2007, 11:05 PM

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

Which does not preclude perimeter damage contributing to the stresses in the area of initial failure.

The initiating event has a column failure to the east.

Wanna point it out where NIST says that again real quick. Perhaps you meant 'in the eastern part of the building'.

The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckleing to the east.

In the senarios which have trusses 1&2 being severed or buckled at their eastern ends due to falling debris from the initial failure. This is not neccessary for a senario in which the column splices just above floor 5 or 7 fail due to floor buckling.

jaydeehess

2nd April 2007, 11:10 PM

The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.

Floors 5 and 7 would ofer more rigid transfer of those stresses along the core than other floors(especially ones below 5)

It suggests damage to core column(s). You simply cannot say one as opposed to more just because you wish it so.

Pulling to the west as a contributing factor in the initial failure, yes.

Gravy

2nd April 2007, 11:11 PM

Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns. That's not smart of you. You really should know better by now, but apparently you are utterly incapable of comprehending what you read.

When a portion of the structure is removed, the load it once carried is redistributed to other structural members, agreed?

And where was the creaking and groaning coming from? Do you know?

And why do you think you, who can't get anything right, can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?

Randy Mott

3rd April 2007, 01:47 AM

The Debunking 911 site has a real comparison of Jones' "squibs" on WTC7 and the collapsing southside. He was definitely misleading folks deliberately IMO.

My question in why would Silverstein order to NY Fire Department to demolish the building? This seems to indicate that the NY Fire Department planted the alleged charges. Then Silverstein describes his orders to them on a public broadcast? Great conspiracy.... use a public agency and involve ,what, ten or more fire dept supervisors and dozens of firemen to "plant the charges"), then announce on PBS that you ordered them to blow it up?

I think that the CTs ask us too foten to suspend belief. Most of this stuff would not even make a Hollywood script because the studio would say it was too lame to be credible in even a movie!

Randy Mott
Lawyer

Note: I added that, because I am nw here and often read guys discussing legal issues. I was a litigator for twenty some years in DC. Now I work in Central Europe on other stuff.

Miragememories

3rd April 2007, 10:49 AM

I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.

Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.

The NIST submission;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9078/nistwtc7gougefv4bz3.jpg

Reality of the day;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9466/wtc7cornerdamage2zq4.jpg

Composite for comparison;
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4227/wtc7cornerdamage3is2.jpg

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM

A W Smith

3rd April 2007, 11:13 AM

The hanging debris matches.. You will have to save the image and then zoom in

Miragememories

3rd April 2007, 11:37 AM

The hanging debris matches.. You will have to save the image and then zoom in

Wrong term of reference. Your hanging debris is too poor an image to make a definitive match.

I'm using a start point that is easily matched in both photos.

Both photos clearly show the double row of blackened windows higher in the tower. I've marked them with a 1 & 2.

Count down 7 floors to the next blackened window, another reference check (equally matchable in both photos and marked with a "3").

From there you can count down 10 more floors with no large scoop revealed in the intact corner. There is some smoke obscuration but not enough to hide the intact corner and adjoining windows.

From the NIST photo, if you start counting down floors from the same blackened window marked "3", at 4 floors down, damage is encountered and very well established by 10..absolutely no intact corner after you reach 3 or 4 floors down. It's easier to count the floors in the NIST photo if you view about 3 windows in from the corner.

MM

jaydeehess

3rd April 2007, 11:56 AM

Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.

you would be a prime example of that.

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM

This reminds me of a poster on BAUT who adamantly insisted that the Pentagon security camera was crystal clear in showing the the inbound aircraft was an F-4.

You can take the NIST photo and use photoshop to attempt to deskew it all you want it will not further your cause to prove that the NIST photo is faked.

There are details in each photo which will be visible in one but not the other due to sun angle, smoke, camera/wall angle and the bulge/lean in the building above the gash and there is no photoshop magic that you can do to make both pictures show the exact same details. there is enough detail in both pictures though to conclusively state that they show the same damage to the building.

In http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9466/wtc7cornerdamage2zq4.jpg you can see that the window column on floor 16 is very much askew. This is one illustration of the bulge in the building. We also know that the west wall of the building meets the south wall at an angle that is not 90 degrees. The NIST photo is taken from the NW making the angle between camera and west wall even more oblique than if the west wall was at 90 deg to the south and north walls. With the building also leaning or bulging the damaged SW corner gets even more out of line with the camera. This will all serve to obscure details of the SW corner.

However, when I look at the NIST photo there is at least 3 floors relativly intact below floor 18 and as many as 4. That jives with the other photo that shows damage to the actual corner starting at floor 14 below which the corner is not visible due to smoke and the intervening building.

A W Smith

3rd April 2007, 11:57 AM

MM perhaps you need a larger monitor. I can easily see the debris I pointed out matching.

Kent1

3rd April 2007, 12:05 PM

Deleted

Kent1

3rd April 2007, 12:07 PM

MM perhaps you need a larger monitor. I can easily see the debris I pointed out matching.
AW, You can see larger pictures here.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

Yep the piece is a match.

Again, Looks like you can see some of it here also.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

Miragememories

3rd April 2007, 03:07 PM

A W Smith

3rd April 2007, 03:17 PM

Ok again. Look at the debris hanging out the front bay on your two number fourteens.

Miragememories

3rd April 2007, 03:27 PM

Ok again. Look at the debris hanging out the front bay on your two number fourteens.

I might as well look at the pentagon 1 frame of the AA jet before it hit the Pentagon for all the quality in your hanging debris image. The angles are extreme and the detail is too poor for you to prove anything with that debris argument.

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM

Kent1

3rd April 2007, 03:29 PM

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.

[/URL][URL="http://img45.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.jpg"]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9200/wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.th.jpg (http://img45.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.jpg%5D)

MM
Your numbering is also off a bit as you get further down. 11-17 needs to be moved up on your left photo. You should also use a better photo that is in the NIST report on page 17.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

Again I see no problem.

A W Smith

3rd April 2007, 03:39 PM

I'm not disputing the references, I never had, My dispute is drawing conclusions from one photo taken at an extreme elevated angle with one taken flat on of an obtuse building corner thats obscured by wfc and the winter garden. I can see some of the same debris in both photos. Of course its going to look different from those two vastly different perspectives. its 3 dimensional debris for Christs sake.
And another thing. why would they alter the photo with effects that would hurt their conclusion? Wouldn't the building then have to fall in that direction if so much was missing from that corner? The initiating event was supposedly way over on the other side of the building to the east. nowhere near this southwest corner.

Mercutio

3rd April 2007, 03:39 PM

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM
Actually, it is impossible to determine that from a single still photo. It is entirely possible for the corner to be caved in, but in line with the direction of the camera. This will, of course, give the illusion that it is in line.

I tried to line up a ruler with some of the straight line of the upper portion of the corner, to see if the 15-17 area matched it perfectly or not. With my monitor, it appears to me to be off by a couple of pixels (certainly not much, but movement on the x axis need not be proportional to movement on the z axis). (Also, it is entirely possible that the pixel difference is the result of lens distortion, or an artifact of my monitor. A large, high resolution print might be better suited for such an examination.)

The best you can do from the second picture is to note that the corner is not deflected (much) on the x axis. One still picture cannot determine the z axis deflection, and that deflection may easily account for the differences you perceive between the two shots.