10 story hole in WTC 7 [Archive] - Page 8

Christopher7

3rd April 2007, 09:07 PM

Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns.
No

When a portion of the structure is removed, the load it once carried is redistributed to other structural members, agreed?
Yes
NIST Apx. L pg 36:
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression:
[boulding mine]
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 the vierendeel action of the perimeter frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

And where was the creaking and groaning coming from? Do you know?Most likely from where all the severe damage was.
[the west half of the south side]

And why do you think you can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?The firefighters at the scene were in a better position to access the damage to the west half of the south side but the engineers at NIST are more qualified to analyze that assessment.
Furthermore, the firefighters had no knowledge of the conditions in the area of the initiating event other than the office fires that were reported.

Miragememories

4th April 2007, 10:09 AM

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 10:37 AM

Here's a better quality composite of the NIST photo and the reference image.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4342/wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.th.jpg (http://img252.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.jpg)

I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Reference points #15 to #17 shows a major loss to the building's corner in the NIST (NYPD) photo. The comparable #15 to #17 in the reference photo clearly shows no hint of that amount of loss to the building's corner.

MM
In the photo on the right, the feature that looks like the corner of the building actually appears to be the exposed and displaced corner perimeter column (see the apparent gap between the face and the column from the floors marked 13 through 15).

In the NYPD photo, the building face between the rightmost windows appears to be mostly intact (although heavily damaged) until below the floor marked 15, where the damage is much more severe and material is actually missing. This looks consistent with the photo on the right, where the material between the floors marked 15 & 16 appears heavily damaged and raggedy, with material missing. It's difficult to see what's going on below that in this photo.

Kent1

4th April 2007, 11:28 AM

Miragememories

4th April 2007, 12:04 PM

The 15-17 are also a touch low now. Floor 15 especially needs to be fixed on the left photo. One thing you'll notice if you've looked at many of the other photos, is that there is a large amount of smoke coming from the 16th and 17th floor areas.

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM

Kent1

4th April 2007, 12:11 PM

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM
I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

Miragememories

4th April 2007, 12:52 PM

I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM

A W Smith

4th April 2007, 12:56 PM

I see the same piece of debris I pointed out earlier in yellow on the Cirone image MM. Get over it.

Kent1

4th April 2007, 12:59 PM

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM
Now your just ranting....I've denied the validity of your photo comparison just fine. The other photo only further supports the damage claim. Now your calling foul on that one also because it further hurts your wild claims.
Stomp away...

Belz...

4th April 2007, 01:02 PM

I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Good, good. Now, since you've admitted that it's just a feeling, what other evidence do you have ? Give up, yet ?

That's nit-picking.

Ah, yes. Showing that your contention is shaky is nit-picking.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

Wrong. I do see the difference. But I, for one, won't jump to the conclusion that what my brain can't see, necessarily doesn't exist -- or vice-versa, in fact.

Mercutio

4th April 2007, 01:25 PM

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

[snip]

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM"Clearly"? An alternative view would be that the photo that clearly shows damage is simply the more accurate picture. If the damage that was witnessed by firefighters on the scene is masked by the straight-on shot in the photo on the right, then choosing the picture that more accurately shows the damage is the right thing to do. It's too bad the pic on the right is not a stereoscopic pic, or a clip from a video where the camera itself is moving (not just scanning from one spot). The hypothesis that the z-axis damage is masked by the camera's position is quite testable with additional pics from other vantages. Until that hypothesis is refuted, the differences you note are not "inexplicable". You may not like that explanation, but it is reasonable.

Got any other shots of that corner?

GodSend

4th April 2007, 01:55 PM

FactCheck

4th April 2007, 02:35 PM

I know I'm a late arrival here and may have missed a lotta brilliant posts - but did someone explain why WTC#7 collapsed?''

What happened to the remains? Were they shipped off to China as well - or are they filling the potholes in NYC? Anyone here post details of who shut down the building for 'security' reasons? - you know, the names of those who did the work? How many people were involved? What do we know about them and their 'affiliations'? Any of them buy big houses or fast cars recently? - or go on extended vacations? Change jobs, perhaps?

Hmmm...questions, questions, questions...and then some more questions.You must have been away for years. The NIST did give a draft of how the building may have collapsed.

While we're asking questions, Have the conspiracy theorists found a single explosive or blasting cap? Have they found explosive chemicals around GZ? How many of the conspiracy theorist leaders bought big houses or fast cars recently? What do we know about them and their 'affiliations'? Are they conservatives who hate government perhaps? How much money did they make off their books and CD's? :covereyes

Unfit4Command

4th April 2007, 02:44 PM

"Clearly"? An alternative view would be that the photo that clearly shows damage is simply the more accurate picture. If the damage that was witnessed by firefighters on the scene is masked by the straight-on shot in the photo on the right, then choosing the picture that more accurately shows the damage is the right thing to do. It's too bad the pic on the right is not a stereoscopic pic, or a clip from a video where the camera itself is moving (not just scanning from one spot). The hypothesis that the z-axis damage is masked by the camera's position is quite testable with additional pics from other vantages. Until that hypothesis is refuted, the differences you note are not "inexplicable". You may not like that explanation, but it is reasonable.

Got any other shots of that corner?

In this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edebunking911%2Ecom%2FWTC7% 2Ehtm) video at around the 1:40 mark you can see the top of the corner damage and it seems to match up with the NIST photo:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/damage2-2.jpg

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/damage1-2.jpg

GodSend

4th April 2007, 03:32 PM

Unfit4Command

4th April 2007, 03:47 PM

FactCheck:

Thanks! I guess we should wait for the Final NIST report. While we're waiting, who was allowed to sift through the remains? Is there a public inventory of what WAS found? - and by whom? - and where that item is NOW? Well, I'm sure that there's $$$ being made by a whole bunch of folks involved in this issue. Now Larry Silverstein, he's made off with a WHOLE BUNCH!, that much we know :) Conservatives hate the Gov't??? You mean the Gov't is not made up of Conservatives? And why would anybody hate the Gov't? Have they done anything REALLY bad?! Read the latest Paul Levy article about what the Gov't has done :) If you can't find the article, go to "Sons of Light vs. Sons of Darkness" in the General Academics/Religion & Philosophy category.

Please tell me, how much has Larry Silverstein received from his insurers? How much will the construction of the new WTC cost? How much money has he paid since 9/11 just so he can maintain the right to rebuild?

Other people can expand more on this, but until then I recommend you visit this site:
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Rrramon

4th April 2007, 03:59 PM

It's interesting that the conspirators had the foresight to know that the collapse of the larger tower would cause just enough damage to WTC 7 to make several observers think it was going to collapse and trick the nation's structural engineers into thinking there was nothing amiss with the collapse--but not quite enough damage to remove the necessity for explosives altogether.

GodSend

4th April 2007, 04:08 PM

Unfit4Command:

The short answer is: ENOUGH!

The longer answer is: There are a lot of circumspect details about the timing and 'structuring' details of Larry Silverstein's WTC insurance 'arrangements'. Worth investigating, for sure. And is Larry Silverstein a Zionist with some VERY interesting 'connections'? You betcha! ;)

One pregnant question is: "What did Larry Silverstein know about 9/11 and when did he know it?" ;)

cloudshipsrule

4th April 2007, 04:21 PM

Worth investigating, for sure.

It's already been investigated. You don't think insurance companies hand out large sums without an investigation, do you?

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 04:33 PM

Fair warning: GodSend does not engage in discussion.

Don't expect anything to penetrate that thick Nazi head.

GodSend

4th April 2007, 04:41 PM

stateofgrace

4th April 2007, 04:59 PM

csr:

OK then, let's investigate the insurance companies! Any Zionists on their BoDs? What Synagogue do they attend? (all together now: "The Synagogues of Satan", perhaps ;) What country Clubs (and other clubs) do they belong to? Or, to approach it from the usual direction: What skeletons are in their closets?

The investigations must burrow VERY deep - down the last tunnel in the rabbit hole ;)

It take you are prepared to apply your investigation towards Al Qaeda also. I take you are going to research extensively the global terror network and how they transfer funds around.

Once you have please let me know your findings. Please let me know why you have concluded,that this organisation did not fund the 911 attacks and did not plan it.

Let me know when you have burrowed deep into the world of global Terrorist network financing and what rabbit you find.

Or is it better to simply blame the Jews?

BTW why did Isreal warn the US of the attacks beforehand any idea?

Edit, instead of posting claim upon claim in this thread maybe you could start your own in future and show everybody your full and comprehensive understanding of global terrorism, how it is financed and why you believe this terrorist network did not have the financial backing , motive or means to carry out 911.

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 05:43 PM

Unfit4Command:

The short answer is: ENOUGH!

In other words, you don't know or care to find out.

The longer answer is: There are a lot of circumspect details about the timing and 'structuring' details of Larry Silverstein's WTC insurance 'arrangements'. Worth investigating, for sure. And is Larry Silverstein a Zionist with some VERY interesting 'connections'? You betcha! ;)

One pregnant question is: "What did Larry Silverstein know about 9/11 and when did he know it?" ;)

Which does not answer the question asked at all.

Perhaps you missed your calling. You avoided the question asked and substituted an answer to a question that was not in any way called for. In that you would make a great politician. Sure you are a one trick pony (you can shout "Zionists,Zionists")but there's quite a few one-trick-ponies in politics.

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 05:56 PM

Insurance companies pay out depending on what you are going to do.If a business burns down and the owner decides not to rebuild then he gets less than if he had rebuilt and if he recieves any monies saying he will rebuild and does not they will sue for the money back. In the case of very large policies such as Silverman's they cut cheques only as construction is a go. So far they have paid out only for the re-construction that has occured. He will get more as building plans get finalized, which due to inter-governmental squabbling about what is 'proper', is taking a very long time. Silverstein may have loss of business insurance but that has a limit which he has probably already reached.

Rrramon also brings up a good point that Godsend just can't bring himself to think about too deeply.

All of this brings us around to the fact that nothing Godsend has written in this thread has anything at all to do with the topic of this thread.

I highly doubt that he has anything at all to offer in the way of a scientific or engineering arguement.

Mercutio

4th April 2007, 06:38 PM

In this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edebunking911%2Ecom%2FWTC7% 2Ehtm) video at around the 1:40 mark you can see the top of the corner damage and it seems to match up with the NIST photo
Yup! And there is another fairly clear shot between 1:00 and 1:20 (wasn't watching the timer closely, but the shot lasts for a few seconds). It looks, as it should, different from either of the other two photos, and it really does look as if the z-axis movement explains the apparent difference between the first two photos.

Good find!

GodSend

4th April 2007, 07:07 PM

chipmunk stew

4th April 2007, 07:15 PM

it's just a matter of time - give it just a little more time...tra, la, la...;) Hello, Rosie, where have you been? Where are the rest of you? Aha...........here they come............:)
They're coming to take me away, hee hee, ha ha...
:cs:

GodSend

4th April 2007, 08:23 PM

JimBenArm

4th April 2007, 09:13 PM

It's been a long time since I've been followed around by a chipmunk ;) Could be he's been brainwashed by Radiohead's "Follow me around" :eek:

Here, chippy, chippy......come get your nuts cracked - again! :eek:

PS I'm glad they're coming to take you away - as far away as possible ;)
Does God's love include childish insults and immature behavior? Or are you here just to show how low you really are? If so, it's working!

A W Smith

4th April 2007, 09:18 PM

Boy what a shamefull fisher of men (and chipmunks) you are Godsend

by the way GodSend WWJD??

Gravy

4th April 2007, 10:06 PM

GodSend, this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2450733&postcount=38) should help you to understand the WTC insurance issues. Please don't make uninformed claims about serious subjects.

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 10:16 PM

I know I'm a late arrival here and may have missed a lotta brilliant posts - but did someone explain why WTC#7 collapsed?''
You also missed the title of this thread.

Please read post #94 on pg 3 which presents the case for:
No gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7

and #1602 on pg 41 which presents the case for:
No diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

Please keep your posts relevant to the topic.

Thank you

Chris

e^n

4th April 2007, 10:18 PM

[/I][/B]Please keep your posts relevant to the topic.

Thank you

Chris

Chris, I apologise if you have already answered this, I did attempt to read through your posts on the subject but this is a significant thread and it's hard to catch up.

What are your opinions on the NIST examination of column failures and the resulting external geometry changes? Do you believe the columns could have failed as NIST asserts but via explosive cutting rather than compressive stress and fire weakening?

Thanks in advance.

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 10:35 PM

GodSend, this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2450733&postcount=38) should help you to understand the WTC insurance issues. Please don't make uninformed claims about serious subjects.
Speaking of uninformed claims, FOIA returned my call about what form the pictures of WTC 7 would be. They said i could get them on a CD if i wanted.

They also said that the photographs are NOT available at this time, nor have they heard the $13,700 figure.
The first 2 hours of research and the first 100 documents are free to concerned citizens who are not going to use them commercially.

Since i was the first person to make such a request, they must first search the files and get clearances from the various photographers.

What was the source of your statement in post #446 on pg 12;

"That's the kind of thing NIST has access to. If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos"

?

GodSend

4th April 2007, 11:25 PM

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 11:37 PM

JBA and chipmunk:

Grow up!
Please do the same and take your childish pissing match elsewhere.

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 11:56 PM

Chris, I apologise if you have already answered this, I did attempt to read through your posts on the subject but this is a significant thread and it's hard to catch up.

What are your opinions on the NIST examination of column failures and the resulting external geometry changes? Do you believe the columns could have failed as NIST asserts but via explosive cutting rather than compressive stress and fire weakening?

Thanks in advance.
NIST does not assert that any of that actually happened.
They put forth a hypothesis that they say "appears possible"

I am not qualified to say weather or not office fires could weaken the massive reinforced columns and cause floor systems to fail.

e^n

4th April 2007, 11:57 PM

NIST does not assert that any of that actually happened.
They put forth a hypothesis that they "appears possible"

I am not qualified to say weather or not office fires could weaken the massive reinforced columns and cause floor systems to fail.

I apologise, ignore my comments about assertions. I do not expect you to comment on the actual method of collapse, just if you believe the possible sequence of failures provided by NIST is possible or likely?

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 12:09 AM

I apologise, ignore my comments about assertions. I do not expect you to comment on the actual method of collapse, just if you believe the possible sequence of failures provided by NIST is possible or likely?
I think it is unlikely.

I also have a problem with 1 column pulling 5 columns to the side when all those columns are firmly attached to everything around them.

GodSend

5th April 2007, 12:20 AM

Christopher7 and Gravy Train, et al:

Larry Silverstein's empire is vast and complex and well hidden from public view and awareness. He employs an army of lawyers. The Zionist thread runs throughout Mr. Silverstein's empire, 9/11 and 'PUT' option position profits, the phony "War on Terror", presidential election fraud, the Afghanistan invasion, the Iraq invasion, Palestinian Genocide, the Holocaust Industry, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. There is a blood, money, torture and deception trail of Zionist origin throughout the ghastly Conspiracy of Evil (Levy is right-on-the-money). Insurance fraud from pre-knowledge of 9/11 would not be out-of-character here! Do you really suppose that all these issues can or will be addressed openly and completely in this Forum? Get real! This thread is nothing more than a distraction and game of trivial pursuits.

I have a close, personal friend (Jewish lawyer) who worked for Mr. Silverstein for many years in connection with the WTC. I once asked him what he thought of his boss. His response: "NOT A NICE MAN!" (that's polite code for SOB).

What is a Zionist SOB capable of? Well, the blatant persecution and personal attacks on anyone who threatens to further open this Pandora's Box (especially 9/11), like Martin Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Dr. Steven Jones, Chris Bollyn, Alex Jones, Paul Levy, Henry Makow and MANY HUNDREDS (growing) of other prominent and credible individuals, some of whom put their career and possibly their very lives on the line, gives you more than a clue, doesn't it!? YES, it must all be proven - and it WILL be, to the horror of the perpetrators - murderers, criminals and traitors to America :) But the ENTIRE Puzzle is only solved on my website :eek: - and the hits (to my website) keep coming :) Soon, the entire world will be 'in-the-know'. You may not believe me now - but you will believe later.

OK, maybe I moved slightly 'off topic' ;)

PS Here is some useful, contextual 'background':

http://reallyquitecleanpair.blogspot.com/2007/04/phillip-kurians-duke-university.html

e^n

5th April 2007, 12:27 AM

I think it is unlikely.

I also have a problem with 1 column pulling 5 columns to the side when all those columns are firmly attached to everything around them.

Do you have an alternate theory or do you support the alternate theory of others? Also if you disagree with their hypothesis of the mode of failure, what about their recreation of external geometry differences based on column failures? It seems likely to me that the most rational conspiracy point of view is to believe that the initiating event was column 76(78? I forget, so many numbers) but this and others were explosively cut.

Don't get me wrong, I am not asking you to make an assessment as an expert, simply to clarify your position as too many conspiracy theorists assert that "it's obvious it is a controlled demolition just by looking at it".

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 01:03 AM

Christopher7 and Gravy Train, et al:

OK, maybe I moved slightly 'off topic' ;)
Dude, you are totally off topic.

This thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

Please find the appropriate thread to post about Silverstein.

This ain't it!

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 01:15 AM

Do you have an alternate theory or do you support the alternate theory of others? Also if you disagree with their hypothesis of the mode of failure, what about their recreation of external geometry differences based on column failures? It seems likely to me that the most rational conspiracy point of view is to believe that the initiating event was column 76(78? I forget, so many numbers) but this and others were explosively cut.

Don't get me wrong, I am not asking you to make an assessment as an expert, simply to clarify your position as too many conspiracy theorists assert that "it's obvious it is a controlled demolition just by looking at it".
That is currently being discussed on the "Christopher7 --- C7 & C4" thread.

I started this thread to discuss the debris damage and fires hypothesis and avoid subject shift to CD's.

I have no opinion on their "external geometry differences based on column failures".

Belz...

5th April 2007, 05:59 AM

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

False dichotomy. Alternatives have been proposed to you. You just prefer the "altered" scenario because it makes everyone seem more nefarious.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

I'm going to have to invent a name for that fallacy.

did someone explain why WTC#7 collapsed?''

It was hit by a collapsing, 110-storey, flaming building. You're welcome.

Thanks! I guess we should wait for the Final NIST report. While we're waiting, who was allowed to sift through the remains? Is there a public inventory of what WAS found? - and by whom? - and where that item is NOW?

Why the hell would they want to do that ? Hey, I know, let's just leave the debris there until the whole thing is completed. Huh ? Space for reconstruction ? Nah!

Please tell me, how much has Larry Silverstein received from his insurers?

The short answer is: ENOUGH!

The longer answer is: There are a lot of circumspect details about the timing and 'structuring' details of Larry Silverstein's WTC insurance 'arrangements'. Worth investigating, for sure. And is Larry Silverstein a Zionist with some VERY interesting 'connections'? You betcha!

So you DON'T know how much he got, but you claim that he got "enough". Do you invent bits and pieces of reality often ?

OK then, let's investigate the insurance companies! Any Zionists on their BoDs? What Synagogue do they attend? (all together now: "The Synagogues of Satan", perhaps What country Clubs (and other clubs) do they belong to? Or, to approach it from the usual direction: What skeletons are in their closets?

You, sir, are paranoid. No matter how many "zionists" are in those companies, insurance companies don't give out billions of dollars to people who demolish their own buildings. It's very bad for business.

stateofgrace

5th April 2007, 07:37 AM

stateofgrace: (better than most) ;)

I have no problem, whatsoever, with any investigations of Al-Qaeda - provided they are carried out by a certifiably independent investigative body (that leaves out just about any US or Israeli participants). However, I have it on good authority (personal experience) that the 'War on Terror', in addition to being an oxymoron, is a Zionist fabrication, including ObL. To make a long and torturous story short (pun intended), check out my thread "Sons of Light vs. Sons of Darkness" in the General Academics/Religion & Philosophy category. It was moved there from Conspiracy Theories by the JREF PTB to keep the article by Paul Levy and my website out of the limelight.

The truth about 9/11 and the other Bush Gov't 'shenanigans' (aka 'high crimes and misdemeanors') WILL be outed - it's just a matter of time - give it just a little more time...tra, la, la...;) Hello, Rosie, where have you been? Where are the rest of you? Aha...........here they come............:)

Your answer is therefore no, you have not looked at the financing of global terrorism; you simply prefer to dismiss it. You then prefer to have people investigate it for you and when they do, you prefer to dismiss their findings. See what you prefer is irrelevent, what you know and can prove is relevant. To date you have proved one thing, you have done zero investigation and research into this area and as such because you do not understand it, dismiss it.

Equally I could not care less from what good authority you claim to have gained your vast understanding and knowledge about world events on because you have shown to all that you have no such knowledge but simply prefer to try to use belittling and patronising remarks in the hope that people will not see through your lack of knowledge

Dude, you are totally off topic.

This thread is about debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

Please find the appropriate thread to post about Silverstein.

This ain't it!

You are correct Chris, Godsend I await your in-depth thesis on the financing and funding of global terrorism in another thread.

For the time being maybe you should leave this thread and let Chris try to prove that somebody thought it was a great idea to demolition a 47 story building in broad day light, in front of the worlds media who was broadcasting it live to the entire planet and hope nobody noticed.

jaydeehess

5th April 2007, 08:44 AM

Quote MM:
Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.
I'm going to have to invent a name for that fallacy.

How about 'transferance', given that MM holds the dogmatic belief that evil gov't conspirators planned and caused the destruction of the WTC buildings.

chipmunk stew

5th April 2007, 09:27 AM

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.

May I consider the following a retraction of your statement above?

I am not qualified to say weather or not office fires could weaken the massive reinforced columns and cause floor systems to fail.

Belz...

5th April 2007, 10:07 AM

I have no problem, whatsoever, with any investigations of Al-Qaeda - provided they are carried out by a certifiably independent investigative body (that leaves out just about any US or Israeli participants). However, I have it on good authority (personal experience) that the 'War on Terror', in addition to being an oxymoron, is a Zionist fabrication, including ObL.

Your personal experience is a good authority ?

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 12:52 PM

May I consider the following a retraction of your statement above?
No
The NIST hypothesis is full of "if" and "may have"

They don't know if it is possible for the office fires to cause the collapse.

They were speculating.

On the other hand, the Caracus towers burned out of control for 17 hours and completely gutted most of the top 20 floors.
It did not collapse.

12:30 p.m.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4462/1230pmcloseupzb9.jpg

The next day

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5176/copyofnextdaylargepy0.jpg

No one knows weather or not office fires can cause a modern steel frame building to collapse because it has never happened.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid was primarily a reinforced concrete building.
The steel perimeter columns on the upper 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.
The part that collapsed was fully involved.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/342/madridwindsortk8.jpg

WTC 7 was not fully involved.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

cloudshipsrule

5th April 2007, 01:33 PM

In my opinion, it is not a good idea to bring up other hi-rise building fires in comparison to the WTC events UNLESS those previous examples also suffered extensive damage from the impacts of commercial airliners, or if they, themselves were hit by falling debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world. If you have another example of a building fire pre-9/11 that meets these criteria, please share! Tks!

JimBenArm

5th April 2007, 03:45 PM

JBA and chipmunk:

You get what you deserve! What you deserve is unspeakable :eek: It would behoove you to shut your mouths. Did you ever ask yourself why it's possible for me to have a mature exchange of (radically different) views with some posters here (Ladewig, TAM) but not with you? Do you know what sets you apart? I know ;)
Grow up!
So why do you think I deserve something "unspeakable"? Have I graduated to "Zionist" now? Did I prick your fragile ego? Do you know anything about me, other than I think your views on Jews and Zionists is reprehensible? Tell me, what else do you know? Can you do that without insults? Let's find out!

Arus808

5th April 2007, 03:58 PM

WTC 7 was not fully involved.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

you can't make that assessment just by this one image, or many of the images provided of WTC 7. A building does'nt havet show "fire" at the windows to be considered "fully involved".

This has been told to you many times.

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 08:17 PM

Arus: Look at the video listed below in the "Fire on floor 12" section.
If you want to say that WTC 7 was 'fully involved' go right ahead but most people, after seeing that video, would think you a bit daft.

cloudshiprule: It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event
that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST 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."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.

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

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 fire on floor 12 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.

Rrramon

5th April 2007, 10:37 PM

Gravy

5th April 2007, 11:25 PM

If you want to say that WTC 7 was 'fully involved' go right ahead but most people, after seeing that video, would think you a bit daft.

WE don't say that, Chris. The firefighters do. Are they "a bit daft?"

Since you insist that they're wrong, why don't you ask them what they saw?

Or are you just another internet coward who gets his kicks out of making baseless accusations against the FDNY?

So what's it going to be, Chris? Are you going to talk to the people who were there and tell them what they really saw?

No more stalling. Yes or no?

jaydeehess

5th April 2007, 11:40 PM

It is the difference between Chris' definition of 'fully involved' and a FF's definition of it.

From what I gather the FF definition involves flames and/or heavy smoke throughout the building.

WTC 7 qualifies in that regard.

jaydeehess

5th April 2007, 11:42 PM

Christopher7, I'm interested to see if you agree with this statement:

Whatever conspirators were involved in 9/11 somehow knew that the debris from the North Tower would cause just enough damage to fool the scientific community into thinking there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse but not quite enough damage to where explosives would no longer be needed to bring it down.

I'd say they must have, otherwise it would real embarrassing to have a building undamaged by debris (not creaking and groaning) and perhaps not on fire to just collapse.

GodSend

6th April 2007, 08:07 AM

Listen up, now!

Many years ago, today, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah and Son of God, willingly carried the sins of all humanity, past, present and future, to His Cross at Calvary.

He was sent there and to us by God, His Father. He obeyed His Father out of Love for Him and for us!

God has a message for all humanity. You can find it here:

http://novalight.org

If the message is not for you, please forward it to someone else.

I am just the messenger.

(I will not make any other posts on this thread today. It is a day of Remembrance. "Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed". Jesus the Christ said: "No one comes to the Father except by Me".)

GodSend,
If you continue to post these links in this manner, and repeating posts cross-threads, you will receive a warning for spamming.
Additionally, please refrain from religious commentary in sub-fora other than the 'Religion and Philosophy' sub-forum.

cloudshipsrule

6th April 2007, 08:09 AM

Excellent way to sidetrack the thread! WWJD?

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 08:23 AM

Listen up, now!

Many years ago, today, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah and Son of God, willingly carried the sins of all humanity, past, present and future, to His Cross at Calvary.

He was sent there and to us by God, His Father. He obeyed His Father out of Love for Him and for us!

God has a message for all humanity. You can find it here:

http://novalight.org

If the message is not for you, please forward it to someone else.

I am just the messenger.

(I will not make any other posts on this thread today. It is a day of Remembrance. "Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed". Jesus the Christ said: "No one comes to the Father except by Me".)
Don't spam your posts, Peter (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2495954#post2495954).

Vincent Vega

6th April 2007, 09:27 AM

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

Not quite. You can see the corner of the building is damaged at #8. Four floors below that is where the gash starts. That vertical line below the lowest smoke cloud (#14) is NOT the corner of the building, it is interior structural columns. The majority of the gash is obscured by the squarish feature on the roof of the building nearby (#16).

e^n

6th April 2007, 09:39 AM

Not quite. You can see the corner of the building is damaged at #8. Four floors below that is where the gash starts. That vertical line below the lowest smoke cloud (#14) is NOT the corner of the building, it is interior structural columns. The majority of the gash is obscured by the squarish feature on the roof of the building nearby (#16).

We've also been debating this on the LC forums and here's a quick image I did to illustrate the absolute minimum of corner damage I can see:

http://xs314.xs.to/xs314/07145/p12663692-line2.jpg

edit: you might be surprised but from my preliminary analysis this image corroborates floors 8-18 being damaged with approximately the same level of damage, it's hard to judge because of the angle of the shot but you can count windows to see the upper extent of the damage.

Belz...

6th April 2007, 10:21 AM

The NIST hypothesis is full of "if" and "may have"

Well of course. Unlike you, they can't make up reality and convince themselves of their own pedantry.

They don't know if it is possible for the office fires to cause the collapse.

No, they know. Office fires DO causes collapses.

On the other hand, the Caracus towers burned out of control for 17 hours and completely gutted most of the top 20 floors.
It did not collapse.

Well, I guess this proves it, then.

No one knows weather or not office fires can cause a modern steel frame building to collapse because it has never happened.

And this proves what ? Oh, wait. What about other steel buildings ? Did you forget those, or did you ignore them voluntarily ?

WTC 7 was not fully involved.

And we know that fire doesn't do smack unless it coveres every inch of a floor.

And you still haven't answered me about the 47-floor hole in 7 WTC.

Belz...

6th April 2007, 10:23 AM

Listen up, now!

Many years ago, today, Jesus the Christ, the Messiah and Son of God, willingly carried the sins of all humanity, past, present and future, to His Cross at Calvary.

Unholy mother of hell!!! We have a new theory about 7 WTC's collapse!

Oh, wait. You were just preaching. Sorry. Carry on.

A W Smith

6th April 2007, 01:12 PM

I'm sorry but I have to mention what i saw today. I was driving down Woodbridge ave in Edison NJ today and what do i see? a guy in a wool cap dragging a life sized varnished wooden cross down the sidewalk over his shoulder. Funniest thing was the pair of wheels on the bottom of the cross that looked like they were salvaged from one of those lawn fertilizer spreaders. Hey you don't want to damage your cross while dragging it in front of a bar do you?

Christopher7

6th April 2007, 02:25 PM

WE don't say that, Chris. The firefighters do. Are they "a bit daft?"
I think they were looking at WTC 7 from West and Vesey.

You seem to think that the FDNY thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'.

Such is not the case.

Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say it was 'fully involved'.

Lieutenant James McGlynn, Assistant Chief Harry Meyers said that WTC 7 was 'fully involved'

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy said "I saw it late in the day and like the first seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building.
[this statement is in conflict with itself]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti "...the fire was going on virtually every floor"
"I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise....."

Lieutenant Robert LaRocca "...fire on nearly all floors"

So, we have 3 firefighters saying that WTC 7 was 'fully involved'
and 2 saying fire on nearly all, or virtually every floor.

These frames are from a video taken late in the afternoon.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2015/wtc79ks1.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9554/copyofwtc7n448bv4.jpg

You can call this 'fully involved' if you want.

Miragememories

6th April 2007, 03:12 PM

Miragememories

6th April 2007, 03:17 PM

you would be a prime example of that.

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.

I used no photoshop treatment other than preserving in .tif format to avoid digital loss.

You see what you wish to see and there is nothing I can do about that.

The truth is inescapable regardless of how much you wish to deny it.

MM

Miragememories

6th April 2007, 03:29 PM

sorry lost the quote

Miragememories

6th April 2007, 03:32 PM

Now your just ranting....I've denied the validity of your photo comparison just fine. The other photo only further supports the damage claim. Now your calling foul on that one also because it further hurts your wild claims.
Stomp away...

Ranting. Well I guess pounding ones fist against a dogmatic brick wall is ranting.

You will deny the existence of anything in order to preserve your belief that you are right and I am wrong Kent1.

The other photo is plain and simply a a bad photo.

It's a good photo for your purposes because it does indeed muddy the waters while not revealing enough information to be contradicted.

My reference photo is good. The NIST exhibit photo is pure propaganda offered to the public as proof that WTC7 suffered extreme corner damage from WTC1 falling debris.

Obviously NIST never expected to get "called out" on this photo exhibit or they would never have been so foolish as to use it.

MM

Kent1

6th April 2007, 03:41 PM

Ranting. Well I guess pounding ones fist against a dogmatic brick wall is ranting.

You will deny the existence of anything in order to preserve your belief that you are right and I am wrong Kent1.

The other photo is plain and simply a a bad photo.

It's a good photo for your purposes because it does indeed muddy the waters while not revealing enough information to be contradicted.

My reference photo is good. The NIST exhibit photo is pure propaganda offered to the public as proof that WTC7 suffered extreme corner damage from WTC1 falling debris.

Obviously NIST never expected to get "called out" on this photo exhibit or they would never have been so foolish as to use it.

MM

More mantra and unproven claims.
This corner damge is not central to the NIST WTC 7 debate. Mind you we have already clearly proven there was damage to the corner. This can be seen in various videos and photos. Minimal reason to photoshop, maximum penality. Even worse you blame NIST. But hey, you could always make some contacts.
Ask Willie Cirone.

You honestly thought NIST wasn't expecting any other photos or video of the corner?? LOL!! This is getting sillier by the moment. You obviously
haven't spoken to many people.

Belz...

6th April 2007, 04:45 PM

I think they were looking at WTC 7 from West and Vesey.

You seem to think that the FDNY thought WTC 7 was 'fully involved'.

[...]

You can call this 'fully involved' if you want.

So, tell us, O wise one, what does "fully involved" mean ?

Belz...

6th April 2007, 04:46 PM

e^n

6th April 2007, 06:36 PM

Ah! So basically, a good photo is one that agrees with you, and a bad photo is the reverse. Got it.

Speculation.

You're exactly right in this sense, here is some more work on the photo I posted before. This is pretty crude but I think it shows that the major damage exist until at least the 17th floor.

Suggestions?

http://xs514.xs.to/xs514/07146/p12663692-horiz.jpg.xs.jpg (http://xs.to/xs.php?h=xs514&d=07146&f=p12663692-horiz.jpg)

Christopher7

6th April 2007, 07:46 PM

So, tell us, O wise one, what does "fully involved" mean ?

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4082/fullyinvolved1kc6.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2410/fullyinvolved8ya1.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1172/fullyinvolved9yz0.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3628/fullyinvolved10wj6.jpg

twinstead

6th April 2007, 08:01 PM

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4082/fullyinvolved1kc6.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2410/fullyinvolved8ya1.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1172/fullyinvolved9yz0.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3628/fullyinvolved10wj6.jpg

So, if it 'looks' fully involved in a picture, it is INDEED fully involved. Otherwise, it is a conspiracy, right?

FactCheck

6th April 2007, 08:12 PM

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

Mercutio

6th April 2007, 08:24 PM

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

twinstead

6th April 2007, 08:26 PM

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

The images of the WTC1 and 2 on fire are especially sobering in that respect. At first glance, they appear to be relatively light. Then, when the realization of scale takes over and one actually realizes just how huge those fires were...

twinstead

6th April 2007, 08:28 PM

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

You don't know that night amplifies reality and makes it easier to judge what is fully involved and what is not?

Amateur...;)

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 08:40 PM

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?
His second picture would look like so much smoke during the day.

chipmunk stew

6th April 2007, 08:49 PM

I noticed the scale is what conspiracy theorists are missing. A fire could be two stories tall but on a 47 story building it looks small to them.

Afb7eUHr64U
"Small, isolated pockets" my foot. That's incredible.

Chris, "fully involved" does not mean "completely engulfed in flame."

It's a technical term. It means:

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

WTC7 was fully involved, and they did not have access to fire streams, so it just burned uncontrollably.

edit: Sorry to spoil the answer.

LashL

6th April 2007, 09:24 PM

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

Exactly what I thought when I saw those self-serving photos)

This looks like a pretty small fire in daylight:

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20061213/sassafraz_fire_061213/20061213/?hub=TorontoHome

More than 130 firefighters battled a five-alarm blaze inside a trendy restaurant in Toronto's tony neighbourhood of Yorkville on Wednesday.

The fire was at hotspot Sassafraz, which has been a longtime favourite hangout for celebrities and scenesters alike, especially during the Toronto International Film Festival.

The blaze started at about 11 a.m. and reached the three-alarm level by noon. It quickly reached four alarm and then five.

Streets in the area were closed for hours, causing traffic backlogs.

Damage to the eatery is estimated at $2.5 million.

Christopher7

7th April 2007, 12:33 AM

Exactly what I thought when I saw those self-serving photos)
This looks like a pretty small fire in daylight:
If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2015/wtc79ks1.jpg

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.

Rrramon

7th April 2007, 12:44 AM

Christopher7

7th April 2007, 12:50 AM

Christopher7, I'm interested to see if you agree with this statement:

Whatever conspirators were involved in 9/11 somehow knew that the debris from the North Tower would cause just enough damage to fool the scientific community into thinking there was nothing suspicious about WTC 7's collapse but not quite enough damage to where explosives would no longer be needed to bring it down.
Nice try at a subject shift.
I have no opinion on that statement.
This thread is about DD/F to WTC 7.

A W Smith

7th April 2007, 12:51 AM

"Fully involved" means the picture was taken at night?

Also means they have to be wooden structures if you look closely at those photos

LashL

7th April 2007, 12:59 AM

If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

Again, with the self-serving photos that do not even come close to showing the extent of the fires and smoke. Why am I not surprised, Chris?

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.

You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.

[/I]From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.

And no, you're wrong about the comparison factors as well. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. You cannot legitimately separate one element from the entirety of the events just because it suits your purposes. Moreover, you are not qualified to make the determinations that you claim to make.

Edit to add: And I notice you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. Why is that, Chris?

Belz...

7th April 2007, 04:55 AM

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4082/fullyinvolved1kc6.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2410/fullyinvolved8ya1.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1172/fullyinvolved9yz0.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3628/fullyinvolved10wj6.jpg

Ah! So "fully involved" means shining at night. Got it.

Have any pictures of day-time "fully involved" building fires ?

No ? Well that explains why 7 WTC wasn't fully involved, doesn't it !!

ETA: Damn you, Mercutio!!

FactCheck

7th April 2007, 10:24 AM

If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2015/wtc79ks1.jpg

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.It caused the fires on multiple floors and took out a whole row of columns in the south side. How in the WORLD do you remove that from the equation?

You're also playing games with words...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members" - Daniel Nigro

No, he didn't say "Fully Involved" but he did say "It had very heavy fire on many floors"

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse" - Chief Cruthers

You only need ONE floor to be on fire and weaken the steel in that floor to cause this building to collapse the way it did. We saw fires coming from that floor. What part of this is hard for CT's to understand?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.h1.jpg

What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Vincent Vega

7th April 2007, 11:32 AM

Did the whole building need to be fully involved in order to collapse? Of course not. A couple of key floors would suffice, say the transfer brace over the Con-Edision substation?

Christopher7

7th April 2007, 01:05 PM

It caused the fires on multiple floors and took out a whole row of columns in the south side. How in the WORLD do you remove that from the equation?
Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

You're also playing games with words...No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members" - Daniel Nigro

No, he didn't say "Fully Involved" but he did say "It had very heavy fire on many floors"

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse" - Chief Cruthers
NIST Apx. L pg 51
"Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13."
PG 26
"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

You only need ONE floor to be on fire and weaken the steel in that floor to cause this building to collapse the way it did. We saw fires coming from that floor. What part of this is hard for CT's to understand?How can you be so sure when NIST isn't?

pg 38
[bolding mine]
"The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components"

chipmunk stew

7th April 2007, 03:08 PM

Once more, with gusto:
Chris, "fully involved" does not mean "completely engulfed in flame."

It's a technical term. It means:

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

WTC7 was fully involved, and they did not have access to fire streams, so it just burned uncontrollably.

LashL

7th April 2007, 08:22 PM

I notice that you have not responded to my post #1839 a mere six posts above, Chris, despite the fact that you responded to a subsequent post made some 9 hours later by another member, so clearly you have been reading this thread since my post to you. For ease of reference, since you appear to have "missed" my post, it is here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2498383&postcount=1839). Please respond.

Have you sent properly representative photos and live videos to any firefighters yet, Chris, to obtain their professional opinions about the extent of the fires at WTC7?

If not, what are you waiting for?

Hamradioguy

7th April 2007, 09:03 PM

One of the reasons the fire service is trying to get away from the term "fully involved" is that it is not particularly descriptive. A "room and contents" fire in a dwelling may be a fully involved room but the BUILDING is not fully involved. No, WTC 7 wasn't "fully involved", but fellow firefighters at WTC 7 described major fires on multiple floors. What part of "major fires on multiple floors" does Christopher7 not understand?

I keep asking CTers to bring their questions and concerns to fire protection engineers and members of the FDNY, and have even offered names and phone numbers. None of them seem to want to do this for some reason. perhaps Christopher7 will be the exception and surprise us all.

jaydeehess

7th April 2007, 10:12 PM

I used no photoshop treatment other than preserving in .tif format to avoid digital loss.

You see what you wish to see and there is nothing I can do about that.

The truth is inescapable regardless of how much you wish to deny it.

MM

I was refering to the side-by-side in which the NIST photo had been deskewed. I believe that you posted it here.

You can see waht you want to see but the fact remains that the damage visible in each photo are consistent with each other.

Do you honestly believe you are not a dogmatist in holding that 9/11 was a MIHOP operation?

FactCheck

7th April 2007, 11:51 PM

Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

I don't care what quote mining you did. The NIST hasn't finished it's report and say so. You are deliberately leaving out this little ditty...

NIST Apx L Pg L-8 (22 on the PDF)

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

Now we have evidence the NIST may not have had. Unless you're blind and/or synaptically challenged you KNOW there was a rip going from the top of building 7 to the bottom which was obscured by smoke...

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

It matches this almost column for column...

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7holeanalysis_d911.JPG

To suggest there is no column damage because of an INTERM report which is over 2 years old now is deceitful.

No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

No, you are trying to say fully involved means something it doesn't. That was pointed out to you. [See post #1833] The building was both fully involved and on fire on multiple floors. At some point the fires produced "heat and smoke in a structure so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied." That means everyone was correct and you are quote mining.

NIST Apx. L pg 51
"Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13."
PG 26
"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

I don't know how many times this has to be told to conspiracy theorists before they understand... In a typical fire, steel exposed to fires expands in all directions. That means a steel truss or beam will also expand toward the perimeter columns and core. That's what causes the steel to sag. It can't go out so it bends down with the help of gravity. It's not only the expanding which causes a collapse but the contraction after the steel cools. So if the 12th floor cooled from fires moving to other areas IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE COLLASE BY FIRE HYPOTHESIS.

How can you be so sure when NIST isn't?

But we are ALL sure there was fires on the 12th floor because the firemen on the scene said so. I also never said I knew exactly how the building fell. In fact on my site I made this clear. Had you bothered to read the link instead of quote mining you would have found this under the drawing I posted...

"One possible collapse hypothesis. The investigation is still ongoing and this may not be the way the building collapsed. I show this only to show a global collapse by fires on lower floors are not the impossibility conspiracy theorists lead you to believe."

I only say, and have said, there is no evidence of explosives and all the evidence in the world of fires which could have caused the collapse the way we see.

pg 38
[bolding mine]
"The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components"

Yes, expanding then contracting would be due to fire. It didn't expand and contract on it's own. Without the fire, like the towers, the building would have survived. That doesn't mean the damage didn't contribute to the collapse.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

Christopher7

8th April 2007, 12:41 AM

Again, with the self-serving photos that do not even come close to showing the extent of the fires and smoke. Why am I not surprised, Chris?
The photographs show the progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 as described in the
NIST Apx. L report. [area of the initiating event]
The fires to the south west part of WTC 7 did not play a roll in the initiating event so i did not list them.

Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.
You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.You can call it as you see it
ICCL

And no, you're wrong about the comparison factors as well. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. You cannot legitimately separate one element from the entirety of the events just because it suits your purposes. Moreover, you are not qualified to make the determinations that you claim to make.
Dude, I'm quoting the NIST report.

Please read the first part of post #1804

Then read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34.

According to NIST, the damage and fires in the west half of the south side of WTC 7,

played no part in the initiating event.

Edit to add: And I notice you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. Why is that, Chris?Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.

LashL

8th April 2007, 01:44 AM

The photographs show the progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 as described in the
NIST Apx. L report. [area of the initiating event]
The fires to the south west part of WTC 7 did not play a roll in the initiating event so i did not list them.

That's BS, Chris. We are talking about a single photograph that you posted which you know full well is not even remotely indicative of the extent of the fires at WTC7 and you presented it in an entirely dishonest manner. This is typical of troofers, and completely anathema to critical thinkers, logical thinkers, and rational people everywhere. You cannot possibly believe that the photo you posted in your post above, to which my post referred and to which you are purporting to respond, is in any way illustrative of the fires at WTC7 and, yet, you refuse to acknowledge that obvious fact.

You can call it as you see it
ICCL

ICCL? Does that mean "I couldn't care less"?

That was in response to: Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.
You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.

Am I reading you correctly here, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the fires; and that you "couldn't care less" about whether the premise upon which you have been relying through hundreds of posts here is entirely baseless or not in the eyes of those who have expertise on the subject? You "couldn't care less" about what people who actually have the knowledge and experience to comment upon these very important issues have to say?

It appears that you are saying that you are not willing to make the slightest bit of effort to obtain the opinions of professional firefighters on the very subject matter that they are particularly well placed to provide valuable insight.

I can only take from this that you are afraid that these educated and knowledgeable professionals will disagree with your uneducated, unprofessional, unsubstantiated posts about the subject matter of their expertise - namely, fires - about which you have been pontificating.

If you are not willing to substantiate your posts above about fires and firefighting, and if you are not willing to put those posts to the test, then you should retract them. Personally, I would rather that you send representative photographs and videos to professional firefighters as I suggested, and post the results here. I have zero confidence that you will do so, for obvious reasons.

Dude, I'm quoting the NIST report.

No, the part of my post that you were supposedly responding to had nothing to do with the NIST report at all. Nice try.

Please read the first part of post #1804 Then read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34. According to NIST, the damage and fires in the west half of the south side of WTC 7,played no part in the initiating event.

You keep citing that post as though it is somehow meaningful to every post on this thread. It is not. It has nothing to do with my post to which you are purporting to respond (and I say "purporting" on purpose, obviously, because you are deliberately not responding in a meaningful fashion. You are merely trying to obfuscate, once again).

Why will you not respond in a meaningful fashion to the post at hand?

Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.

This was your answer in response to the fact that you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. The purpose, of course, was to show that the photos you posted earlier, all taken at night when fires look much, much more dramatic, were not properly representative of large, serious fires.

Once again, when confronted with evidence of the falsity of your representations, you seem to run away from the evidence and pretend that it doesn't matter how badly you have misrepresented events.

Your "duck and weave, move the goalposts, change the subject, provide grossly misrepresentative photos, hope nobody notices, try to distance yourself from it when you get caught out, go back to some other subject and hope nobody notices, ignore the evidence, and whatever you do, never never never actually contact anyone with expertise on the subject matter, and when asked to do so, pretend that it is completely unnecessary and change the subject yet again" style of posting probably works to fool twoofers on the sites that you frequent, but you are not fooling anyone here, Chris.

Christopher7

8th April 2007, 02:50 AM

I don't care what quote mining you did. The NIST hasn't finished it's report and say so. You are deliberately leaving out this little ditty...

NIST Apx L Pg L-8 (22 on the PDF)

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

Now we have evidence the NIST may not have had. Unless you're blind and/or synaptically challenged you KNOW there was a rip going from the top of building 7 to the bottom which was obscured by smoke...
There are no photos of the bottom 10 floors.
There are no photos of the floors between 14 and 27 [that i know of]

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop"

Do you think that nobody noticed a 47 story hole?

This is most likely the 20 story hole that Boyle described.

NIST said: [pg L-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."

To suggest there is no column damage because of an INTERM report which is over 2 years old now is deceitful.I laid out the case for

no core column damage in the area of the initiating event

in post #1804

I don't know how many times this has to be told to conspiracy theorists before they understand... In a typical fire, steel exposed to fires expands in all directions. That means a steel truss or beam will also expand toward the perimeter columns and core. That's what causes the steel to sag. It can't go out so it bends down with the help of gravity. It's not only the expanding which causes a collapse but the contraction after the steel cools. So if the 12th floor cooled from fires moving to other areas IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE COLLASE BY FIRE HYPOTHESIS. I knew that. It's is part of the hypothesis that 'appears possible'.

pg L-38
I1.2 Initiating Components fail due to fire effects:
"...... The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components."
I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...

"One possible collapse hypothesis. The investigation is still ongoing and this may not be the way the building collapsed. I show this only to show a global collapse by fires on lower floors are not the impossibility conspiracy theorists lead you to believe."It has not shown that it is possible, it's just a hypothesis [set of assumptions] which 'appears possible'.

Yes, expanding then contracting would be due to fire. It didn't expand and contract on it's own. Without the fire, like the towers, the building would have survived. That doesn't mean the damage didn't contribute to the collapse.NIST did not include the damage to the perimeter columns in its collapse hypothesis because they know that it had nothing to do with the initiating event.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!Where did that come from? No structural damage to the south side?
Please read post #1804 again, i think you missed something.

Christopher7

8th April 2007, 03:24 AM

That's BS, Chris. We are talking about a single photograph that you posted .....
My bad. I was referring to post #1804
The single photo i posted was of the north side to make the point that although the south west corner was fully involved, the rest of WTC 7 was not fully involved.

ICCL? Does that mean "I couldn't care less"?Yes

That was in response to:
Am I reading you correctly here, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the firesThis is petty semantics, not evidence.

and that you "couldn't care less" about whether the premise upon which you have been relying through hundreds of posts here is entirely baselessMy premise is based on data in the FEMA and NIST reports. The term 'fully involved' was never used.

or not in the eyes of those who have expertise on the subject? You "couldn't care less" about what people who actually have the knowledge and experience to comment upon these very important issues have to say?
This is NOT an important issue, it is a diversion.

The important issue here is:

The debris damage to the west half of the south side had nothing to do with the initiating event.

*

Belz...

8th April 2007, 06:26 AM

Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

It's interesting how you jump in and out of the NIST report, picking up the things you like and discarding the rest.

No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

So you just made it up ?

"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

What part of "many floors" didn't you understand ?

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

AH!! So NOW the firefighters' comments on 7 WTC's situation can be trusted ?

It was said that a 10-20 storey hole existed on the south face, from the ground up. As Factcheck, and many more of us, showed, we have pictures showing a large, vertical opening in the south face of 7 WTC from the top of the building to the lowest point we can observe. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that, if this is indeed the same hole that they had reported, the smoke could have obscured the higher stories from the firefighters view and made the hole seem only 10-20 stories tall ?

I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...

Oh NO! The NIST is not completely sure of everything they've been saying. What ever shall we do ?

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

You're either very poor at analysing complex events, or you are beign purposely obtuse. Though the INITIATING event was most probably fire, in one section of the building, and please pay attention: it does not follow that the damage to the other section of the building had nothing to do with it.

FactCheck

8th April 2007, 09:00 AM

There are no photos of the bottom 10 floors.

You're being dishonest, there are, as the NIST said, interviews with people on the scene who said there was a large hole and multiple fires.

The other dishonesty is your implied suggestion that because you have no photos or videos of the last 10 floors that NO ONE has photos. If anything should be clear to you by now is that there may still exist photos and videos not available on the net. It's a massive failure of critical thinking skills to suggest, if it's not on the then it doesn't exist. Since you can type words in a string which create sentences, I suspect you have a minimum level of intelligence and know this. I can only conclude you are engaged in deception. (Though very poor quality deception.)

There are no photos of the floors between 14 and 27 [that i know of]

Now your being somewhat honest. But leaving out the people on the ground who saw it is still giving only a part of the full story.

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

The smoke was covering the building but as you can see with your own eyes there was one. Unless you think the rip stopped for a few floors then started again.

We draw conclusions from evidence. I can look at a photo of a man with the eyes cut out and conclude the man had eyes. You have NO evidence to suggest the hole stopped and started again. We can safely conclude the rip continued to the 10th floor which IS damage that contributed to the collapse. How? Because of the fires which started when the damage to the building happened is part of the impact damage.

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop"

Yeah, that's what fires do...

Do you think that nobody noticed a 47 story hole?

Maybe not "nobody" by we have video evidence there was a hole MUCH larger than 20 stories and not even in the middle of the building. So there was more damage than at least some firemen could see through the smoke.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

If this is what most of them were looking at most of the afternoon, it wouldn't surprise me if nobody saw the full extent of the damage.

This is most likely the 20 story hole that Boyle described.

We KNOW the hole is larger than what Boyle thought. We KNOW this from video evidence. Boyle was NOT in a helicopter and was next to a massive 47 story building which was on fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

It's not unreasonable to conclude they COULDN'T see the extent of the damage.

NIST said: [pg L-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."

I laid out the case for

no core column damage in the area of the initiating event

in post #1804

I knew that. It's is part of the hypothesis that 'appears possible'.

You CAN'T know the damage to the core columns in question because they were damaged by the fires started by the impact. The core columns may have been in PERFECT shape after the impact. As you point out, it "took a while for that fire to develop" and move to the east side of the building and under the east side penthouse. The evidence it was damaged is the east penthouse which had a fire under it for hours and fell first.

pg L-38
I1.2 Initiating Components fail due to fire effects:
"...... The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components."
I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...

It has not shown that it is possible, it's just a hypothesis [set of assumptions] which 'appears possible'.

That's all any scientist will EVER have because the collapse wasn't a controlled experiment. Science doesn't work the way you imply. That's something anyone with science 101 would know. It also comes from an "INTERM REPORT" which means they haven't agreed on a leading hypothesis yet. In fact it would be a LIE to say anything other than 'could have' and 'appears possible'. This is a very serious lack of education on your part. There is an almost child like ignorance exposed on this fundamental point. After reading this I must seriously suggest you stop debating on this site and take at least ONE science course to refresh yourself. Not even Steven Jones says he KNOWS what caused the collapse. The difference is the NIST has a hypothesis which is based on evidence.

NIST did not include the damage to the perimeter columns in its collapse hypothesis because they know that it had nothing to do with the initiating event.

They don't KNOW anything yet because it's not done yet. I haven't concluded anything either other than the conspiracy theorists lie about the evidence. To that there is much evidence.

http://www.jod911.com

Where did that come from? No structural damage to the south side?
Please read post #1804 again, i think you missed something.

There is photographic evidence that the collapse of the north tower caused the damage. The evidence is on my site...

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

I think you missed something... Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

Christopher7

8th April 2007, 02:19 PM

It's interesting how you jump in and out of the NIST report, picking up the things you like and discarding the rest.
I am quoting the relevant points to the question at hand.
I have not 'disregarded' anything.

So you just made it up ?No, i read Gravy's list and that's what i found.

AH!! So NOW the firefighters' comments on 7 WTC's situation can be trusted ?The difference is in describing what they saw and what three of them thought was going to happen.

It was said that a 10-20 storey hole existed on the south face, from the ground up.Really? Where?

As Factcheck, and many more of us, showed, we have pictures showing a large, vertical opening in the south face of 7 WTC from the top of the building to the lowest point we can observe.Not so. The videos show a hole from the roof to about the 27th floor.
The Spak photo shows a hole from floor 10 to floor 12 with steel ripped out indicating that the hole extended to floor 14.

Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that, if this is indeed the same hole that they had reported, the smoke could have obscured the higher stories from the firefighters view and made the hole seem only 10-20 stories tall ?
Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop."

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

You're either very poor at analysing complex events, or you are beign purposely obtuse. Though the INITIATING event was most probably fire, in one section of the building, and please pay attention: it does not follow that the damage to the other section of the building had nothing to do with it.NIST said:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

The rest of the scenario is about unknown damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario because they know that it was too far away to have any effect on the core columns in the east end of the building.
This is a no brainer.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

FactCheck

8th April 2007, 03:17 PM

I find it interesting that he's willing to "fill in the blank" and suggest foul play without a shred of physical evidence. Yet when presented with video evidence of a hole, he needs every floor on the video to conclude it went to the ground. As if the floors on the missing section were pristine and mean the building was somehow sound as the day it first opened. Pure absurdity... I 'm not 100 percent sure but I bet the NIST will say there was most likely SOME effect from the impact in their final report.

Oh no! I said I'm not sure!!!

What we know for sure:

- The north tower impact caused fires
- The fire spread to the east side
- Fires were seen on the cantilevered core levels
- The east penthouse fell first
- Followed by the west penthouse
- The north face was the last to collapse

Christopher7

8th April 2007, 09:38 PM

I find it interesting that he's willing to "fill in the blank" and suggest foul play without a shred of physical evidence.
So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Yet when presented with video evidence of a hole, he needs every floor on the video to conclude it went to the ground. Yes [vid and/or pic]

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

In any case, the loads were transferred to surrounding columns.

As if the floors on the missing section were pristine and mean the building was somehow sound as the day it first opened. Pure absurdity...I love the way you make absurd statements and note how absurd they are.

I 'm not 100 percent sure but I bet the NIST will say there was most likely SOME effect from the impact in their final report.
Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.
This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.

jaydeehess

8th April 2007, 11:47 PM

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

There was smoke from multiple fires that started when WTC 1 debris hit WTC 7, or are you trying to state that the fires started only sometime later? Huge amounts of dust however were also in that area as those fires developed.
Dust then settled as fires got larger.

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Barely, first you have to show that evidence of foul play was what was being destroyed. So far you only assume it to be so.

Rrramon

9th April 2007, 01:41 AM

I wonder what the conspiracy theorists think would have happened if the collapse of the North Tower hadn't created a hole in WTC7?

Would the conspirators have gone ahead and blown up the building anyway, thus drawing the suspicions of the entire structural engineering community?

Or would they have canceled the detonation, thus living with the risk of having someone later discover the explosives in the building and triggering a federal investigation?

Either way, these sure are some bold conspirators we are dealing with here!

FactCheck

9th April 2007, 07:56 AM

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

You don't even have evidence the physical evidence of explosives was destroyed. All it takes is chemical analysis of ground zero to determine if chemicals used in the production of explosives were found. In any given explosion there are trace elements which can be found. They would be all over GZ and IMPOSSIBLE to remove 100%. The evidence wouldn't only be on the columns.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Again, you haven't proven a single shred of evidence that the evidence was there to be carted away.

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Given that we already see more than was mentioned, the probability has now increased to 'Most likely'. That is the evidence.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

You have no clue what Hayden saw or when he saw it. The smoke could have obscured the hole BEFORE the fire 'developed' fully. My evidence is that YOU can't find a one photo of the building without the hole to the ground.

you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

While you will hope to twist some quote to your insane ends. I have no doubt your vivid imagination will cut around the truth like a puzzle piece. Just as you've doing to me. Heh!

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.
This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.What education do you have of framing? You seem to have none. To suggest the columns didn't suffer ANY effect from the original impact armed only with quote mining shows your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

jaydeehess

9th April 2007, 08:07 AM

Forgot to add that smoke from the fires in WTC 7 that were started when WTC 1 collapsed would also be exiting WTC 7 via the missing windows on the south side of WTC 7. It would be in the vicinity of the greatest damage that the most missing glass would be. The most probable location for fires to start is also proximate to the greatest damage.

To be sure glass was broken even in areas where the steel was undamaged and fires could also have started in areas that suffered lesser damage but the greater probability for fires starting and smokeexiting would be near the locations of greatest damage.

The wind was light but from the NW which meant that dust cleared from Vesey Street slower than in less sheltered areas and that smoke from WTC 7' s south windows was not whisked away as quickly as it would have been had the wind been along Vesey Street (either east or west)

For Chris to suggest that the air must have been clear enough to have an unobstructed view of the south face of WTC 7 is more sophistry on his part.

notheist

9th April 2007, 09:08 AM

It should be noted the collapseod WTC7 was NOT the "into footprint collapse" that is so popular with conspiracy theorist.

The office structure at 30 West Broadway, Fiterman Hall It is located just north of WTC 7. The southern half of the west facade and most of the south facade were severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC 7.

Not exactly a NEAT implosion.

notheist

9th April 2007, 09:13 AM

This I found as an interesting side note

45 Park Place This building is located three blocks north of the WTC site and was initially rated as No Damage when inspected from the exterior. However, subsequent interior inspection revealed that three floor beams were missing from the top story of the building as a result of the landing gear that penetrated the roof following the airplane impact on WTC 2, The rating was subsequently changed to Major Damage.

But there were not planes on 911, Right?

A W Smith

9th April 2007, 09:46 AM

Kent1

9th April 2007, 09:58 AM

You guys might be very interested in this video posted on the web from the DVD "America 9/11".

In the background behind the firefighter is WTC7 on 9/11 before its collapse.

"See where that white smoke is? See this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause ya have to go up in there to put it out...and its already... The structural integrity is not there. Its tough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

jaydeehess

9th April 2007, 10:19 AM

Kent1, that FF certainly seems convinced doesn't he.

aggle-rithm

9th April 2007, 11:07 AM

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

It also suggests a lot of other things, such as, there was an unholy mess at Ground Zero, and the authorities tried to clean it up as quickly as possible because this was an important financial district that needed to be brought back into service.

Not surprisingly, the investigations focused on THOSE TWO BIG BUILDINGS THAT AIRPLANES CRASHED INTO...remember those?

For some reason, you find it suspicious that, in the midst of all the chaos that arose in the wake of these two skyscrapers collapsing, someone didn't say, "Wait a minute: There may have been INSURANCE FRAUD at work here! After all, there are JOOOOs involved! We'd better ignore the testimony of all these emergency workers, who were obviously paid off, and examine the ruins of one of the many buildings that were destroyed as a result of these attacks!"

In the real world, paranoia doesn't reign supreme as it does in your mind. Thank God for that, for otherwise nothing would ever get done.

Belz...

9th April 2007, 02:49 PM

I am quoting the relevant points to the question at hand.
I have not 'disregarded' anything.

See the post right above your by Factcheck.

The difference is in describing what they saw and what three of them thought was going to happen.

Professional opinions don't matter. Got it.

Really? Where?

WHAT ? It's the title of the thread, bucko. 10 stories according to some, and I saw 20 stories a few times, myself. So they didn't know the exact size of the hole. Now we have a pretty good idea.

Not so. The videos show a hole from the roof to about the 27th floor.
The Spak photo shows a hole from floor 10 to floor 12 with steel ripped out indicating that the hole extended to floor 14.

And would it be entirely unreasonable to assume that, sine they seem to be aligned, they are in fact the same hole ?

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

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

Okay, genius. Perhaps you can think of something else that was in the air following 1 WTC's collapse...

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

You seem to think that "initiating event" means the first thing that led to the collapse. The way I see it, it means the first EVENT of the collapse. Otherwise we can go back to the 767 that hit 1 WTC as the initiating event... or maybe the Big Bang.

Since the damage to 7 WTC was caused by 1 WTC's collapse, and since the fires in 7 WTC were certainly caused by said damage, I don't see your problem with it.

The rest of the scenario is about unknown damage to the core columns and the known fires.

Doesn't the unknown suck ?

They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario because they know that it was too far away to have any effect on the core columns in the east end of the building.

This is a no brainer.

That's a lie. You have NO IDEA what kind of effect such a huge amount of damage could have. You have NO IDEA how the damage could progress to the building and you have NO IDEA what the people at NIST actually know at this point in time.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

Because, like you, my thought processes aren't limited to an interim report.

Belz...

9th April 2007, 02:52 PM

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

The destruction of physical evidence is YOUR contention, not ours. The problem with that physical evidence is that it simply can't exist. There is no way explosives could be rigged in that building AND function properly once the fires got going. Any scenario but a "natural" collapse caused by 1 WTC debris damage is contra the evidence.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Circular reasoning.

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Unless they didn't see it.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

Again, genius.

In any case, the loads were transferred to surrounding columns.

Yes, that is exactly how the whole thing started.

Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

Well I guess that makes two of you.

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.

Speculation.

This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.

Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

notheist

9th April 2007, 04:39 PM

"The physical evidence was destroyed"

But what happened to WTC7 was obvious, How much investigation does it take?

It WAS hit by WTC1, there WERE fires, This caused the collapse. Sorry that is the facts, live with it.

No need to keep a pile of smoldering trash around polluting the air and hampering cleanup.

Let say you do keep the pile around and test for explosives, and naturally you do not find any but you do it to appease the controlled demolition nuts. Then you cart the stuff off to a landfill.

And then sometime later another nut comes up with his own little conspiracy theory, Mini Nuke or space death ray, His contention is you have to take him seriously because you did not test for radiation!

Exactly how long do you keep this stuff around? There are new nuts every day and will be for as long as dim-witted amateur sleuths are born. Do we keep the Oklahoma Building around for 15 years? JFKs body for 40.

Do we have to wait for everyone to decide THEY are over it?

notheist

9th April 2007, 05:03 PM

LashL

9th April 2007, 05:27 PM

My bad. I was referring to post #1804
The single photo i posted was of the north side to make the point that although the south west corner was fully involved, the rest of WTC 7 was not fully involved.

You chose a photo that you know full well does not come even remotely close to accurately representing the extent of the fires and damage to make a "point" that ignores reality.

This is petty semantics, not evidence.

It is not semantics at all. Those were your words, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the fires.

I do not understand how you can claim to be interested in serious research and yet completely ignore the sources available to you to obtain important information from relevant professionals on the very subject matter upon which you are opining.

My premise is based on data in the FEMA and NIST reports. The term 'fully involved' was never used.

Now, that is semantics. The item under discussion is the extent of the fires and damage, and is not dependent upon a particular phrase being used in a particular report. Why do you lend credence to the evidence of the firefighters when it suits your purposes and wholly disregard the evidence of the firefighters when it does not suit your purposes?

This is NOT an important issue, it is a diversion.

It is not a diversion at all. The extent of the fires and the damage, obviously, go to the very heart of the premise of this entire thread.

The important issue here is:
The debris damage to the west half of the south side had nothing to do with the initiating event.

You keep saying that, as though by repetition you can cause it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and you are not qualified to make that determination, in any event, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Moreover, you seem to want to separate each of the factors known to have contributed to the demise of the building and parse them out as though none of them had any effect on the others. Reality, however, does not operate in accordance with such artificial attempts to circumvent it.

Christopher7

9th April 2007, 05:40 PM

I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post so i'll just summarize.

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

The destruction of the physical evidence is worthy of it's own thread,

however, this thread is about DD/F to WTC 7.

It is possible that the hole went from the roof to the ground but it would be wrong to assume that it did.

In any case, NIST said:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

The rest of the scenario is about possible damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

chipmunk stew

9th April 2007, 05:58 PM

NIST said:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

The rest of the scenario is about possible damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?
NIST did not discount a connection, either.

You're reading more into that sentence than is warranted. "If the initiating event was due to..." In other words, if the damage to the perimeter moment frame was the primary cause of the initiating event, then "it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

That doesn't shut the door on the possibility of the damage contributing to the initiating event. You're right that NIST did not include the damage in their INTERIM scenario. That's probably because they didn't have enough good data at the time for it to be meaningful, and it was not a necessary component of their hypothesis. Their hypothesis works even without taking this damage into account, but I'd be surprised if their FINAL report does not include a thorough analysis of the impact that this damage did have, either on the initiating event itself or on the manner of the collapse.

LashL

9th April 2007, 06:03 PM

<snip>I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

Arus808

9th April 2007, 06:16 PM

round and round we go>

this thread is boilded down to these simple statements:

C7 - NIst is wrong on their assessments (based on a preliminary report) . There was no large hole in the building
US- NIST interviewed witnesses who were on scene that reported seeing a large hole. NIST guessed the size of the hole based on their testimony.

C7 - The fires weren't fully involved
US - fully involved doesn't necessarily mean the whole building is on fire. reports from firefighters were in relation to the floors they were on as being "Fully involved"

C7 - The firefighters knew the building would collapse
US- did you interview the firefighters to get their opinons.

C7 - a building cant collapse from fire alone
US - fire has been shown to weaken steel; but dont forget about all the damage that the building sustained from two collapsing buildings nearby. NIST attributed part of the collapse to the large hole in the building.

Back up to the top....
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat

FactCheck

9th April 2007, 10:00 PM

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?OK. :)

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

Christopher7

9th April 2007, 10:30 PM

round and round we go>
this thread is boilded down to these simple statements:

C7 - NIst is wrong on their assessments (based on a preliminary report) . There was no large hole in the building
Specifically:

No gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32.
See post #94

US- NIST interviewed witnesses who were on scene that reported seeing a large hole. NIST guessed the size of the hole based on their testimony.There are 4 witness statements in conflict with the 1 witness statement of a 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide in the middle of WTC 7.

C7 - The fires weren't fully involved
US - fully involved doesn't necessarily mean the whole building is on fire. reports from firefighters were in relation to the floors they were on as being "Fully involved"We disagree on weather or not the term 'fully involved' should be used.
How we describe it changes nothing and is of no consequence.

C7 - The firefighters knew the building would collapse
US- did you interview the firefighters to get their opinons.
False statement, stupid question.
Three fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse, one did not.
I don't need to interview them, the FDNY and Firehouse Magazine interviewed them.

C7 - a building cant collapse from fire aloneSpecifically:
A modern high rise steel frame building cannot suffer a global collapse from fire alone IMO.

US - fire has been shown to weaken steel; but dont forget about all the damage that the building sustained from two collapsing buildings nearby. NIST attributed part of the collapse to the large hole in the building.NO, THEY DID NOT!

Read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34.

C7 - There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

C7 - The damage to the south east part of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

See post # 1804

Arus808

9th April 2007, 11:19 PM

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages?

LashL

9th April 2007, 11:49 PM

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages?

No, we certainly do not (and kudos to you for not quoting his most recent nonsense and thereby giving it any prevalance, which is what he's really after). We have the option of ignoring his attempts to avoid the legitimate questions and posts that he has so studiously tried to avoid and we have the option to just keep pointing him back to (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505660&postcount=1877):

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

And we have the option to ignore his attempts to try to draw people into subsequent discussions of his own (illegitimate) framing until he responds to the numerous posts he has deliberately ignored above.

I would really like to see that happen. I would really like to see skeptics here ignore his ridiculous attempts to draw them into his lame attempts at goal post shifting and nonsense, and instead insist that he respond meaningfully to the posts that he has deliberately tried to skate away from, before engaging him in any more of his flights of fancy.

Arus808

10th April 2007, 12:54 AM

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 02:54 AM

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.
I have backed up all three statements with quotes and page references.
Since it is obvious from your remarks that you have not read the statements yet, i will provide them for you again.

Pease read them.

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 03:15 AM

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

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

Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primairly white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

"... the atrium glass was still intact"

FEMA Report pg 20

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."

NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 03:21 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.

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 03:51 AM

According to NIST, the debris damage in the west half of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

NIST 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."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.

MRC_Hans

10th April 2007, 05:37 AM

Belz...

10th April 2007, 05:45 AM

I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post so i'll just summarize.

How convenient.

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.

Only if you assume that said evidence exists.

Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.

No it wouldn't have; because no matter how much 7 WTC steel we'd have showing NO traces of explosives, you'd still be trumpeting your theory despite the evidence.

It is possible that the hole went from the roof to the ground but it would be wrong to assume that it did.

Just for the sake of argument, would you say that this possibility is more likely than its opposite ?

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

I'll just repeat myself, then:

You seem to think that "initiating event" means the first thing that led to the collapse. The way I see it, it means the first EVENT of the collapse. Otherwise we can go back to the 767 that hit 1 WTC as the initiating event... or maybe the Big Bang.

Since the damage to 7 WTC was caused by 1 WTC's collapse, and since the fires in 7 WTC were certainly caused by said damage, I don't see your problem with it.

Belz...

10th April 2007, 05:47 AM

What do you say?

I say I should've read your post first...

Belz...

10th April 2007, 05:49 AM

Specifically:

[B] No gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32.
See post #94

Indeed. Now we have good evidence for a 47-storey hole, instead.

Belz...

10th April 2007, 05:50 AM

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 06:30 PM

What is this nonsense about an initiating event? We have a long row of causes and effects. Where does it start? When OBL was born? When the planes hit the towers? When the debris hit WTC7? When the fire started? When the crucial support failed?

Why does it matter what somebody calls initiating? Which parts of the chain of events do you call in doubt?

Hans

Attention Mod team:
someone has redirected my link to this graphic in post #1884
It now goes to a porn site.
Please correct this

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

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 07:54 PM

Belz: Regarding your response in post #1887
You left off the last line of my statement and missed the point.

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Examination of the physical evidence in the only way to know for sure what happened and why.
NIST has been asked to determine the cause without the physical evidence.
This is like trying to determine what caused a plane crash by talking to witnesses and reviewing documents.

You seem to think that the initiating event is my creation.
Please take the time to read NIST Apx. L pg 30 - 33 where they define what they call the initiating event.

LashL

10th April 2007, 08:27 PM

To reiterate: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505088&postcount=1875)

<snip>I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505820&postcount=1879)

No, we certainly do not (and kudos to you for not quoting his most recent nonsense and thereby giving it any prevalence [corrected typo], which is what he's really after). We have the option of ignoring his attempts to avoid the legitimate questions and posts that he has so studiously tried to avoid and we have the option to just keep pointing him back to(previous post linked) (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505660&postcount=1877)

And we have the option to ignore his attempts to try to draw people into subsequent discussions of his own (illegitimate) framing until he responds to the numerous posts he has deliberately ignored above.

I would really like to see that happen. I would really like to see skeptics here ignore his ridiculous attempts to draw them into his lame attempts at goal post shifting and nonsense, and instead insist that he respond meaningfully to the posts that he has deliberately tried to skate away from (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505885&postcount=1880), before engaging him in any more of his flights of fancy.

Christopher7 says that he has not had enough time to respond to all of the posts and points that he has avoided and/or ignored above.

I suggest that in order to give him all the time he needs, posters refrain from posting additional posts or responses or queries on this thread until he has taken the necessary time to address the points and posts that he has not yet "had time" to respond to.

I suspect that it is the only way that he will ever respond to them instead of just repeating his "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra, and I, for one, would really like to see Christopher7 given all the time he requires to respond meaningfully to the posts and points above.

P.S. Thank you, Arus, FactCheck, and Belz, and thanks in advance to others :)

FactCheck

10th April 2007, 08:56 PM

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Examination of the physical evidence in the only way to know for sure what happened and why.
NIST has been asked to determine the cause without the physical evidence.
This is like trying to determine what caused a plane crash by talking to witnesses and reviewing documents.

That's is a PURE lie.

"There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures." -Dr. W. Gene Corley, head of the WTC Building Performance Assessment Team

Now why don't you do ORIGINAL research as I have and find out who sold the steel. It wasn't the federal government. Not only did they not have anything to do with it but the mayor asked the scrap yards not to sell it. It was local greed that sold the majority of steel. Elliot Spitser was also pressuring the state to remove the steel because the town of fresh kills thought it was a health hazard. How does that fit in with your little federal conspiracy... Elliot Spitser is in on it? The state of NY? The city? Boy this conspiracy is MASSIVE! I think Chis is the only one not involved. Heh!

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 09:17 PM

That's is a PURE lie.
Hogwash

Now why don't you do ORIGINAL research as I have and find out who sold the steel. It wasn't the federal government. Not only did they not have anything to do with it but the mayor asked the scrap yards not to sell it. It was local greed that sold the majority of steel. Elliot Spitser was also pressuring the state to remove the steel because the town of fresh kills thought it was a health hazard. How does that fit in with your little federal conspiracy... Elliot Spitser is in on it? The state of NY? The city? Boy this conspiracy is MASSIVE! I think Chis is the only one not involved. Heh!
Bottom line, the physical evidence was destroyed.

LashL

10th April 2007, 09:44 PM

Lashl, seeing as he will be too lazy to check back within the thread to questions he has ignored and left unanswered, may i suggest that you post these questions again, as a list and repeat that list until each question is answered?

That is a good suggestion, Arus, but I do not wish to do his work for him, as that is exactly what tinhatters expect all of the time. They post nonsense and expect everyone else to do their work for them while they run and hide from doing any work themselves. In this case, it is a simple matter of him scrolling back and locating posts to which he has not responded - it doesn't even involve any intelligence or research on his part (good thing) - so I do not think that this is effort that he should be absolved of. He knows exactly which points and points he's avoided and ignored. (And he knows why - as does everyone else reading this thread - it is because he hasn't any legitimate responses to them.)

Moreover, even if I (or others) were to do his work for him, as usual, he will just ignore it - again, in typical tinhatter fashion - as long as others are responding to his repetitive blather and as long as he has some excuse to continue to blather without addressing the points and posts that he has deliberately avoided.

I would much rather see skeptics here ignore his further posts until he responds meaningfully to the ones that he has deliberately ignored and avoided, and I would much rather see skeptics here require him to actually do more than spout off the same "rinse, lather, repeat" nonsense that he has been spouting for dozens of pages now.

He is, obviously, hoping that posters here will engage him in further discussion on his "rinse, lather, repeat" points and hopes that posters will forget that he has avoided all of the points and posts that he is unable to respond to in a meaningful fashion.

He needs time, he says.

I say we should give him all the time he needs, and not detract from his time by posting further responses to his blather until he has had sufficient time to respond to the posts he's studiously avoided and ignored above.

For reference:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505088&postcount=1875

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2506303&postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505820&postcount=1879

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2505885&postcount=1880

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2506303&postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2508833&postcount=1893

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 09:46 PM

Christopher7 says that he has not had enough time to respond to all of the posts and points that he has avoided and/or ignored above.
There were 12 posts containing 40 points. [more or less]

You desire to ignore the and bury the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports that i have listed by asking infinitely arguable questions.

I have the right to respond to relevant posts and ignore the insults, misrepresentations of what i said, questions that have already been asked and answered and the nitpick and babble tactic.

You refuse to acknowledge the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports in posts #1883, 1884 and 1885

You and others fail to respond to points you cannot deal with in my posts and then insist that i respond to every point in your posts.

LashL

10th April 2007, 09:57 PM

Wrong again, Chris. Nobody insisted that you reply to every point in every post. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again.

Take all the time you need to respond to the points and posts that you deliberately ignored and avoided above - you know which ones I mean, the ones that are obviously relevant to the discussion but that you have chosen to pretend are not. You claimed that you just didn't have the time to respond ~ so go ahead ~ take all the time you require. Even if it is only to claim that a particular point or post is "irrelevant" in your view - that itself will be a response on your part (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) but at least it may provide a basis for further discussion. To simply ignore and avoid obviously relevant posts and points just makes you look bad, and that is what you have been doing for several pages now.

Every time you find yourself confronted with a relevant point that you either know nothing about or you are wilfully blind to, and that you completely unwilling to research for yourself, you pretend that it is "irrelevant" even though it is clearly relevant, or you simply ignore it and hope that others will engage you in the same old tired crap that you have been repeating for dozens of pages.

So, instead of that, take the time you need, do the research required, and respond meaningfully instead of sticking to a "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra.

Take all the time you need.

I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Christopher7

10th April 2007, 10:25 PM

I went over the 12 posts in question.
I have responded to the relevant questions.
Here is my response to one of your statements.
If you think there is another statement or relevant question that deserves a response, please say what it is.

You keep saying that, as though by repetition you can cause it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and you are not qualified to make that determination, in any event, no matter how many times you repeat it.
I did not make that determination, NIST did.

LashL

10th April 2007, 10:41 PM

Like I said:

That is a good suggestion, Arus, but I do not wish to do his work for him, as that is exactly what tinhatters expect all of the time. They post nonsense and expect everyone else to do their work for them while they run and hide from doing any work themselves. In this case, it is a simple matter of him scrolling back and locating posts to which he has not responded - it doesn't even involve any intelligence or research on his part (good thing) - so I do not think that this is effort that he should be absolved of. He knows exactly which points and points he's avoided and ignored. (And he knows why - as does everyone else reading this thread - it is because he hasn't any legitimate responses to them.)

Moreover, even if I (or others) were to do his work for him, as usual, he will just ignore it - again, in typical tinhatter fashion - as long as others are responding to his repetitive blather and as long as he has some excuse to continue to blather without addressing the points and posts that he has deliberately avoided.

I would much rather see skeptics here ignore his further posts until he responds meaningfully to the ones that he has deliberately ignored and avoided, and I would much rather see skeptics here require him to actually do more than spout off the same "rinse, lather, repeat" nonsense that he has been spouting for dozens of pages now.

He is, obviously, hoping that posters here will engage him in further discussion on his "rinse, lather, repeat" points and hopes that posters will forget that he has avoided all of the points and posts that he is unable to respond to in a meaningful fashion.

He needs time, he says.

I say we should give him all the time he needs, and not detract from his time by posting further responses to his blather until he has had sufficient time to respond to the posts he's studiously avoided and ignored above.

For reference:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1875

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1879

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1880

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1893

And

Wrong again, Chris. Nobody insisted that you reply to every point in every post. There's that reading comprehension problem of yours again.

Take all the time you need to respond to the points and posts that you deliberately ignored and avoided above - you know which ones I mean, the ones that are obviously relevant to the discussion but that you have chosen to pretend are not. You claimed that you just didn't have the time to respond ~ so go ahead ~ take all the time you require. Even if it is only to claim that a particular point or post is "irrelevant" in your view - that itself will be a response on your part (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) but at least it may provide a basis for further discussion. To simply ignore and avoid obviously relevant posts and points just makes you look bad, and that is what you have been doing for several pages now.

Every time you find yourself confronted with a relevant point that you either know nothing about or you are wilfully blind to, and that you completely unwilling to research for yourself, you pretend that it is "irrelevant" even though it is clearly relevant, or you simply ignore it and hope that others will engage you in the same old tired crap that you have been repeating for dozens of pages.

So, instead of that, take the time you need, do the research required, and respond meaningfully instead of sticking to a "rinse, lather, repeat" mantra.

Take all the time you need.

I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Take all the time you need.

We will be here when you have taken the time to do the necessary research, and when you have taken the time to educate yourself, and when you have taken the time to respond meaningfully to the posts and points that you have ignored and avoided above.

Until then, I see no reason to respond to your repetitive posts in which you simply reiterate that which you have said dozens of times before, and which have been addressed dozens of times already in this thread.

Start responding meaningfully to other posters instead of just repeating yourself ad nauseam and instead of ignoring legitimate comments and queries.

After all, you're interested in the truth, right? You won't find it by repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over, without doing some actual research and legwork. You've been given the tools to do so on this thread, yet you ignore those, too.

Anyway, as I said, I (and I am sure others) will address the rest of your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

LashL

10th April 2007, 10:45 PM

Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.

The following would have been a more appropriate response, and one which I think is the only appropriate answer to your posts until you respond meaningfully to the posts and points that you have deliberately avoided and ignored above:

I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

Edit to add:
Oh, I see that this post started a new page (#39 on my screen as my settings allow 50 posts per page and this is post #1901, apparently) so I guess I should post these references for those who land on this page without seeing the history:

For reference:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1875

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1879

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1880

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1893

Once again, I (and I am sure others) will address your post once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding above for days.

Christopher7

11th April 2007, 12:55 AM

Actually, I probably should not have posted that lengthy response to your lame post, Christopher7, because I put more effort into it than you have into your posts.
You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.

Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.

I am not going to respond to your demands again.

They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 06:46 AM

No one has responded to posts #1883, 1884 and 1885.
I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports. My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

According to NIST, the debris damage in the west half of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

NIST 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."

NIST makes no mention of lateral stress in its Summary, or anywhere else for that matter.
The rest of the L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios talks about fires.
NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.

---------------------------------

All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?

Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?

Belz...

11th April 2007, 10:09 AM

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.

Again, not necessarily TO YOU, because no matter what evidence is present or lacking, you don't adjust your views and beliefs.

If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

Perhaps, but the whole problem here is the assumption that something is afoot. Namely, that the extensive damage seen to 7 WTC, particularily the colossal hole we see in the south face and the subsequent fires, could not have caused the collapse's initiating event because it happened in a different area of the building. Doesn't it strike you as telling that building experts don't find this odd at all ?

You seem to think that the initiating event is my creation.

No. I think you've hijacked the term to mean something subtly different in order to prove your point.

Belz...

11th April 2007, 10:14 AM

That's is a PURE lie.
Hogwash

Nonsense.

Bottom line, the physical evidence was destroyed.

So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.

You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

Spamming ? Like this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2506097&postcount=1884

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1602 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1282 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082

Etc... ?

Christopher7

11th April 2007, 01:30 PM

I am essentially in agreement with these three posts, based on FEMA and NIST's preliminary reports.
Thank you

My main disagreement, which I consider a nit-pick, is with your conclusion in post #1885:

NIST does not conclude that the damage was not a factor in the initiating event. You are making an unwarranted extrapolation. It's true that NIST does not factor the damage into their initiating event hypothesis. That is very different from concluding that it was not a factor.

NIST did the appropriate thing: given that the nature of the damage was uncertain based on the known data, and given that any part the damage may have played in the initiating event would be (according to their hypothesis) eclipsed by the primary cause of heat-induced failure, they chose to exclude the damage from their analysis of the initiating event altogether.
The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.
---------------------------------

All that being said, and even if we ignore my nit-pick and accept these three posts as stated, what exactly is your point?
OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.
After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.

pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"

Engineers, architects, builders, regulators, steel-workers and -manufacturers, firemen, materials scientists, fire suppression and abatement researchers and manufacturers, etc. are all concerned with the possibility of fire-induced collapse of steel-framed structures. They all know it can, and occasionally does, happen. So why does NIST's hypothesis that WTC7's collapse was primarily a fire-induced failure strike you as so improbable, especially given all the concern that was expressed by knowledgable people at the scene?There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.
The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.
This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

twinstead

11th April 2007, 01:56 PM

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory. I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.

You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.

Believe me, you are having your butt handed to you in this debate, and I say that with all due respect.

Christopher7

11th April 2007, 02:27 PM

BS. That is total conjecture meant to hand wave away serious flaws in your theory.
What i have presented is not a theory, it is a list of facts from the FEMA and NIST reports

I noticed your single quotes around the world knowledgeable, as if you are implying perhaps they were not 'really' knowledgeable as well.
Wrong
chipmunk stew referred to the fire chiefs as knowledgeable rather than experts as many have. [indicating that they had degrees in engineering]
My intent was to point this out, no offence intended.

You use the same arguments over and over and over and over again, as if you expect to suddenly become right after the 354th time. But, even on the 355th time, your argument remains simple biased conjecture based on gut feeling, raw ideology, and a complete misunderstanding of the facts.
Wrong
My summary is a list of facts.

chipmunk stew is a serious debater, you are not.

He addressed the issue directly, you chose to ignore the issue and criticize the use of quotes.

ETA: Belz, gotta go now. I'll get to your post later.

chipmunk stew

11th April 2007, 03:31 PM

Thank you

The only part of the damage that they included in their scenario was the 'possible' damage to the core columns.
They ruled out the possibility that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was the primary cause of the initiating event.
Since they left no stone unturned in their attempt to prove that debris damage and fire caused the collapse, they would have included the south west damage in their scenario if they thought it was a factor in the initiating event.
Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.

OT'ers have repeatedly stated that diesel fuel fires and debris damage caused the collapse of WTC 7.
Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.

After debating here and re-reading parts of the FEMA and NIST reports to check on certain facts, i discovered that there is no evidence to support these claims.
The extent of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the 'final' report.
The recently discovered damage to the south west part of WTC 7 was far from the initiating event and will not change the analysis that has already been done.
Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.

pg 36
"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed the loads around the severed and damaged areas"
What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?

There are no cases where there has been a collapse of a modern high rise steel frame building because of fire.
That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.

The Windsor Tower cannot be use as an example because the support columns were reinforced concrete. The exterior columns of the top 10 stories were light weight [1/4 inch thick] box beams.

This is entirely different from 'all steel' frame high rise buildings.
It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.

The 'knowledgeable' people at the scene had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they had lost hundreds of comrades.
Their concern was based on the damage to the south side of the building.
Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was in danger of collapse, one did not.

Total bollocks. The same concern was present during the Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991:

After the loss of three personnel, hours of unsuccessful attack on
the fire, with several floors simultaneously involved in fire, and a risk of
structural collapse, the Incident Commander withdrew all personnel from
the building due to the uncontrollable risk factors. The fire ultimately
spread up to the 30th floor where it was stopped by ten automatic
sprinklers.(my bolding)
[Source (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf): see page 4]

Look at the pictures at the end of the document to see how close this thing was to collapsing.

LashL

11th April 2007, 08:47 PM

You should stop spamming this thread with demands that i respond to stupid insulting comments.

I am not "spamming" this thread with "demands" at all. I am merely suggesting that your repetitive rinse, lather, repeat nonsense not be addressed over and over again while you continue to ignore legitimate posts and points.

Instead you fill up the page with your endless demands because you cannot accept or challenge the truth of what is in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Again, I have made no demands. Stop being such a drama queen.

I have no problem accepting the truth, unlike members of the inaptly named "truth movement", and I have no problem whatsoever with challenges to the contents of the NIST or FEMA reports.
Again, stop being such a drama queen.

I am not going to respond to your demands again.

You mean that you are not going to respond to legitimate posts and points because you cannot. That is obvious, and that is exactly the point of my previous post.

Again, I have made no demands and, again, you have not responded to the legitimate posts and points above.

They are just a blatent attempt to avoid the summary of what i have established in this thread based on statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

No, my point is clear. It is to suggest that your rinse, lather, repeat posts need not be addressed over and over and over again, unless and until you are willing to address legitimate posts and points. So far, you have refused to do so and you continue to whine about being asked questions or being asked to address points that do not fit within the confines of your artificially narrow definition of events and reality.

I (and I am sure others) will address your repetitive posts (again) once you have addressed the relevant posts and points that you have been studiously avoiding for days.

For reference:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1875

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1879

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1880

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1888

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1893

Christopher7

11th April 2007, 10:10 PM

So it is after every investigation. The bottom line IS that NIST HAD access to it.
NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.

Spamming ? Like this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2506097&postcount=1884

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1602 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1282 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2379864&postcount=1082

Etc... ?There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.

Post #1602 was a revised version and posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 brought all 3 summaries together.

Belz...

12th April 2007, 10:14 AM

NISTNCSTAR1-3B Draft pg 5 on page counter
The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual material from the structure

NCSTAR3-1 Executive Summary PG 2
the steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature because no steel from the building was recovered.

That's not what your previous quote said.

There is a major difference between posing the same demand 6 times on 1 page and posting a summary 5 times in 7 weeks.

Yes, indeed. The differences are that they are pointed at you, and that their posts have not been adressed.

Christopher7

12th April 2007, 03:51 PM

Clearly, they did leave stones unturned, which is why they issued a PRELIMINARY report. They were not satisfied that the analysis was complete. You are correct in saying that they ruled out the SW damage as the PRIMARY cause of the initiating event. You are incorrect in presuming that they have ruled it out as a factor.
I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

Really? Diesel fuel fires? The hypothesis I've heard most often is that of NIST's, which implicates ordinary combustibles. I call straw man.
I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

Perhaps, but I think you're being presumptuous. Unless you've seen a draft of the final report.
We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

What does this quote mean to you? If the loads around the severed and damaged areas were redistributed, that means other, intact parts of the structure picked up the loads. What point are you trying to make with this quote?The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

That's because designers, engineers, and builders are very keen on making sure their buildings remain standing under all likely scenarios. Designers assume that their buildings are going to experience a large fire at some point during the life of the building. It's their job to make sure that the building doesn't fall down under such a scenario.Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

It is of very different construction, and I think trying to do one-to-one comparisons between buildings is fruitless and uninformative. But the Windsor Tower example does show the destructive potential of fire on steel structures.
The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24

chipmunk stew

12th April 2007, 05:17 PM

I disagree. If they thought it was a factor, they would have included it in their scenario IMO.

I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.
However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.
In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.
I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

We disagree on this point. The final report will be out soon and, i hope, settle the issue.

The loads would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, not to the other end of the building.

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.
It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for many hours after firefighting efforts were abandoned.
Some floor support beams sagged as much as 3 feet but they did not collapse.

"the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

pg 24
Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single person who has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.

Belz...

13th April 2007, 05:35 AM

Exactly. WTC 7, like all modern high rise steel frame buildings [in the USA] have a great deal of redundancy built into them so they won't collapse from office fires.

Not so it "WON'T" collapse, but so the chances of it collapsing are minimised.

Also, 7 WTC, as you remember, also sustained structural damage, the extent of which is unknown at this time.

Christopher7

13th April 2007, 06:03 AM

It's not just redundancy. It's passive and active fire suppression, firewalling, and firefighting operations, all of which were compromised in building 7 on 9/11.
The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.

There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

Yes, I know it didn't collapse. BUT EVERY KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE, WHICH MEANS THAT STEEL-FRAMED HIGH-RISES CAN COLLAPSE FROM FIRE.
It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

NIST's hypothesis is entirely plausible according to every single personwho has experience working with fire and steel structures. Your implication that it is not plausible is entirely without merit.Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?

Belz...

13th April 2007, 10:35 AM

It was not in danger of collapsing.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Good. Then you'll agree that someone who thinks it was not in danger of collapsing does not make it so.

twinstead

13th April 2007, 10:39 AM

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?

Frankly, I find your sweeping statements about things you have absolutely no qualifications for or expertise in to be pretty bold too.

chipmunk stew

13th April 2007, 11:41 AM

The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

There was no active fire supression [sprinklers] in WTC 7.

There were no sprinklers on the floors that burned in the Meridian Tower.
When the fire got to the 30th floor, the sprinklers there put the fire out.

Due to inadequate water pressure,
The water pressure problem only applied to the internal firefighting effort.
The fires were continuously fought externally, beginning when the fire was still confined to the 22nd floor.

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

The columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

It was not in danger of collapsing.

It was. If any one of the floors supported by those sagging, twisting beams and girders had collapsed, it would have seriously threatened the ability of the columns to continue to support their loads.

Someone thinking that a building is in danger of collapse does not make it so.

Every single person? Do you have universal knowledge or a source for that bold statement?
I apologize for the hyperbole. I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum that they're in near-unanimous agreement, though.

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.

aggle-rithm

13th April 2007, 11:53 AM

The passive fire protection [fireproofing] in the area of the initiating event was not damaged by debris.

The WTC tragedy has brought a major problem to the forefront -- fireproofing is often not installed correctly, or simply doesn't perform as it should.

the fire burned out of control for 19 hours.

[B]Beams and girders sagged and twisted but they did not collapse.

How much mass did these beams and girders support? More than forty stories? Where they the ONLY means of support?

jaydeehess

13th April 2007, 12:14 PM

I went back over this thread and you are right.
Although some imply that the diesel fuel fires were involved in the collapse, none said that they were.

I believe that I pointed this out to you at least once before myself.

However many here argued [for 20 pages] that it was possible.

yes, and you seem to have a problem delineating 'possible' from 'probable'.

In post #1884 i presented evidence that there was no fire in the north east generator room.

Yes you presented evidence that suggests that a fire in that one room was not occuring. Others presented senarios that would allow a fire there that went undetected. It is a matter of probability though and you again make the definitive statement that there absolutly was no fire in that one room despite the senarios listed by others.

I would add to that:
A 4" pipe is much stronger than a 2 1/2" pipe and a double wall pipe is much stronger than a single wall pipe. The single wall pipe connections in the east part of WTC 7, closer to the impact zone, would have broken before the double wall pipe at the other end of the building.

Given all parameters of stress on the two examples of piping being equal, perhaps. You do not have the information required to make the definitive statement that one pipe should have broken before the other. Besides, the senario requires not a broken pipe but a damaged and leaking one at a pipe joint.

A W Smith

13th April 2007, 03:05 PM

when you say double wall pipe. Are you saying two thicknesses? How would you thread them together? or are you meaning the common practice of sleeving a pipe through a wall penetration? or do you simply mean extra wall thickness "strong (http://www.corrview.com/tech_p_09.htm)" schedule pipe

http://www.corrview.com/tech_p_09.htm

Christopher7

15th April 2007, 12:18 AM

The water pressure problem only applied to the internal firefighting effort.
The fires were continuously fought externally, beginning when the fire was still confined to the 22nd floor.
So what?
The fire burned out of control and spread despite their efforts.
Were it not for the sprinkler system on the 30th floor, it would have burned to the roof.

It was. If any one of the floors supported by those sagging, twisting beams and girders had collapsed, it would have seriously threatened the ability of the columns to continue to support their loads.You are not qualified to make that statement. [without IMO]

The support columns are necessarily bigger and stronger than the girders and beams holding up the floors.
The support columns are firmly attached to the floor girders and beams in all directions.
The collapse of the floor on one side of a column would bend and then break away before it would buckle a vertical column IMO.

I apologize for the hyperbole. I'd be willing to wager a hefty sum that they're in near-unanimous agreement, though.
Have any qualified persons or organizations said that the NIST hypothesis is plausible, based on proper analysis?

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.Correct

Christopher7

15th April 2007, 12:28 AM

How much mass did these beams and girders support? More than forty stories? Where they the ONLY means of support?
The beams and girders supported 1 floor. The columns supported 40 floors.

Christopher7

15th April 2007, 12:49 AM

Yes you presented evidence that suggests that a fire in that one room was not occuring. Others presented senarios that would allow a fire there that went undetected. It is a matter of probability though and you again make the definitive statement that there absolutly was no fire in that one room despite the senarios listed by others.
It's easy to come up with an implausible scenario.

There is NO evidence nor is there any reason to think that there was a diesel fuel fire in the north east part of WTC 7.

If the supply pipes were to fracture and leak, they would have done so in or near the south west generator room, not the north east generator room.

Christopher7

15th April 2007, 01:25 AM

Not so it "WON'T" collapse, but so the chances of it collapsing are minimised.
Because of building codes, no modern steel framed high rise building in the USA has suffered a partial, much less a global collapse due to fire.

Also, 7 WTC, as you remember, also sustained structural damage, the extent of which is unknown at this time.As i pointed out in post #1884

The south east face of WTC 7 was not obscured by smoke between floor 12 and the ground.

No heavy damage was reported in this area.

There is no heavy damage to the south east face of WTC 7, that would have led to damaged core columns, up to floor 16.

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

Belz...

15th April 2007, 06:41 AM

Because of building codes, no modern steel framed high rise building in the USA has suffered a partial, much less a global collapse due to fire.

Irrelevant. Why wouldn't you want to protect your building against fire ? Are you saying that they shouldn't ?

The south east face of WTC 7 was not obscured by smoke between floor 12 and the ground.

Which is where people reported that huge gash, remember ?

No heavy damage was reported in this area.

Well, I guess if a 47-floor hole isn't "heavy" for you, nothing will be.

There is no heavy damage to the south east face of WTC 7, that would have led to damaged core columns, up to floor 16.

So you keep saying. But we DO know that a 110-storey flaming building fell on 7 WTC. We know that a large hole was ripped open in its south face. We know that it caught fire subsequently, and that it finally collapsed.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

Christopher7

15th April 2007, 03:55 PM

Which is where people reported that huge gash, remember ?

There were no reports of a huge gash west of center other than the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, which has been shown to be incorrect in post #1883

Well, I guess if a 47-floor hole isn't "heavy" for you, nothing will be.
The [assumed to be] 47 story hole was west of center around columns [Spak] 5 & 6.

So you keep saying. But we DO know that a 110-storey flaming building fell on 7 WTC. We know that a large hole was ripped open in its south face. We know that it caught fire subsequently, and that it finally collapsed.The large hole was in the west half of the south side.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.
The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

twinstead

15th April 2007, 05:00 PM

I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.
The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

I think his question is how are you able to claim something as fact when you have no relevant qualifications to do so? Exactly what makes your observation of what happened that day better than the dozens of people at the scene?

In other words, 'where do you get off'?

Christopher7

16th April 2007, 01:36 AM

I think his question is how are you able to claim something as fact when you have no relevant qualifications to do so? Exactly what makes your observation of what happened that day better than the dozens of people at the scene?
In other words, 'where do you get off'?
I am quoting the people who were there and what they reported to FEMA and NIST.
My conclusions are based on what they said along with data about WTC 7 that FEMA and NIST gathered and published in their reports.
If you had read posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 you would know this.

I have laid out the facts as stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

If you think that a 60 to 80 foot wide gouge, floor 10 to the ground can co-exist with 'no heavy debris in lobby areas' and 'atrium glass intact' and 'only damage to south facade on 9th floor was at the south west corner',
Then so be it.

After reading post #1884, do you still think that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event?

The experts at NIST did not say or indicate that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played a roll in the initiating event that led to the collapse.
They did say "If the initiating event was due to damage to the moment perimeter frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."
You can say 'it's still possible' if you want but there is nothing to back up that statement.

This isn't about my qualifications, it's about the facts in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Please read the facts [with references] and make up your own mind.

Belz...

16th April 2007, 05:43 AM

There were no reports of a huge gash west of center other than the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, which has been shown to be incorrect in post #1883

Has it, now ?

The [assumed to be] 47 story hole was west of center around columns [Spak] 5 & 6.

The large hole was in the west half of the south side.

Well, we can clearly see the top and bottom of the hole. Do you agree that the damage exists ?

I know you think it can't be the same hole that was described, but do you at least acknowledge that it exists ?

I like the way you throw in 'fire' without the 'diesel fuel'.

I like the way that diesel was not the only possible source of fire in the building, or do you disagree with that as well ?

The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario.

Again:

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

chipmunk stew

16th April 2007, 06:19 AM

The fact is, your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity, which is not enough to dismiss the hypothesis developed by NIST.
Correct
Thank you for acknowledging that. As far as I'm concerned, then, there's nothing more to discuss with you until the report is finalized.

chipmunk stew

16th April 2007, 06:24 AM

I am quoting the people who were there and what they reported to FEMA and NIST.
My conclusions are based on what they said along with data about WTC 7 that FEMA and NIST gathered and published in their reports.
If you had read posts #1883, 1884 and 1885 you would know this.

I have laid out the facts as stated in the FEMA and NIST reports.

If you think that a 60 to 80 foot wide gouge, floor 10 to the ground can co-exist with 'no heavy debris in lobby areas' and 'atrium glass intact' and 'only damage to south facade on 9th floor was at the south west corner',
Then so be it.

After reading post #1884, do you still think that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event?

The experts at NIST did not say or indicate that the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played a roll in the initiating event that led to the collapse.
They did say "If the initiating event was due to damage to the moment perimeter frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."
You can say 'it's still possible' if you want but there is nothing to back up that statement.

This isn't about my qualifications, it's about the facts in the FEMA and NIST reports.

Please read the facts [with references] and make up your own mind.
Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "caused" from "played a role in"?

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "interim report based on incomplete data and tentative assumptions" from "final report based on thorough data and established facts"?

Christopher7

17th April 2007, 12:03 AM

Well, we can clearly see the top and bottom of the hole. Do you agree that the damage exists ?

I know you think it can't be the same hole that was described, but do you at least acknowledge that it exists ?
I have said it is possible the two holes were connected but it would be wrong to assume they were.
In any case, the damage is west of center and was not a factor in the initiating event IMO.

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?Show me where i said the fire and the collapse were not related.

Based on my knowledge of framing, i don't think the damage to the south west perimeter frame had anything to do with the initiating event in the east central part of WTC 7.
The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

My statement is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.

They ruled out the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 as causing the initiating event in their Collapse Initiation Scenarios. [pg L-36]

If they thought that damage played any roll in the initiating event, they would have said so IMO.

What expertise do you have that leads you to believe
the south west perimeter damage contributed to the initiating event?

aggle-rithm

17th April 2007, 07:34 AM

Based on my knowledge of framing, i don't think the damage to the south west perimeter frame had anything to do with the initiating event in the east central part of WTC 7.
The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

Your knowledge of framing, as has already been pointed out, is irrelevant.

Knowledge of framing has existed for hundreds of years. The expertise necessary to build something like WTC7 has only been around for a few decades.

Belz...

17th April 2007, 08:06 AM

I have said it is possible the two holes were connected but it would be wrong to assume they were.

"Wrong" ? You mean "incorrect" ? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they were. But even if they weren't, the point stands.

In any case, the damage is west of center and was not a factor in the initiating event IMO.

If the damage to the west of the south face was the only damage it sustained from 1 WTC's collapse, then it would be foolish to assume that it wasn't a factor.

Show me where i said the fire and the collapse were not related.

Let's try it again:

How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

The only force at work here is gravity, pulling straight down.
Lateral stress caused by the missing corner columns would pull on the entire building.

Again, I think you're simplifying the whole deal.

What expertise do you have that leads you to believe
the south west perimeter damage contributed to the initiating event?

I thought you said we were better than the experts ?

Again, if no other damage was done to 7 WTC than this perimeter damage, then it's safe to assume that said damage led to the initiating event.

Damage -> more damage -> fire -> more damage -> collapse.

Christopher7

17th April 2007, 04:38 PM

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "caused" from "played a role in"?
No problem. The debris damage did not cause the collapse.

There is no reason to believe that it played a roll in the collapse.

Why is it that you seem to have such difficulty separating the concept "interim report based on incomplete data and tentative assumptions" from "final report based on thorough data and established facts"?Many facts have already been established.

The data on the location of the diesel fuel tanks, pumps and supply pipes is not going to change in the final report.

The timeline of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 is not going to change in the final report.

There is a remote possibility that the data about debris damage to the east half of WTC 7 will change in the final report. [see post #1884]

The collapse started under the east penthouse. This will not change in the final report.

They will, no doubt, revise the collapse scenario in the final report.

Christopher7

17th April 2007, 07:02 PM

Your knowledge of framing, as has already been pointed out, is irrelevant.
In your opinion.

Knowledge of framing has existed for hundreds of years. The expertise necessary to build something like WTC7 has only been around for a few decades.So what? The principles of framing are the same for wood or steel.
Who are you to say that they are not?

I worked on a house that used telephone poles for columns, 4 x 16 beams and 2 x 12 floor joists.
The principles and the framing are the basically same as in WTC 7.

Belz...

18th April 2007, 05:39 AM

No problem. The debris damage did not cause the collapse.

You say that with remarkable certainty.

There is no reason to believe that it played a roll in the collapse.

Yes. The building collapsed after it was hit by massive debris that set it on fire.

Christopher7

18th April 2007, 04:08 PM

"Wrong" ? You mean "incorrect" ? I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they were. But even if they weren't, the point stands.
There is no evidence of the hole between floor 15 and 26 or floor 10 and the ground.
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."
How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?
His concern was the damage to the south west corner.
You can assume Hayden missed this little detail if you like.

If the damage to the west of the south face was the only damage it sustained from 1 WTC's collapse, then it would be foolish to assume that it wasn't a factor.
You've got that backwards.

The experts at NIST mentioned the damage to the west half of WTC 7 but did NOT include it in their collapse scenario
How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other people's expertise, that the physical damage and the fire and the collapse are NOT related ?

You keep saying 'contra' other people's expertise.

NIST specifically ruled out the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.
Nowhere did they say it contributed to the collapse.

Again, I think you're simplifying the whole deal.I have put it in simple terms so that people who don't know framing can understand.

I thought you said we were better than the experts ?No

Christopher7

19th April 2007, 01:28 AM

You say that with remarkable certainty.
Do you know of a qualified person of group that disagrees?

Yes. The building collapsed after it was hit by massive debris that set it on fire.OT'ers have been implying that the massive debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 caused or played a role in the collapse.
There is NOTHING to support that contention.

Belz...

19th April 2007, 05:39 AM

There is no evidence of the hole between floor 15 and 26 or floor 10 and the ground.
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."
How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?

You mean you DIDN'T see that thick column of smoke ?

You've got that backwards.

Really ?

You keep saying 'contra' other people's expertise.

I'm sorry if you don't know what that word means.

NIST specifically ruled out the damage to the south west part of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.
Nowhere did they say it contributed to the collapse.

Then pray tell, what is the cause of the initiating event ? Fire ? What caused the fire ?

I have put it in simple terms so that people who don't know framing can understand.

Yes, I'm sure those carpenters at the WTC understood. :rolleyes:

Belz...

19th April 2007, 05:42 AM

OT'ers have been implying that the massive debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 caused or played a role in the collapse.
There is NOTHING to support that contention.

Funny. This is like finding a stabbing victim, then finding a photograph of, say, Eddie Murphy, with a knife, stalking the victim, but since we didn't see that actual stabbing, there is NOTHING to support the contention that Eddie did it.

Again, I think you're simplifying the whole deal.

I have put it in simple terms so that people who don't know framing can understand.

I didn't say you were speaking with small words. I said you were simplifying the event.

I thought you said we were better than the experts ?
No

Well, you said YOU did.

TruthSeeker1234

19th April 2007, 12:24 PM

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Consider this composite made by Andrew Lowe Watson. It appears to show (yet another) cylindrical vertical cutout from a building on 9/11. What is the official line on this? Falling debris from WTC1 did it? Do you guys honestly believe that?

Arus808

19th April 2007, 01:00 PM

Belz...

19th April 2007, 01:03 PM

Consider this composite made by Andrew Lowe Watson. It appears to show (yet another) cylindrical vertical cutout from a building on 9/11. What is the official line on this? Falling debris from WTC1 did it? Do you guys honestly believe that?

Why not ? Are you mounting an argument from incredulity ?

And how do you know it's symmetrical ?

FactCheck

19th April 2007, 01:46 PM

Do you know of a qualified person of group that disagrees?

OT'ers have been implying that the massive debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 caused or played a role in the collapse.
There is NOTHING to support that contention.
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

HAHAHA!!!

TruthSeeker1234

19th April 2007, 08:21 PM

Can i point it out ???

Pull the other one!

Look at the top of the building. There are two gouges that appear semi-cylindrical. Then look directly below that. There is a black gash that runs straight down the building. No, I'm not being incredulous. I'm asking you OCTs what you think this is, and to state whether or not you honestly think that such a thing could arise due to debris impact.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Arkan_Wolfshade

19th April 2007, 08:29 PM

Christopher7

19th April 2007, 11:43 PM

You mean you DIDN'T see that thick column of smoke ?
I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
Neither can you.

I'm sorry if you don't know what that word means.You said my claim that
the damage to the south west face did not play a roll in the initiating event
was contra [opposite] other peoples expertise.
This is not true.
Apparently, you are the one who doesn't know contra from consistent.

Then pray tell, what is the cause of the initiating event ? Fire ? What caused the fire ?You are trying to say that the debris damage caused the fires and the fires caused the initiating event, therefore the debris damage played a roll in the initiating event.
No, that's just word spin.

The debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did NOT contribute to the initiating event.

Christopher7

20th April 2007, 12:00 AM

Funny. This is like finding a stabbing victim, then finding a photograph of, say, Eddie Murphy, with a knife, stalking the victim, but since we didn't see that actual stabbing, there is NOTHING to support the contention that Eddie did it.
Oh spinner of silly similes,
There is NOTHING to support the contention that debris damage to the south west side of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event.

Well, you said YOU did.Where?

Christopher7

20th April 2007, 12:11 AM

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

HAHAHA!!!
How childish is that?

NIST said:

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas."

The amount of damage will not change this analysis the result.

Pardalis

20th April 2007, 12:13 AM

Almost fifty pages...

boloboffin

20th April 2007, 12:52 AM

Could I make an announcement about my lastest WTC 7 video in here?

Eq4xzynxUIE

Thank you for your support.

Please, make any comments about it in my "Debunking Videos" thread. Gracias!

Christopher7

20th April 2007, 02:13 AM

Could I make an announcement about my lastest WTC 7 video in here?
WTC 7 was NOT leaning.
Compare to edge of Vorizon building on left.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9955/sw4ds3.jpg

Belz...

20th April 2007, 05:51 AM

Look at the top of the building. There are two gouges that appear semi-cylindrical.

You're imagining things, Seeker. They appear vertical, but only such an astute observer as you could spot something on a picture that no one else can see.

Then look directly below that. There is a black gash that runs straight down the building.

Yes, and I have no idea what shapes it has when looked from above.

No, I'm not being incredulous. I'm asking you OCTs what you think this is, and to state whether or not you honestly think that such a thing could arise due to debris impact.

Why not ? Do you know how massive some of those 1 WTC chunks were ? They had just fallen 50 stories.

Belz...

20th April 2007, 05:53 AM

I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
Neither can you.

Precisely my point.

You said my claim that
the damage to the south west face did not play a roll in the initiating event
was contra [opposite] other peoples expertise.
This is not true.
Apparently, you are the one who doesn't know contra from consistent.

Oh, so you think I DIDN'T mean it when I said "contra" ? Sorry to dissapoint.

You are trying to say that the debris damage caused the fires and the fires caused the initiating event, therefore the debris damage played a roll in the initiating event.
No, that's just word spin.

No, it's not. You said it had NOTHING to do with the initiating event. If that's not what you said, what do you mean by "contribute" ?

Do you or do you not agree with debris->fire->collapse ?

Belz...

20th April 2007, 05:54 AM

Oh spinner of silly similes,
There is NOTHING to support the contention that debris damage to the south west side of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event.

Exactly. Eddie Murphy didn't stab that victim.

Where?

You said you knew better than those on the scene. Arguably, firefighters know what they're talking about when it involves building fires.

WTC 7 was NOT leaning.
Compare to edge of Vorizon building on left.

Ah, yes, I'm sure you can tell on that picture. :rolleyes:

FactCheck

20th April 2007, 08:50 AM

WTC 7 was NOT leaning.
Compare to edge of Vorizon building on left.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/9955/sw4ds3.jpg

More one dimentional thinking. THIS photo shows the building wasn't leaning on [this] side of the building and at [this] time during the event therefore the building NEVER leaned on ANY side and at ANY time...

Zero critical thinking skills...

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

What about during the collapse? It's OBVIOUSLY leaning to the south. More than one firemen said the building was leaning. They put a transit on the building and knew it was leaning. Does the fire department put transits on ALL buildings just for the hell of it? Or did they put a transit on the building because they saw it leaning? Do they put transits on buildings without knowing how to use them?

You have nothing.

Belz...

20th April 2007, 10:58 AM

Zero critical thinking skills...

Judging from that picture, which I've never seen before, it seems as though we can't see our vaunted 47-floor hole.

Or am I suddenly blind ?

FactCheck

20th April 2007, 11:24 AM

Judging from that picture, which I've never seen before, it seems as though we can't see our vaunted 47-floor hole.

Or am I suddenly blind ?

That depends on the definition of blind...

That's the NORTH side so the hole is on the other side. The side the building is LEANING ON.

aggle-rithm

20th April 2007, 11:33 AM

JimBenArm

20th April 2007, 12:15 PM

So why is there so much concrete in the Empire State Building, if the knowledge to build structures like WTC7 has been around for centuries?

Could it be that the problems of load distribution become more complicated as you scale up, such that an uneducated manual laborer wouldn't necessarily understand all the issues involved?
Now, come on. Chris told you framing is framing, so this is obviously not the case!

Belz...

20th April 2007, 01:04 PM

That depends on the definition of blind...

That's the NORTH side so the hole is on the other side. The side the building is LEANING ON.

Oh! Silly me. Thanks for the correction.

I was wondering how someone managed to be on the south side while the thing was falling down.

Why hasn't this picture been seen before ?

Newtons Bit

20th April 2007, 06:46 PM

In your opinion.

So what? The principles of framing are the same for wood or steel.
Who are you to say that they are not?

I worked on a house that used telephone poles for columns, 4 x 16 beams and 2 x 12 floor joists.
The principles and the framing are the basically same as in WTC 7.

They're not the same. They're really, really, not the same. I think a couple more realy's are needed there too. As a structural engineer, I feel I'm qualified to say that. You INSTALL things. How the hell do you know WHY it was designed a specific way? You do not understand why certain sizes are needed, nor the math behind it. I have contractors and architects and old friends from highschool who work construction tell me how they would do things. My response is typically :jaw-dropp I had to go out to the jobsite and argue with a thickheaded hungover contractor who say "Well, I've never installed tie-downs on huge propane tanks that are next to schools before, so why should I start", while he's sitting in a seismic zone (that he doesn't even know is a seismic zone). These are the same people who piss in curing concrete and doesn't understand why we might get pissed off.

The same applies here. :jaw-dropp

Good, I'm glad I got that out of my system.

Christopher7

21st April 2007, 12:06 AM

Precisely my point.
No, no, ...... precisely my point.

Oh, so you think I DIDN'T mean it when I said "contra" ? Sorry to dissapoint.No, i think you don't know what "contra" means.

No, it's not. You said it had NOTHING to do with the initiating event. If that's not what you said, what do you mean by "contribute" ?Fair question, point taken.

How about; "the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played no significant roll in the initiating event."

Do you or do you not agree with debris->fire->collapse ?I'm down with the "debris->fire" part but

I have a problem with the "fire->collapse" part.

Christopher7

21st April 2007, 12:53 AM

THIS photo shows the building wasn't leaning on [this] side of the building and at [this] time during the event therefore the building NEVER leaned on ANY side and at ANY time...
You just said that, i never have.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

What about during the collapse? It's OBVIOUSLY leaning to the south. More than one firemen said the building was leaning.There was a guy who worked nearby who said he thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The guy in the video who says WTC 7 was leaning, may or may not be a fireman.

So where do you get "more than one fireman" ?

NIST did not say anything about the building leaning.

That would have been a major factor and it would have been mentioned [at length], if it had existed.

NIST interviewed over 100 people.

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

They put a transit on the building and knew it was leaning. Does the fire department put transits on ALL buildings just for the hell of it? Or did they put a transit on the building because they saw it leaning? Do they put transits on buildings without knowing how to use them?Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

He did not say the building was leaning!

Christopher7

22nd April 2007, 01:19 AM

They're not the same. As a structural engineer, I feel I'm qualified to say that.
Are you more qualified than the structural engineers at NIST?

They ruled out the debris damage to the SE face of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.

They did NOT say the damage to the SW face contributed to the initiating event.

Do you think the damage to the SW face of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event?

If so, why?

Newtons Bit

22nd April 2007, 09:09 AM

Are you more qualified than the structural engineers at NIST?

They ruled out the debris damage to the SE face of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.

They did NOT say the damage to the SW face contributed to the initiating event.

Do you think the damage to the SW face of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event?

If so, why?

Changing the subject 101. You said the principles in framing are the same in WTC as they are in a wood house. I say, as an engineer, they're not, you try to change the subject back to damage.

You can argue all you want about what NIST does and doesn't say. That's fine. But some of us draw the line when someone says something like,"wood hosues and steel skyscrapers are framed the same".

They're not the same. And you'll never understand why until you get a degree in engineering or at least take a few classes in engineering and learn how the MATH works.

FactCheck

22nd April 2007, 09:28 AM

You just said that, i never have.

There was a guy who worked nearby who said he thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The guy in the video who says WTC 7 was leaning, may or may not be a fireman.

So where do you get "more than one fireman" ?

NIST did not say anything about the building leaning.

That would have been a major factor and it would have been mentioned [at length], if it had existed.

NIST interviewed over 100 people.

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

He did not say the building was leaning!

WHY would ANYONE put a transit on a building if it wasn't visibly leaning??? Do you think they put a transit ALL calls?

What would a transit tell firemen the building is doing if it wasn't leaning to suggest it was going to collapse???

How could they get the transit past the lower floor fires to put it on the buldge??? Wouldn't that be absurdly dangerous???

Who do you think that person is in the video??? Why would he say "You know we can handle just about anything"??? Who is the "WE" he includes himself with?

USE YOUR HEAD, this isn't rocket science.

FactCheck

22nd April 2007, 09:42 AM

Changing the subject 101. You said the principles in framing are the same in WTC as they are in a wood house. I say, as an engineer, they're not, you try to change the subject back to damage.

You can argue all you want about what NIST does and doesn't say. That's fine. But some of us draw the line when someone says something like,"wood hosues and steel skyscrapers are framed the same".

They're not the same. And you'll never understand why until you get a degree in engineering or at least take a few classes in engineering and learn how the MATH works.

I respectfully disagree, I don't have an engineering degree yet I understand the buildings are VERY different. I think he is being purposefully difficult.

He knows there were perimeter columns and core columns with long span floors holding them in place just like the towers.

He continues to hold up an interim report as it it were the final word from the NIST. I have absolutely NO doubt he is purposefully trying to mislead.

Newtons Bit

22nd April 2007, 12:50 PM

I'm not referring to the differences between WTC1&2 and 7. Those are vastly different to start with. He's saying that because he knows how to frame wood buildings, he knows how steel skyscrapers work.

I don't work on skyscrapers at my job. I do at the most mid-rise buildings (less than 15 stories). Even the difference between a skyscraper and a mid-rise is vast but they at least comprise of the same structural systems. The principles in the framing, between steel skyscrapers and wood buildings, ARE NOT THE SAME.

FactCheck

22nd April 2007, 06:54 PM

Oh! Silly me. Thanks for the correction.

I was wondering how someone managed to be on the south side while the thing was falling down.

Why hasn't this picture been seen before ?OK, nice and slow...

I took this screen shot and put it on my site LOOONG ago. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it wasn't around. The video has been around even longer. I suspect you haven't seen it because all you have been going to are conspiracy theory sites. You obviously haven't gone to my site. I suggest you look over my site for other evidence conspiracy theorists haven't shown you.

TruthSeeker1234

22nd April 2007, 09:24 PM

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear. You need to explain why it is so straight.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Corsair 115

22nd April 2007, 09:33 PM

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear.So you are in fact saying that apparent gouge is some kind of damage to the building? Let's turn this around: if that gouge wasn't caused by falling debris, what do you think caused it?

Unfit4Command

22nd April 2007, 09:42 PM

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear. You need to explain why it is so straight.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Laser beams from outer space obviously caused it. There's no way any very fast moving debris from the North Tower could have caused that. Laser beams is the most logical explaination for everything.
For example, the bulge? Laser beams. The leaning of WTC 7? Laser beams, the SW corner damage? Laser beams. Any damage dealt to any of the buildings on 9/11? Laser beams.

defaultdotxbe

22nd April 2007, 09:44 PM

im not entirely convinced thats even damage to the building, it could be some weird reflection or video artifact

are there any other images of it? or just from that one camera?

jaydeehess

22nd April 2007, 09:45 PM

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

Quote:
They put a transit on the building and knew it was leaning. Does the fire department put transits on ALL buildings just for the hell of it? Or did they put a transit on the building because they saw it leaning? Do they put transits on buildings without knowing how to use them?
Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."
He did not say the building was leaning!

Simple geometry Chris.

Imagine a line of fixed length and fixed at one end. Now imagine a curve in one part of that line while the total length following that , now partly curved, line remains the same as before. What is the straight line distance from the fixed end to the other end?
a)longer than it originally was?
b)shorter?
c)the same?

If there was a bulge then unless the perimeter columns suddenly gained more steel, the top of the building above that bulge was closer to the ground than it originally was. there would be a slope to all floors above the bulge. Is that not a 'lean'.
something like this;

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12959462c2fc4a30e1.jpg

Gravy

22nd April 2007, 10:03 PM

OK, nice and slow...

I took this screen shot and put it on my site LOOONG ago. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it wasn't around. The video has been around even longer. I suspect you haven't seen it because all you have been going to are conspiracy theory sites. You obviously haven't gone to my site. I suggest you look over my site for other evidence conspiracy theorists haven't shown you.(psst: Belz is a debunker.)

Gravy

22nd April 2007, 10:09 PM

im not entirely convinced thats even damage to the building, it could be some weird reflection or video artifact

are there any other images of it? or just from that one camera?Several videos make it clear that it is damage. The straight section is a window bay between columns. You can see the damage around it where the granite facing has been knocked off. The building got hammered.

Christopher7

22nd April 2007, 10:24 PM

Changing the subject 101. You said the principles in framing are the same in WTC as they are in a wood house. I say, as an engineer, they're not, you try to change the subject back to damage.
Columns, girders and beams do the same job weather wood or steel.
The principles are the same.

The subject is weather or not the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event.

Your claim of superior knowledge carries no weight on a forum.

You can argue all you want about what NIST does and doesn't say. That's fine. But some of us draw the line when someone says something like,"wood hosues and steel skyscrapers are framed the same".

They're not the same. And you'll never understand why until you get a degree in engineering or at least take a few classes in engineering and learn how the MATH works.What part of principles [the basic way in which something works] don't you understand?

Gravy

22nd April 2007, 10:46 PM

Gosh, if only some organization of engineers and scientists would study these things! Why won't they, Chris?

TruthSeeker1234

22nd April 2007, 10:47 PM

im not entirely convinced thats even damage to the building, it could be some weird reflection or video artifact

are there any other images of it? or just from that one camera?

Even NIST marks the damage there, remember? They just forgot to tell us that it was a surgical cut.

Weird reflection? Of what? Video artifact? Yeah right. Remember this is from a video, there are many frames.

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.

TruthSeeker1234

22nd April 2007, 10:48 PM

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Unfit4Command

22nd April 2007, 10:49 PM

Even NIST marks the damage there, remember? They just forgot to tell us that it was a surgical cut.

Weird reflection? Of what? Video artifact? Yeah right. Remember this is from a video, there are many frames.

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.

I already told you, laser beams caused that damage.

Christopher7

22nd April 2007, 11:21 PM

WHY would ANYONE put a transit on a building if it wasn't visibly leaning??? Do you think they put a transit ALL calls?
If it was visibly leaning, they would not have to put a transit on it to say for sure.

USE YOUR HEAD, this isn't rocket science.Indeed

Christopher7

22nd April 2007, 11:41 PM

Laser beams from outer space obviously caused it. There's no way any very fast moving debris from the North Tower could have caused that. Laser beams is the most logical explaination for everything.
For example, the bulge? Laser beams. The leaning of WTC 7? Laser beams, the SW corner damage? Laser beams. Any damage dealt to any of the buildings on 9/11? Laser beams.
X-ray buda and the lizard people no doubt.

Christopher7

22nd April 2007, 11:46 PM

Simple geometry Chris.

Imagine a line of fixed length and fixed at one end. Now imagine a curve in one part of that line while the total length following that , now partly curved, line remains the same as before. What is the straight line distance from the fixed end to the other end?
a)longer than it originally was?
b)shorter?
c)the same?

If there was a bulge then unless the perimeter columns suddenly gained more steel, the top of the building above that bulge was closer to the ground than it originally was. there would be a slope to all floors above the bulge. Is that not a 'lean'.
something like this;

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12959462c2fc4a30e1.jpg
We agree.

The corner was sagging.

The building was NOT leaning

Christopher7

23rd April 2007, 12:24 AM

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?
The use of thermite or cutter charges doesn't make any sense.
The hole is nowhere near the initiating event.

The upper [jagged part] is debris damage. IMO

The straight part could be debris damage but i'm leaning toward X-B & the LP
[i'm not sure]

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.I find it odd that they released a some photos of WTC 7 in the FEMA and NIST reports, and withheld others.

Belz...

23rd April 2007, 05:39 AM

No, no, ...... precisely my point.

Actually, no. You have a short memory.

You said: "How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?"

I said that there was a thick column of smoke. I implied that this smoke could have prevented him from seeing the whole thing. It was speculation, but reasonable speculation.

Then you retort "he couldn't see through the smoke, and neither can you". Of course! That's MY whole point, and then you say:

No, no, ...... precisely my point.

Humm...

No, i think you don't know what "contra" means.

con·tra1 /ˈkɒntrə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-truh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–preposition 1. against; in opposition or contrast to: Consider the problems of the teenager contra those of the adult.
–adverb 2. contrariwise; on or to the contrary.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contra

How is that different from how I used it ?

How about; "the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played no significant roll in the initiating event."

I assume you mean "role".

I'm still a little confused. Are you saying that the initiating event wasn't caused by fire and structural damage ? Are you saying that said fires and damages were NOT caused by debris from 1 WTC ? But here, I see you answer this:

I have a problem with the "fire->collapse" part.

You've never seen a building collapse due to fire ? I have.