10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why does this need a new thread?

[JimBenArm]

Why does this need a new thread?

Because it gives him a chance to recycle everything.

[Quad4_72]

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

[JimBenArm]

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

No, you mean "10 hole story", which is what yours is.

[firecoins]

Yes there was a massive hole caused by falling debris. Your point?
Thats impossible! everyone knows the WTC towers fell into their own footprints!:rolleyes:

[HeyLeroy]

:deadhorse

[Christopher7]

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

There was no 10 story hole as described on pg 18

Point # 2

NO one here will answer this question directly with a yes or no

[Gilmar]

Because you didn't ask a yes-or-no question!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

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

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

[Dog Town]

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


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

[JonnyFive]

There was no 10 story hole as described on pg 18

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

Exactly where are you going with this?

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

NO one here will answer this question directly with a yes or no

Now that is a lie.

[HeyLeroy]

HA! Off-topic, but I've just been suspended for a month at the LC forum. Does that earn me a badge, or do I need to be banned?

[Quad4_72]

HA! Off-topic, but I've just been suspended for a month at the LC forum. Does that earn me a badge, or do I need to be banned?
You have to be banned. Only amateurs get suspended:rolleyes:

[HeyLeroy]

Well, it only took me three days and 32 posts to get one month off.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197458857e0c6add.gif

[firecoins]

There was no 10 story hole as described on pg 18

Point # 2

NO one here will answer this question directly with a yes or no
Yes there was a large hole #7.

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

[JonnyFive]

You have to be banned. Only amateurs get suspended:rolleyes:

I'm surprised they don't just skip straight to banning.

[Dog Town]

I'm surprised they don't just skip straight to banning.

I wonder how many actual members they "really" have? I am guessing, they have banned over half of the 1000 members, they claim to have.

[JonnyFive]

I wonder how many actual members they "really" have? I am guessing, they have banned over half of the 1000 members, they claim to have.

They're so damn paranoid. Like it would kill them to allow people to freely express dissent. We let the CTists have the run of this place, until they start making threats of legal action or ignoring the rules.

I guess in the CTist world, it is the content of your ideas that get you censored, rather than your conduct.

[CurtC]

You have to be banned. Only amateurs get suspended:rolleyes:On the old LC forum, I was "suspended" for three years! Does that give me semi-pro status at least?

[JonnyFive]

On the old LC forum, I was "suspended" for three years! Does that give me semi-pro status at least?

The equivalent of minor league baseball, but for crazy internet forums.

[Architect]

You know, one of the things that CTers seem to overlook is the unorthoday structural arrangement of the building, which is explained at some length in the preliminary report, and incorporated some weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum.

[Architect]

You know, one of the things that CTers seem to overlook is the unorthoday structural arrangement of the building, which is explained at some length in the preliminary report, and incorporated some weird and wonderful things such as reuse of pre-existing foundations even though locations weren't optimum.

[HeyLeroy]

They're so damn paranoid. Like it would kill them to allow people to freely express dissent. We let the CTists have the run of this place, until they start making threats of legal action or ignoring the rules.

I guess in the CTist world, it is the content of your ideas that get you censored, rather than your conduct.

Well, I gotta admit that I engaged in some mild name-calling, but it wasn't even directed at anyone in particular. I've seen the word used on this forum, and I dunno if it even violates rule 8 here.

But then the doofus who must've reported me called me GayLeroy after my suspension was announced.

I think they put me off for a month in the hopes that I just won't come back.

Fat chance at that.

[ConspiRaider]

HA! Off-topic, but I've just been suspended for a month at the LC forum. Does that earn me a badge, or do I need to be banned?
All the best wishes during your suspension, Leroy, it is very inspiring to the rest of us. Your bravery, your courage. We're with you all the way, just hang in there. The time will pass quickly.

Can I bring you anything during your incarceration / suspension? MREs? The 2007 WooWoo Pet Of The Year Calendar? Gravy's avatar?

[CHF]

Why the hell are the twoofers still arguing about WTC7?

- WTC7 suffered extensive damage from falling debris
- it was leaning over before it fell
- fires burned for six hours
- the FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did
- no demolition charges were heard
- no seismographs picked up explosions
- there STILL is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it

What exactly is there still to debate on this one? "Pull it"???

[Soapy Sam]

Suddenly, everything is becoming clear.

From the Oxford Dictionary:-
story
• noun (pl. stories) 1 an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. 2 an account of past events, experiences, etc. 3 an item of news. 4 a storyline. 5 informal a lie.

storey
(N. Amer. also story)
• noun (pl. storeys or stories) a part of a building comprising all the rooms that are on the same level. — ORIGIN from Latin historia ‘history’: perhaps originally referring to a tier of painted windows or sculptures on a building, representing a historical subject.

Yes, there are holes in whole stories about the WTC.

[Gravy]

Why the hell are the twoofers still arguing about WTC7?

- WTC7 suffered extensive damage from falling debris
- it was leaning over before it fell
- fires burned for six hours
- the FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did
- no demolition charges were heard
- no seismographs picked up explosions
- there STILL is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it

What exactly is there still to debate on this one? "Pull it"???You think you're a smarty-pants, but what you fail to realize is that WTC 7 is their strongest evidence, which negates your points.

[CHF]

You think you're a smarty-pants, but what you fail to realize is that WTC 7 is their strongest evidence, which negates your points.

That sure does make it all the more sad, doesn't it?

Their best evidence is completely inconsistent with a demolition and they don't so much as have a logical explanation as to WHY the bad guys would blow it up anyway.

Destroying documents - when a paper-shredder would have worked just fine? An insurance scam where the guy takes the money and rebuilds, LOSING money on whole venture?

Good grief!

By the way, I'm Jan from Toronto. I met up with Abby, Chad and yourself at GZ the week after 9/11/06. My girlfriend says hi as well :)

Oh and that was an impressive destruction of Jason and Dylan. I laughed out loud whenever the camera caught Jason with that look of his that screams "oh crap, now what?"

[jaydeehess]

Why the hell are the twoofers still arguing about WTC7?

- WTC7 suffered extensive damage from falling debris
- it was leaning over before it fell
- fires burned for six hours
- the FDNY feared it would collapse 2 hours before it did
- no demolition charges were heard
- no seismographs picked up explosions
- there STILL is no logical reason for a) blowing it up, and b) waiting until 5:20 pm to do it

What exactly is there still to debate on this one? "Pull it"???

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CHF]

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

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

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

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

[Christopher7]

Actually C7 wishes to have us say that we all believe that there was a 10 storey or larger hole* in the south face of WTC 7.
Wrong: should be no 10 story hole*
What he is not stating are the particulars of the hole he is talking about, one that most probably did not exist Right

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


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

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

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


Thing is that NIST always puts qualifiers on any statement or graphic concerning the possible extent of damage done there. It is likely that this worst reported case is not the reality that day and anyone who actually has read the report should easily see that.Right [except for always. They left out the 'possible' on pg 31, 32 and statement 1) in the Summary]

C7 wishes to suggest then that NIST deliberatly included the statements and graphics to mislead people into believeing that this massive gouge did exist. In this he hopes to cast doubt on the [credibility] of the report.Yes. Many people believe that the massive damage as described in this report definitely occured

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

[eddyk]

I think LC is having a cull.


Me, and someone else I know were both banned on the same day this week....and now that guy up above.
Who else?

[jaydeehess]

Wrong: should be no 10 story hole*

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



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

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

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

[jaydeehess]

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


I dunno, the CT's seem to be able to with great clarity.:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I dunno, the CT's seem to be able to with great clarity.:)
Thermite goggles are standard issue CT gear...

[Dog Town]

Thermite goggles are standard issue CT gear...

Yes it seems Rizzo, in supply pawned off a few C-130's full of the surplus 1940's x-ray specs, on some moron. The same one's we sold kids, in the back of comics, frome the 50's onward.
They seem to trace back, to a one A.Jones of Austin, TX. The CT'ers think they work quite well, everything kinda glows. Fashionable too. I think our bonus this year, came from the sale.Shhh...

[Christopher7]

No, you have stated that you believe that most OT's will state that a 10 storey and deep gouge existed. Perhaps the semantic problems that arise in a text only conversation rear there ugly head here....
It was the "wishes to have us say" [should have been] "believe they will say"

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

You indeed would be calling into disrepute the authors of this report if you believe that they deliberatly strove to mislead readers on this or any issue. If it is a simple credibility problem then you would have to believe that it was an inadvertant error on their part. Seems to me that you have stated on other occasions that you believe it was deliberate and you have never objected to my saying you believe it was deliberate before. Have you changed your mind and now believe that it may be an inadvertant error (I don't believe it was an error at all) rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public?No. I'm slaming the SOB who coerced them into publishing that insipid piece of misleading dribble.:D...........[Rember what happened to Kevin Ryan]

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... Rember what happened to Kevin Ryan]
He made false statements and attempted to do so from a position of authority as an employee as the UL, not as an individual and was subsequently fired. Or was there something else?

[Christopher7]

He made false statements and attempted to do so from a position of authority as an employee as the UL, not as an individual and was subsequently fired. Or was there something else?
We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.


About WTC 7:
Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground ?
[as stated in the NIST report]

[LashL]

I don't know why you started another thread about this when the old one was perfectly fine, but since you squirmed away from my post there http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70177&page=8
and ignored the vast majority of it while pretending to respond to a few words of it, I'm going to repeat it here:

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.

...

You may have an opinion, but my statement was based upon evidence

""UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/9/11_coverup#The_UL_Claim)

"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]

Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”

Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:

“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:

“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.

“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html

The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html

Bolding mine for emphasis.

[mortimer]

About WTC 7:
Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground ?
[as stated in the NIST report]

Are you stating that NIST claims that "the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"? If so, you are very much incorrect.

[CHF]

We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.

And you base your opinion of Ryan's firing on....what exactly?

Even if we assume he was canned for telling da twoof...don't you find it a tadd odd that when some stupid water tester threatens to blow the lid off 9/11 the only thing the evil ones do to him is fire him?

I mean you claim a bad guys (Bush/Illuminati/Zionists/Freemasons...) were willing to murder 3,000 people to further their agenda.

Yet all they do to Water Boy is fire him?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

And you base your opinion of Ryan's firing on....what exactly?

Even if we assume he was canned for telling da twoof...don't you find it a tadd odd that when some stupid water tester threatens to blow the lid off 9/11 the only thing the evil ones do to him is fire him?

I mean you claim a bad guys (Bush/Illuminati/Zionists/Freemasons...) were willing to murder 3,000 people to further their agenda.

Yet all they do to Water Boy is fire him?
They™ haven't quite figured out how to fly a commercial airliner into Mr. Ryan's house and then demolish it with thermite.

[Gravy]

That sure does make it all the more sad, doesn't it?

Their best evidence is completely inconsistent with a demolition and they don't so much as have a logical explanation as to WHY the bad guys would blow it up anyway.

Destroying documents - when a paper-shredder would have worked just fine? An insurance scam where the guy takes the money and rebuilds, LOSING money on whole venture?

Good grief!

By the way, I'm Jan from Toronto. I met up with Abby, Chad and yourself at GZ the week after 9/11/06. My girlfriend says hi as well :)

Oh and that was an impressive destruction of Jason and Dylan. I laughed out loud whenever the camera caught Jason with that look of his that screams "oh crap, now what?"
Hey, Jan! I did eventually reply to you in the "Hardfire" thread where you initially said hi. It had taken me a few days to see your post. Tell your girlfriend I say, "jeepers creepers!"

[Scientologist]

Well, it only took me three days and 32 posts to get one month off.http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197458857e0c6add.gif

That's nothin', I got banned with 2 posts in 2 minutes. Literally.

I guess that's what happens when you ask Dylan what he will do when he is 50 years old, sitting there knowing that he lied to millions of people to make a dollar.

[Gravy]

The thing about Ryan is, he lies.

Kevin Ryan 9-11 Revealing the Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s) Reclaiming our Future Conference. Chicago, Illinois. June 4, 2006.

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building. "

Onscreen quote, verbatim: "And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- PBS, 2002

[CHF]

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building. "

I'm always amazed that anyone can think that "pull" could possibly mean "blow up" or that a 9/11 conspirator would calmly sit in front of a camera and say "so yeah, then we demolished WTC7."

Or better yet, that Silverstein would then apparently NOT EVEN NOTICE what he just said! Apparently Silverstein admitted to blowing up WTC7 and then let that amazing confession make its way on to TV without any challenge.

[CurtC]

We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.I've been an employee of major corporations for the past 23 years. If I or anyone else made public comments that were not authorized by the corporation, and were disparaging, I (or anyone else) would be terminated immediately. And it certainly doesn't help that what he said was false.

[~enigma~]

We have differing opinions on why he was fired. Enough said.
AW has the correct reason for the firing of the Kevin "Iso Sika" Ryan.

[~enigma~]

Yet all they do to Water Boy is fire him?
They should at least have him waterboarded :)

[~enigma~]

They™ haven't quite figured out how to fly a commercial airliner into Mr. Ryan's house and then demolish it with thermite.If we throw Ben Wa...I mean billiard balls at his house we can frame Judy Wood thus killing 2 birds with one stone. Ain't being in the NWO grand :D

[LashL]

The thing about Ryan is, he lies.

Kevin Ryan 9-11 Revealing the Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s) Reclaiming our Future Conference. Chicago, Illinois. June 4, 2006.

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building. "

Onscreen quote, verbatim: "And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- PBS, 2002

Yes, that's pretty pathetic, isn't it? He deliberately Inserted words that were never said to present a blatanly dishonest and blatantly skewed viewpoint - he's worse than the loosewiththetroof crew, frankly.

I can't understand why tWOOfers think he's helping their cause any, because he certainly is not.

[~enigma~]

The thing about Ryan is, he lies.

Kevin Ryan 9-11 Revealing the Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s) Reclaiming our Future Conference. Chicago, Illinois. June 4, 2006.

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building. "

Onscreen quote, verbatim: "And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- PBS, 2002Why that scoundrel...oh wait...i asked you guys about that. Isn't waerboy/Iso Sika's version correct and we have all been lied to.

:dl:

[LashL]

You may have an opinion, but my statement was based upon evidence

Bolding mine for emphasis.

Excellent synopsis, Arkan.

Sadly, tWOOfers don't like facts or evidence or truth. Reality makes them uncomfortable, for some reason, and they tend to run away and hide when confronted with it.

[Christopher7]

Are you stating that NIST claims that "the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"? If so, you are very much incorrect.

pg 18 NIST report Apendex L

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

[copy, paste in URL bar, delete ... after report_

[Christopher7]

The thing about Ryan is, he lies.

Kevin Ryan 9-11 Revealing the Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s) Reclaiming our Future Conference. Chicago, Illinois. June 4, 2006.

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing the building. "

Onscreen quote, verbatim: "And [the fire department commander and I] made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- PBS, 2002

The question asked at the beginning of this thread is:

Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground ?

[as stated in the NIST report Apendex L pg 18]

What do you believe ?

[mortimer]

pg 18 NIST report Apendex L

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

[copy, paste in URL bar, delete ... after report_

Your reading comprehension skills are pathetic. Did you actually read the little blurb that proceeded that claim?

"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts aremostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:"

In other words, NIST isn't claiming this at all. They are recounting an individual's account of what was seen.

[Pardalis]

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 or 10 floors.

Doesn't say it was 10 floors from the bottom.

[Christopher7]

Your reading comprehension skills are pathetic. Did you actually read the little blurb that proceeded that claim?

"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts aremostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:"

In other words, NIST isn't claiming this at all. They are recounting an individual's account of what was seen.
Yes, i read it

The question here is: do you believe "1/4 to 1/3 width of south face was gouged out floor 10 to the ground"

[Christopher7]

Doesn't say it was 10 floors from the bottom.
Wrong quote

See post 58

[LashL]

Is there a "moron" smiley around the joint? I can't find one but, not to be disrespectful, it sure would save a lot of keystrokes in threads like this one.

[mortimer]

Yes, i read it

The question here is: do you believe "1/4 to 1/3 width of south face was gouged out floor 10 to the ground"

I have no idea. Why do you ask?

[Christopher7]

I have no idea. Why do you ask?
I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?

[LashL]

I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?

See number 41 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2226528&postcount=41)

or just go back to the prior thread on the same topic where you skated away from it more than once.

or, if you're too lazy for that, here it is again:

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.

[Christopher7]

LashL:

I answered that on the other thread.

ETA correction, that post didn't post [just as well]



This thread is about what you believe, not why you believe it

[mortimer]

I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?

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

From NIST Appdx L-18:

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

[Christopher7]

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

So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?

[Skibum]

So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?

I think there was most likely a hole there that could be described as such. Of course it could have been narrower or wider or could have been taller or shorter. It could have run from floor 10 down to 2 with a debris pile obscuring the ground floor making it appear to the observer that the ground floor was damaged.

[MortFurd]

So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?
Take a look at page L-20, Figure L-22a.

That shows a big honkin hole in the building.

I count it as being 10 stories high, and (maximum visible) 4 windows wide. The visible face of the building is 14 windows. I think that would count as being "10 stories high and 1/4 to 1/3 the depth of the building."

It is also quite clear that the line christopher is so fond of is a quote from a witness.

I don't know what Christopher is on about, but there's a nice, clear photo that shows a big effin hole in the building.

If Christopher doesn't think that's grounds enough for a building to collapse, then he can just go set his own house on fire, and chop a big freaking hole in it and see how long it takes to fall on his head.


Next doofus to the chopping block, please.

[JonnyFive]

Wrong: should be no 10 story hole*

So your brilliant counter to the NIST report and all of its arguments, diagrams, and photographs along with eyewitness reports is essentially "no there isn't, I said so"?

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to actually convince anyone here.

Why, if you're saying there was no hole, is there a large gash in the building in at least one of the pictures of it?

[Belz...]

This thread is about what you believe, not why you believe it

What does belief have to do with it ?

[Overman]

:aaa!

[mortimer]

So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?

I've already answered this question. So you think NIST claims that there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground?

[eeyore1954]

Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts aremostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions

What wasn't conflicting was that there was severe damage suffered by WTC 7 after the collapse.

[JonnyFive]

What wasn't conflicting was that there was severe damage suffered by WTC 7 after the collapse.

Care to respond to this with evidence to the contrary, Christopher7?

[Arus808]

I love how he is asking for 'absolute" answers when the report itself took testimony, even going so far as commenting that testimony wasn't absolute.

[Gravy]

The question asked at the beginning of this thread is:

Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground ?

[as stated in the NIST report Apendex L pg 18]

What do you believe ?I believe that within two weeks you will have started a third thread about this topic, which is more about your jumping to conclusions than anything else. How many times do you have to be told that?

I believe that you should have the courage of your convictions and present your findings to NIST. Why haven't you done so?

[jaydeehess]

I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?

Actually I believe that my words conveyed my opinion that it was unlikely to be as extensive as that. That is to say that I don't completely reject the idea. I feel that there is not enough evidence to make an exact determination of the extent of the damage and that the greatest extent of reported damage as shown in the NIST diagrams is likely to be greater than what was the reality that day.

Odd that C7 cannot fathom this since it seems that CT's are quite capable of non-binary thought when it suits their purposes.

[LashL]

LashL:

I answered that on the other thread.

ETA correction, that post didn't post [just as well]



This thread is about what you believe, not why you believe it

No, you didn't answer it on the other thread. You avoided it on the other thread, which is precisely why I posted it here.

[Christopher7]

No, you didn't answer it on the other thread. You avoided it on the other thread, which is precisely why I posted it here.
Your questions were retorical;

I stated the evidence several times
Yes, people were in different locations at different times
I simply quoted official documents and concluded that 4 statements were in conflict with the 1 statement about the 10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7
The accounts are not just inconsistant, they are in conflict.
"Go and interview them"
That is impossible and therefore retorical

Now, i have responded as best i can to your post

Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

Do you believe that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground" ?

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]

[jaydeehess]

Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

Do you believe that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground" ?

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]


As stated by NIST report Appendix L pg 18:

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

So you are asking if we absolutly believe that the most grevious of reported damage was in fact the reality on 9/11 when the line immediatly preceeding this states very clearly that there are "there are some conflicting descriptions". You have repeatedly pointed out that there are conflictions between the statements just as NIST very clearly sets out yet you want everyone to state that they unequivocably believe tha the damage was or was not this extensive.

I believe that it was just as NIST says on page 50-51
From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears
possible:1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

This does not mean that the columns were removed along their entire length from ground to 10, 15 or 20th floor. It means that these columns could have been severed anywhere along their length. For eg. two adjacent columns get severed at the 12th floor the next one over at the 9th floor the next one over at the 15th floor etc.

Sorry if I simply cannot answer yes or no to your question C7. I have stated that I believe it to be unlikely to have been as bad as a ground to 10th floor, exterior to core gouge (though that is not stated anywhere in the NIST report anyway. It is your interpretation of the two dimensional diagrams).

[Christopher7]

I have stated that I believe it to be unlikely to have been as bad as a ground to 10th floor, exterior to core gouge

That is a reasonible, direct answer.

Thank you very much

[Dog Town]

Your questions were retorical

Got spell check?

[LashL]

Your questions were retorical;

I stated the evidence several times
Yes, people were in different locations at different times
I simply quoted official documents and concluded that 4 statements were in conflict with the 1 statement about the 10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7
The accounts are not just inconsistant, they are in conflict.
"Go and interview them"
That is impossible and therefore retorical

Now, i have responded as best i can to your post

Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

Do you believe that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground" ?

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]

No, I have posted no rhetorical questions at all. You've simply ignored my post because you could not respond meaningfully to it and you still have not.

Unless and until you are willing to plot the accounts of the people who were on the scene on a time line, demarking their locations and their opportunity to observe, your position that their accounts are conflicting is unsustainable, and thus your demand of others to respond to your question about "beliefs" is silly. You appear to be unwilling to even attempt to prove your own point, so what makes you think that anyone should respond to your demands of them to disprove your unfounded assertions?

And you are quite wrong in asserting that I have asked you to do anything that is impossible. There is nothing stopping you from contacting the people who were there at the scene and asking them all of the questions that you wish. Why do you refuse to do so?

You are also wrong in asserting that I made any "demands" of you. What I said was:

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.


Pretty straightforward, really.

[einsteen]

Just watched this interview

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

Craig was also on the scene and saw wtc7 coming down, interesting interview.

[Gravy]

Just watched this interview

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

Craig was also on the scene and saw wtc7 coming down, interesting interview.WTC 7 did make a big noise when it collapsed. What would you expect? There was a post here from someone claiming to be his ex-girlfriend, who said Bartmer has trouble telling the truth and had respiratory problems before 9/11. I have no way to verify that, but it's interesting.

[HeyLeroy]

Is there a "moron" smiley around the joint? I can't find one but, not to be disrespectful, it sure would save a lot of keystrokes in threads like this one.

Is this http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197454770bda6fc4.gif close enough?

[Christopher7]

Take a look at page L-20, Figure L-22a.

That shows a big honkin hole in the building.

I count it as being 10 stories high, and (maximum visible) 4 windows wide. The visible face of the building is 14 windows. I think that would count as being "10 stories high and 1/4 to 1/3 the depth of the building."

It is also quite clear that the line christopher is so fond of is a quote from a witness.

I don't know what Christopher is on about, but there's a nice, clear photo that shows a big effin hole in the building.

If Christopher doesn't think that's grounds enough for a building to collapse, then he can just go set his own house on fire, and chop a big freaking hole in it and see how long it takes to fall on his head.

Next doofus to the chopping block, please.
Thats not the big honkin hole i'm refering to.
Please read the first post on this thread.

[Christopher7]

WTC 7 did make a big noise when it collapsed. What would you expect? There was a post here from someone claiming to be his ex-girlfriend, who said Bartmer has trouble telling the truth and had respiratory problems before 9/11. I have no way to verify that, but it's interesting.
And another 9-11 'hero' speaks out.
Let the character assassination begin
That's a good start Gravy. Of course you just inferred that he is a liar but I'm sure the faithful will find lots of slanderous things to say about him.

BTW Would you like to state weather or not you believe the '10 story gouge' story ? [as described in the first post of this thread]

[Oliver]

Is this http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197454770bda6fc4.gif close enough?

Or maybe one of these:




http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky099.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky103.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky078.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky110.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky109.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/whacky117.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/ad/bike2.gif http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/gen144.gif

[Bell]

Bankers Trust building: http://www.pbase.com/bankst/image/35931742

Map of WTC and surroundings: http://fc.usd497.org/~pbohlen/00015ACC-80000001/00A068F5-00870B4E.-1/WTC%20Map.jpg

[Christopher7]

So your brilliant counter to the NIST report and all of its arguments, diagrams, and photographs along with eyewitness reports is essentially "no there isn't, I said so"?

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to actually convince anyone here.

Why, if you're saying there was no hole, is there a large gash in the building in at least one of the pictures of it?
The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendex 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

"....the atrium glass was still intact"

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"

FEMA Report pg 20

"Acording 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 occured 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 reigon of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate reigon of impact damage"

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

Please note that the entire report is awash with could have, may have, possible, appears to have, etc.

They also admit that "The extent of damage.....of core framing is not known."
In other words, the entire report is pure speculation.

The point is:
The 10 story gouge did not exist and the refrences to it should not have been included in the graphics and the Summary.

The problem is:
Many people have been mislead into believeing that this gouge and the massive damage atributed to it actually existed.

The question is:
Do you believe this misinterpretation of the damage to WTC 7 ?

[twinstead]

The fact remains that the majority of on-site expert eye witness observations of the building concluded it was heavily damaged and in danger of collapse.

The question is:
Do you think they were lying?

[LashL]

Is this http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6197454770bda6fc4.gif close enough?

Close enough for rock 'n roll :D

Or maybe one of these:


Lol ~ some excellent ones there, Oliver. I especially like the "rubber room" one - very fitting for our tinhat friends. :D

[LashL]

Christopher7,

Unless and until you ascertain the time, location, and opportunity to observe of each of the people whose quotes you are citing, you cannot legitimately simply brand them as inconsistent without further detail.

This is a pretty straightforward point and one which you appear to deliberately disregard.

ETA: Oh, and since you didn't answer this post, I'll repeat part of it:

No, I have posted no rhetorical questions at all. You've simply ignored my post because you could not respond meaningfully to it and you still have not.

Unless and until you are willing to plot the accounts of the people who were on the scene on a time line, demarking their locations and their opportunity to observe, your position that their accounts are conflicting is unsustainable, and thus your demand of others to respond to your question about "beliefs" is silly. You appear to be unwilling to even attempt to prove your own point, so what makes you think that anyone should respond to your demands of them to disprove your unfounded assertions?

And you are quite wrong in asserting that I have asked you to do anything that is impossible. There is nothing stopping you from contacting the people who were there at the scene and asking them all of the questions that you wish. Why do you refuse to do so?

[Christopher7]

The fact remains that the majority of on-site expert eye witness observations of the building concluded it was heavily damaged and in danger of collapse.

The question is:
Do you think they were lying?
No

There was heavy damage but there was no "middle 1/4 to 1/3 floor 10 to the ground, gouge

[Gravy]

And another 9-11 'hero' speaks out.
Let the character assassination begin
That's a good start Gravy. Of course you just inferred that he is a liar but I'm sure the faithful will find lots of slanderous things to say about him.

BTW Would you like to state weather or not you believe the '10 story gouge' story ? [as described in the first post of this thread]Just doing exactly what einsteen did, chief.

Second time:when are you going to report your findings to NIST? There is nothing we can do for you here. If you have important information that the investigators missed, you should report it. Do you agree?

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

Unless and until you ascertain the time, location, and opportunity to observe of each of the people whose quotes you are citing, you cannot legitimately simply brand them as inconsistent without further detail.

This is a pretty straightforward point and one which you appear to deliberately disregard.
BS

I'm quoting the NIST report
It is the only source of the '10 story gouge' [misinterpretation]

Are you saying that the statements in the NIST report cannot be used as evidence?
If you believe the gouge statement, why doubt the rest?
Do they not all have the same value?

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed

[Gravy]

BS

I'm quoting the NIST report
It is the only source of the '10 story gouge' [misinterpretation]

Are you saying that the statements in the NIST report cannot be used as evidence?
If you believe the gouge statement, why doubt the rest?
Do they not all have the same value?

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsedWait...NIST's final report on WTC 7 is out? How did I miss that news???

So, Chris, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? CONTINUE MAKING THREADS ON AN INTERNET FORUM? OR CONTACT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THIS INFORMATION?

[LashL]

BS

I'm quoting the NIST report
It is the only source of the '10 story gouge' [misinterpretation]

Are you saying that the statements in the NIST report cannot be used as evidence?
If you believe the gouge statement, why doubt the rest?
Do they not all have the same value?

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed

Reading for comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

Please try actually addressing what I wrote, along with the other of my posts that you have deliberately misrepresented or ignored, instead of JAQing off in the usual conspiracy theorist fashion. You keep claiming that certain accounts are inconsistent but you cannot legitimately say that without knowing where, when and what opportunity to observe were in play for each of those accounts.

The fact that you ignore that reality is, well, typical of conspiracy theorists, but you'll never find the "twoof" that you claim to be seeking if you refuse to acknowledge reality.

[Christopher7]

Just doing exactly what einsteen did, chief.

Second time:when are you going to report your findings to NIST?
Now there's a stupid question. Why did you repeat it?
Like their going to say OMG, he's right! Change the final report accordingly! .........Right

There is nothing we can do for you here. If you have important information that the investigators missed, you should report it. Do you agree?What you are doing for me is demonstrating how [as captain of the Olympic answer evading team] you and the 'team' can post 77 non answers to a simple straight forward question

[LashL]

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed

This is particularly misinformed, even by (the woefully low) twoofer standards.

It matters a lot what time it was when each of the individuals whose accounts you claim are inconsistent made their observations. For instance, early in the day, when the fires in WTC7 were smaller and before smoke started pouring out of the entire south side of the building, it may have been possible for witnesses to see damage to the building more clearly in a particular location than would have been possible a few hours later. And that's just for starters. The depth of ignorance exhibited by your comment is, frankly, shocking.

[Gravy]

Now there's a stupid question. Why did you repeat it?
Like their going to say OMG, he's right! Change the final report accordingly! .........RightGot it. You believe you've uncovered information about the condition of building 7 that NIST isn't aware of, but you feel no obligation to pass that information on.

Just what sort of "truth" are you about?

Tell you what: write up your conclusions and I'll pass them on to NIST, since you're afraid to.

Fair enough, Chris?

[Christopher7]

Got it. You believe you've uncovered information about the condition of building 7 that NIST isn't aware of, but you feel no obligation to pass that information on.

Just what sort of "truth" are you about?

Tell you what: write up your conclusions and I'll pass them on to NIST, since you're afraid to.
Now there's a good idea!
Copy post #94 send it to NIST
You can use my real name
Chris Sarns

Fair enough, Chris?Yes

[Gravy]

Now there's a good idea!
Copy post #94 send it to NIST
You can use my real name
Chris Sarns

Yes
Write up a few sentences to introduce the subject and I'll put that together with post 94 and send it off.

[Christopher7]

After reading your report [Appendex L] and some other official reports, I have concluded that:
Statement 1 cannot co-exist with the other 4 statements

For your consideration:


The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendex L pg 18

"middle one quarter to one third 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

"....the atrium glass was still intact"

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"

FEMA Report pg 20

"Acording 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 occured 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 reigon of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate reigon of impact damage"

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

Please note that the entire report is awash with could have, may have, possible, appears to have, etc.

They also admit that "The extent of damage.....of core framing is not known."
In other words, the entire report is pure speculation.

The point is:
The 10 story gouge did not exist and the refrences to it should not have been included in the graphics and the Summary.

The problem is:
Many people have been mislead into believeing that this gouge and the massive damage atributed to it actually existed.


Chris Sarns

[jhunter1163]

Chris:

Then how come all that fire and smoke was pouring from the ENTIRE south side of WTC7? I've seen the pictures and that building looks pretty much fully involved from the roof to the ground.

[maccy]

I find it paradoxical that the like of 28th Kingdom accuse "left-brainers" of getting bogged down in evidence while pretty much every CT argument that isn't factually incorrect is attempting to spin a massive conspiracy from a quibble over a tiny detail.

[Christopher7]

Chris:

Then how come all that fire and smoke was pouring from the ENTIRE south side of WTC7? I've seen the pictures and that building looks pretty much fully involved from the roof to the ground.
Thats non answer #81.

25 responders, 2 straight answers

So far

1 unlikely

1 I have no idea

[Christopher7]

I find it paradoxical that the like of 28th Kingdom accuse "left-brainers" of getting bogged down in evidence while pretty much every CT argument that isn't factually incorrect is attempting to spin a massive conspiracy from a quibble over a tiny detail.
You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

[jaydeehess]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

Was I the first?

Fact is that it is a minute detail. The Appendix L report is a preliminary report. It includes the statement about the 10 storey damage as one more that illustrates that there was significant damage(beyond broken glass) to that area of the south face. It certainly does belong in a preliminary report.

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

Finally, after being asked only 2.5 zillion times. Not that it is any suprise at all but at least now you are prepared to admit it here, CS.

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

And this one detail concerning the south central face damage does nothing to bolster your case or anything to damage ours.

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

The exact extent is not known, true.

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

Well yes they can infer damage to the core framing since there is the report about the elevator cars having been ejected from their shafts. Unlike the central face damage this is contains detail that it is difficult to even imagine being misconstrued by the witness. The elevator cars reside in the core struvture alongside the core columns.

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

It is unlikely, true but even without it being that extensive the NIST sequence of collapse is not affected at all.

Now, since you are into details perhaps you will set out for us your evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Who set the charges, where were the charges, when were they set, who detonated them , why do this to WTC 7, why can no one see the charges going off? For a start.

[maccy]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

What do you mean by core framing? What does this have to do with damage to the external structure?

Do you still believe that the external walls could completely support the building? And that they were extensively cross-braced.

I think that there may have been a gash as described by NIST but that going by the evidence of the interim report we cannot be certain. NIST is not misleading anyone as their damage assessment is not final.

The most important factor, as far as I can see, is the indications of a failure in the system that transferred the loads between floors 4 and 7.

I am waiting for the final report for further details.

Even if the report doesn't conclusively establish the extent of the damage or the cause of the collapse, this is not evidence for CD. You can't use a 'God of the gaps' argument - you need positive evidence of your own. I don't see evidence from you, I just see obsessive nit-picking.

Here are some CD theory questions:

1. why leave the building burning for so long?

2. how did the explosives survive the fire?

3. why no flashes and loud bangs immediately before collapse?

4. why did the east penthouse start to collapse before the rest of the building?

5. why was the building leaning over?

6. why did the firefighters report the building was creaking and looked like it would collapse?

7. why did the FDNY clear the area around the building (abandoning the search for survivors in that area) a few hours before it collapsed?

8. how were the explosives planted in a crowded office building that was in use 24 hours a day?

9. where was the detonation cord run to, how did it escape being severed by falling rubble?

10. why demolish WTC7 at all?

[twinstead]

Speaking for all lurkers, I would like the above questions answered.

[jaydeehess]

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does


CS, you stated here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2225109&postcount=802)
No one here, other than yourself, is willing to give an inch and acknowledge that there was no 10 story hole in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it did not exist

Now you complain that no one will state that it did exist.

Do make some attempt to keep your complaints consistent.

[Christopher7]

Was I the first?
Yes

Fact is that it is a minute detail. The Appendix L report is a preliminary report. It includes the statement about the 10 storey damage as one more that illustrates that there was significant damage(beyond broken glass) to that area of the south face. It certainly does belong in a preliminary report.You may consider the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' a minute detail if you like

And this one detail concerning the south central face damage does nothing to bolster your case or anything to damage ours.It removes a signaficant part of the debris damage often sited as part of the cause of the collapse

NIST "damage of the core framing is not known"
The exact extent is not known, true.

Well yes they can infer damage to the core framing since there is the report about the elevator cars having been ejected from their shafts. Unlike the central face damage this is contains detail that it is difficult to even imagine being misconstrued by the witness. The elevator cars reside in the core struvture alongside the core columns.Only 1 core column would have been damaged [see NIST Appendex L pg 6]
It would take a large piece of debris to eject 2 elavator cars from their shafts, yet there is no mention of this debris or the damage it would have done.

We don't know what ejected the elevator cars. [neither does NIST]
Claiming that it was a large piece of debris is pure speculation.

We can agree that whatever ejected the elevator cars may have severed 1 core column.

It is unlikely, true but even without it being that extensive the NIST sequence of collapse is not affected at all.The sequence of collapse is not in dispute
Just the 'cause'

Now, since you are into details perhaps you will set out for us your evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Who set the charges, where were the charges, when were they set, who detonated them , why do this to WTC 7, why can no one see the charges going off? For a start.That's another subject.
In this thread i intend to clear up some misconseptions about the extent of the debris damage.
No one here considers it likely that the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' existed, or they would have said so by now.
No one here can say that there is any evidence the elevator cars were ejected by falling debris.

[Christopher7]

Speaking for all lurkers, I would like the above questions answered.
11. Will the Cubs ever win the World Series ?

Would you like to know whather or not anyone here believes there was a
'10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

[Arus808]

so i guess you can't answer the questions?

[beachnut]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition


Fire destroyed WTC7. True

CD destroyed WTC. False

That was quick and easy. No CD! No evidence of CD.

Evidence of fire! Yes

Evidence of CD! No

Add up proof! CD 0 Fire 1

Next!

Do you agree there was fire in WTC7? If you do not answer yes you will fail to understand the word fire!

If you believe the words "pull it" mean CD you are hopelessly lost in the CT world.

Do you have any evidence of CD? If you answer yes you are telling a lie. If anyone had evidence of CD, it would have come out that day with a simple "bang" sound of RDX going off. RDX can be heard for miles. Sorry there were no RDX sounds. But the other day I found a video some CT guys altered and they tried to add RDX sounds; but I heard the same Video years ago before the liars altered it. You must have the noise to get the CD. Sorry you messed up and are ignored cause you ignore the facts.

There you go a damaged WTC7 burned and fell. You know I bet the damage to the WTC7 building helped the fires breath.

I still do not understand why WTC7 means anything anyway. Who is the logic coordinator for the loons running the 9/11 truth movement of lies? Dumber than dirt, "see WTC7 fell just due to fires raging all day" it has to be proof of??????????? Very sad. You CT guys need to have a meeting on something and find some facts. So sad. Is this the best you CT guys have?

[westprog]

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

Yes.

[jaydeehess]

The sequence of collapse is not in dispute
Just the 'cause'

So you will now assert that the demolitions were placed where the NIST report states the collapse sequence originated I suppose?


No one here considers it likely that the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' existed, or they would have said so by now.

You might have noticed how you changed horses mid-stream there CS. First you claimed that most of the people on this board would indeed state that the large 10 storey gouge existed. Now you complain that no one here will say it was likely. Seems your contention, that almost everyone whoreads the report would come away with that interpretation, was wrong.


No one here can say that there is any evidence the elevator cars were ejected by falling debris.

Well then what evidence is there? There was debris thrown into WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1. It took out an entire corner and there was at least some impact on the central area of the south face of WTC 7. Various damage reports about WTC 7 include steel being severed and holes in the front of the building. The elevator cars were in shafts right next to the columns involved in the collapse sequence set out by the NIST sims. Not one but two cars were thrown out by some force .

What evidence is there of some force other than falling debris from WTC 1 caused the ejection of these elevator cars? None. No one reports an explosion, no one saw a flash and there are no reports of any other damage that would be consistent with explosives.

You prattle away that there are no reports of the nature of the debris that caused the cars to be ejected yet by the same token you have no evidence whatsoever of any explosives being used, no evidence of any other cause for these cars to have been ejected while we all know that there were indeed large pieces of debris hitting the building even if we do not know exactly what caused these ejections.

This may be circumstantial evidence for debris having caused the ejections and core column damage, however there is much less evidence of any sort whatsoever that explosives or incidiaries were used to cause the ejections(which would eliminate incindiaries anyway) and the collapse of WTC 7.
That is unless you can cite some better evidence than I have seen anywhere.

[Christopher7]

so i guess you can't answer the questions?
Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

[Christopher7]

Fire destroyed WTC7. True
CD destroyed WTC. False
That was quick and easy. No CD! No evidence of CD.
Evidence of fire! Yes
Evidence of CD! No
Add up proof! CD 0 Fire 1
Next!
The question here is not about fires or controlled demolition.

It is about the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Do you believe that this gouge and the damage atributed to it existed ?

[Arus808]

chris, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, that '10' foot' claim that you so "concretely" adhere to, is the culmination of several inconsistent reports taken by the NIST on investigating and interviewing eyewitnesses and physical evidence. THE FACT THAT THEY STATE that these testimonies are incosistent led them to a BEST GUESS as to how deep that "hole" was. the FACT That this is a PRELIMINARY report seems to just go OVER YOUR head.

[twinstead]

Although the testimony about just how large and where the damage was is admittedly inconsistent, the one consistent thing is that there was indeed heavy damage to the building, and that it indeed was in danger of immediate collapse.

The eye-witness testimony describing these general facts is, IMHO, incontrovertible.

Why on Earth is this mythical '10 story hole' important?

[Bell]

Christopher7, I posted about the Bank Trusters building before, but I think it needs repeating. First a map of the damage to the buildings on and around the WTC area:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg

And then a picture of the Bankers Trust building, that got hit by debris from the South Tower. So how is it impossible for WTC7 to have simulair damage?

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg

[Architect]

That is specatacularly severe damage. Professionally speaking.

[R.Mackey]

Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

Oh, look, semantics. What a great argument you make, Troofer.

What next? "The WTC Towers didn't collapse! What madness! NIST is a sham! Everybody can see that they fell down!"

[jhunter1163]

I'd venture a guess that the gouge in WTC7 was larger than the one in the Bankers Trust building. The pictures I've seen of the south side of WTC7 show holes (through the smoke) from near the top to the ground.

[Christopher7]

Yes.
Thank you for the honest, direct answer.

[Redtail]

Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

Yes. (Though I expect the figures to change in the final report.)

[Christopher7]

So you will now assert that the demolitions were placed where the NIST report states the collapse sequence originated I suppose?
This thread is about the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'
I'm not going to debate CD on this thread.

You might have noticed how you changed horses mid-stream there CS. First you claimed that most of the people on this board would indeed state that the large 10 storey gouge existed. Now you complain that no one here will say it was likely. Seems your contention, that almost everyone whoreads the report would come away with that interpretation, was wrong.My 'complaint' is, only 3 people have been honest enough to answer the question at all. It remains unknown where Gravy and the rest of the Olympic answer avoiding team stand on this issue.

Well then what evidence is there? There was debris thrown into WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1. It took out an entire corner and there was at least some impact on the central area of the south face of WTC 7. Various damage reports about WTC 7 include steel being severed and holes in the front of the building. The elevator cars were in shafts right next to the columns involved in the collapse sequence set out by the NIST sims. Not one but two cars were thrown out by some force.We don't know which elevator cars were ejected. They could have been the ones on the west side. We don't know what dislodged them or if any core columns were severed at all. It's just speculation.

What evidence is there of some force other than falling debris from WTC 1 caused the ejection of these elevator cars? None. No one reports an explosion, no one saw a flash and there are no reports of any other damage that would be consistent with explosives.True, there are no reports of expolsions or debris that would have dislodged the elevator cars. Bottom line, we just don't know what dislodged the elevator cars or if there was any damage to the core columns.
WTC 7 was evacuated after WTC 2 fell so there were very few people in WTC 7 when WTC 1 fell.

You prattle away that there are no reports of the nature of the debris that caused the cars to be ejected yet by the same token you have no evidence whatsoever of any explosives being used, no evidence of any other cause for these cars to have been ejected while we all know that there were indeed large pieces of debris hitting the building even if we do not know exactly what caused these ejections.We have no reports of debris penatrating to the core of building.
We do have a report of "no heavy debris in the lobby area"

This may be circumstantial evidence for debris having caused the ejections and core column damage,I disagree

however there is much less evidence of any sort whatsoever that explosives or incidiaries were used to cause the ejections(which would eliminate incindiaries anyway) and the collapse of WTC 7.
That is unless you can cite some better evidence than I have seen anywhere.There is NO evadence for either explanation

[Arus808]

This thread is about the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'
I'm not going to debate CD on this thread.


Then you have been answered, ad nauseum in this thread.

[Christopher7]

chris, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, that '10' foot' claim that you so "concretely" adhere to, is the culmination of several inconsistent reports taken by the NIST on investigating and interviewing eyewitnesses and physical evidence. THE FACT THAT THEY STATE that these testimonies are incosistent led them to a BEST GUESS as to how deep that "hole" was. the FACT That this is a PRELIMINARY report seems to just go OVER YOUR head.
Wrong.

They did not inspect the physical evadence!

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual steel from the structure"

pg iii [pg 5 on the pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

The "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" depicted in the graphic on pg 31 & 32, is consistant with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor to the ground" [pg 18]
The inner area depicts a gouge 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area depicts a gouge 1/3 the width.
The other gouges to the SW corner and the roof and upper floors are depicted in the same manner.
It is not a culmination of inconsistant reports. It is a depiction of 1 statement that is in conflict with 4 others.

This 'preliminary' report is the 'current' report until the 'final' report comes out.
It depicts damage that did not happen and refers to that damage in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81"

[Christopher7]

Then you have been answered, ad nauseum in this thread.
You got the nausium part right

There have only been 4 direct answers so far

Everyone else has thus far refused to answer the question

Possible answers:

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

Will you go on record with a real answer ?

[DavidJames]

There have only been 4 direct answers so far...I will answer Yes

But before you get to excited, that's my answer to the question:

Is Christopher7 a disingenuous, anti-intellectual tin-hatter trying to play coy games attempting to fool people into some wet dream of a CT trap?

[Christopher7]

Although the testimony about just how large and where the damage was is admittedly inconsistent, the one consistent thing is that there was indeed heavy damage to the building, and that it indeed was in danger of immediate collapse.
The eye-witness testimony describing these general facts is, IMHO, incontrovertible.
The few* people who thought the building was going to collapse had just seen the Trade Towers collapse. Their fear was well founded but it doesn't mean the building was going to collapse.

Not everyone agreed with this assessment.
Battalion Chief John Norman didn't think WTC 7 was going to collapse.
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I'm saying that isn't going to fall"
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did."

*read Gravy's list. All but a few say they were told WTC 7 was comming down

Why on Earth is this mythical '10 story hole' important?Because it didn't happen yet it is depicted on pg 31 & 32 as the cause of the damage to columns 69, 72 and 75.
These are then refered to in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81"
Although few are willing to admit it, many of you [and many others] believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire based in part on this incorrect damage assessment.

[Christopher7]

I will answer Yes

But before you get to excited, that's my answer to the question:

Is Christopher7 a disingenuous, anti-intellectual tin-hatter trying to play coy games attempting to fool people into some wet dream of a CT trap?
Thank you for the direct answer

I'm pointing out the flaws in the Debris damage/fire dream

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, I posted about the Bank Trusters building before, but I think it needs repeating. First a map of the damage to the buildings on and around the WTC area:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg

And then a picture of the Bankers Trust building, that got hit by debris from the South Tower. So how is it impossible for WTC7 to have simulair damage?
Possible? yes


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4199/bankerstrustje2.jpg

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.

[Christopher7]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

[Arus808]

Possible? yes


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4199/bankerstrustje2.jpg

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.

do we even need to point out that the banker's trust building was in no way, similiar in design, construction, or material to that of the two WTC towers and WTC 7? NOr did it have RAGING FIRES withing the building? NOR did it have a DIESEL FUEL Line that ran through the building?

MY god your ignorance is blinding.

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

[uk_dave]

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

Well it's a combination of lack of knowledge and lack of imagination

The evolution of CT theory goes something like this:

1. All multistorey buildings are constructed the same, therefore there should be a precedent for the collapse of a multi storey structure such as the WTC towers.

Through natural selection this becomes....

2. Some multi storey structures are reinforced concrete and some are steel frame, therefore there must be a precedent for the collapse of a multistorey steel frame structure such as the WTC towers.

..... further natural selection produces......

3. Not all multi storey steel framed structures follow the same design, so now we'll ignore the WTC towers and concentrate on WTC7 which was of a more traditional frame design and therefore there should be a precedent for it's collapse.

.... after nature brutally culls the CT still further......

4. So some multistorey steel structures have unique design features such as large areas of cantilevered support over existing plant and they got hit by debris and.....oh bugger I'm going home.

Of course, just as with nature, there are always isolated pockets of CT Think untouched by the real world which cling on to the primitive CT ideas....a kind of CT Galapagos Islands, if you will.

[LashL]

<snip>MY god your ignorance is blinding.

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

I think that many of them do it because they know deep down that that is the only way they can even start to believe their own tinhat "theories". Deep down, they know that they are full of [rule 8] but they've finally found their niche among a small group of other other whackos and nutcases incapable of rational or critical thinking, so they simply wave off reality to maintain their newfound acceptance among the woos.

Some of them do it for other reasons, including intellectual laziness, stupidity, desire to be accepted by anyone, actual mental illness, desire to be viewed as "special", desire to fit in with any group that will have them, etc. etc. But the common denominator is that they are all either incapable or unwilling to engage in analytical or critical thinking.

[Arus808]

really, its so sad that we've become a society that cant' think for themselves, that are too lazy to find their answers, and just rather sit back and be spoon fed information, no matter if its wrong, from websites that have no culpability or reason to be honest in what they report.

I can remember, that going to the library was a REQUIREMENT for any school related reports and research and we were WARNED that if we refer to an internet quote resources, we must have a published (book, magazine, in a recognized source) that support the internet source.

This is why I never used the internet for any of the numerous reports I did for class.

[Christopher7]

You are right, it's a poor comparison

Would you care to respond to post 138 or the following ?

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

[uk_dave]

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

Yep on a busy day such as 9/11, when most people at GZ are frantically searching for survivors, in some cases people they knew, taking a record of the damage to WTC7 would have been a low priority.

The fire chiefs who did think that WTC7 would collapse were correct. Clever people.

Yep, on a day when a huge multistorey tower collapsed spreading heavy debris at speed over a large area and causing fires within WTC7, I would agree that the structural damage and fire would certainly be a strong possibility for why WTC came down. Whereas CD...... is a very weak to non existent possibility.

Consider this:

A car skids on a patch of ice and crashes into a wall killing the driver.

Which is the more probable cause of the crash? :

1. The patch of ice

2. The driver having a heart attack

[LashL]

Well it's a combination of lack of knowledge and lack of imagination

The evolution of CT theory goes something like this:

1. All multistorey buildings are constructed the same, therefore there should be a precedent for the collapse of a multi storey structure such as the WTC towers.

Through natural selection this becomes....

2. Some multi storey structures are reinforced concrete and some are steel frame, therefore there must be a precedent for the collapse of a multistorey steel frame structure such as the WTC towers.

..... further natural selection produces......

3. Not all multi storey steel framed structures follow the same design, so now we'll ignore the WTC towers and concentrate on WTC7 which was of a more traditional frame design and therefore there should be a precedent for it's collapse.

.... after nature brutally culls the CT still further......

4. So some multistorey steel structures have unique design features such as large areas of cantilevered support over existing plant and they got hit by debris and.....oh bugger I'm going home.

Of course, just as with nature, there are always isolated pockets of CT Think untouched by the real world which cling on to the primitive CT ideas....a kind of CT Galapagos Islands, if you will.

I was about to nominate this post but you're already wearing the TLA badge of honour, so instead, I'll just say, "beautifully said".

And I hope you don't mind if I quote you in future. :)

[beachnut]

Possible? yes


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4199/bankerstrustje2.jpg

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.

I was very deep! Oop I was wrong that gouge is only 17 stories, and not too deep into the building.

Gee, it did not burn. I bet there were not generators and fuel all over the banker trust building like WTC7 had. Fuel, fire, gouge, WTC7 fell due to fire, just like all steel building when fire burns them.

FDNY, I bet they train and teach that buildings fall.

Not very deep just 17 stories. Bet the WTC7 was bigger.

[uk_dave]

I was about to nominate this post but you're already wearing the TLA badge of honour, so instead, I'll just say, "beautifully said".

And I hope you don't mind if I quote you in future. :)

Cheers! :)

It's about time that badge of honour was passed to someone else...how long do these things last? :confused:

[LashL]

Cheers! :)

It's about time that badge of honour was passed to someone else...how long do these things last? :confused:


Cheers back atcha :)

(and I think it's a monthly bestowed honour - so enjoy! You've earned it!!)

[SezMe]

Bell, regards that picture of the Bankers Trust building in your post 127 ...

I had a nutter send me that picture and claim it was WTC7! I straightened him out and also asserted that it was taken days, if not weeks, after 9/11. Would you (or, obviously, any one else) like to speculate on how long after 9/11 that picture was taken.

[MRC_Hans]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Did various kind of severe damage to the building exist?

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

So? How would you expect it could be known?


A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse


Did the fire dept. abandon the building and make a safety zone around it?

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.This statement is wrong. We can indeed claim that, with good certainty, since:

There was debris and fire damage to the building. In particular, the fire damage was extensive. The condition and apparant stability of the building was observed to deteriorate progressively while the fires burned.

So yes, we have a good probability. Now, to conclude, we need to examine the probability of other causes, so my question to you is now:

Which other possible causes would you suggest, and what is your evidence for those causes?

Since the collapse is a fact, and we have good evidence for debris and fire being the cause, for some other cause to be seriously considered, such a cause must have at least comparable evidence showing for it.

Hans

[westprog]

Thank you for the honest, direct answer.

Whoooosh.

[MortFurd]

Wrong.

They did not inspect the physical evadence!

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual steel from the structure"

pg iii [pg 5 on the pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

The "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" depicted in the graphic on pg 31 & 32, is consistant with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor to the ground" [pg 18]
The inner area depicts a gouge 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area depicts a gouge 1/3 the width.
The other gouges to the SW corner and the roof and upper floors are depicted in the same manner.
It is not a culmination of inconsistant reports. It is a depiction of 1 statement that is in conflict with 4 others.

This 'preliminary' report is the 'current' report until the 'final' report comes out.
It depicts damage that did not happen and refers to that damage in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81"
The "Physical Evadence" (was that a Freudian slip, my friend?) was an enormous effin pile of rubble.

If I stab you, then run the body through a wood chipper, how easy do you think it will be to prove - based on physical evidence - that you were stabbed before being shredded?

BTW:

Am I blind or stupid? The NIST report has a photo which shows a huge honkin' hole in WTC7. Have I missed somewher where that photo was shown to be irrelevant, fake, or from a different building?

[CurtC]

I'm honestly trying to understand Chris's point, but so far I haven't gotten it. Chris, you're saying that since there are various reports of a huge hole, but there are slight differences in the details about the extent of the gouge, that therefore this gouge did not even exist? Is that what you're saying? Really?

You keep asking whether we believe that there was a 10-story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building. I believe that yes, there was a huge gouge. Is that enough of an answer?

[CosCos]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse


wow, so you have some fire chiefs that said it was going to collapse and some that said it was not. Fine. So we all know the building did collapse, and you are contending that the fire chiefs who said it wasn't going to collapse were the correct ones, just to make your little paranoid consipracy world work???

By your logic: if you're an investor and you have two different people advising you on the same stock, one says the price is going up the other saying it's coming down. If you end up buying and the stock ends up plummeting are you going to fire the person who advised you correctly and reward the one who led you astray??

[westprog]

wow, so you have some fire chiefs that said it was going to collapse and some that said it was not. Fine. So we all know the building did collapse, and you are contending that the fire chiefs who said it wasn't going to collapse were the correct ones, just to make your little paranoid consipracy world work???


Like most people here, I watched the collapses live. Like, I imagine, many other people, I was surprised to see the towers collapse. This was based on nothing in particular - and given the circumstances, most of us were unlikely to be thinking very closely.

When the reasons for the collapse were explained, it all made sense. But there were a few people who couldn't let go of their initial impression. When they saw the collapses, they thought "Hey, they've demolished the building!" When it was shown that that didn't happen, instead of reevaluating, they started to construct ever more bizarre theories to explain a simple mistaken first impression, eventually extending to pods, death rays, thermite, holograms and evil Jewish landlords.

If it had taken place in the middle of the night and they'd only found out after the towers had collapsed, I bet half of them wouldn't be so certain.

[jaydeehess]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

It has been pointed out time and again that the diagram shows the 'possible' extent of damage not the extent of damage and that there is other evidence besides the one statement to suggest that a large piece of debris hit the very area in question, namely near columns 69, 72 and 75 or columns 79, 80 and/or 81.


There are two possibilities put forth.
1) that the debris damage and subsequent fire damage caused the collapse
2) that the debris damage and fires were inconsequential and that explosives were used to cause the collapse

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for 1).
There is great pacity of even circumstantial evidence(limited to such arguements as 'it looks like') for 2)

So, although Chris is technically correct in "No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty", he completely ignores the fact of the large amount of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests this is indeed what did occur, AND that his own opinion about explosive causes has much less to back it up.

[Bell]

Bell, regards that picture of the Bankers Trust building in your post 127 ...

I had a nutter send me that picture and claim it was WTC7! I straightened him out and also asserted that it was taken days, if not weeks, after 9/11. Would you (or, obviously, any one else) like to speculate on how long after 9/11 that picture was taken.

There is still a lot of dust in that picture, so my guess would be very close after 9/11 (next day even??). I found the picture on http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm but it doesn't mention a date.

[Christopher7]

Did various kind of severe damage to the building exist?
Yes, but not the 10 story gouge

So? How would you expect it could be known?Damage to core columns and the large debris that did the damage could have been reported by the firefighters who were clearing the last people out of the building. None was reported. The only mention of large debris was "no heavy debris was observed in the lobby area"

Did the fire dept. abandon the building and make a safety zone around it?Yes

No one can justifiably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty

This statement is wrong. We can indeed claim that, with good certainty, since:

There was debris and fire damage to the building. In particular, the fire damage was extensive. The condition and apparant stability of the building was observed to deteriorate progressively while the fires burned.

HansI disagree with the 'certainty'

[Quad4_72]

I disagree with the 'certainty'

And the experts disagree with you. I for one, am going to go with what the experts say.

[Christopher7]

The "Physical Evadence" (was that a Freudian slip, my friend?) was an enormous effin pile of rubble.
Which was quickly removed before it could be inspected to find out what caused the collapse.

Am I blind or stupid? The NIST report has a photo which shows a huge honkin' hole in WTC7. Have I missed somewher where that photo was shown to be irrelevant, fake, or from a different building?That huge honkin' hole is the SW corner

There are no pictures of the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to be [middle of the south side]

[Dog Town]

Is there a "moron" smiley around the joint? I can't find one but, not to be disrespectful, it sure would save a lot of keystrokes in threads like this one.

Not a smiley, but would this be something, you would be intereted in?5077

Says it all don't it?
Hi Sarns, how's the asylum?

DT

[Christopher7]

I'm honestly trying to understand Chris's point, but so far I haven't gotten it. Chris, you're saying that since there are various reports of a huge hole, but there are slight differences in the details about the extent of the gouge, that therefore this gouge did not even exist? Is that what you're saying? Really?
The difference between

"steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors" [Chief Fellini]

and

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

is not a slight difference

Chief Fellini was in charge of operations at West and Vesy. Part of his job was to asses the damage to WTC 7.
He described the damage to the south side as above. He sited this damage and the fires as his reasons for believing WTC 7 would collapse.
If there was a 10 story guoge, he would have said so.

You keep asking whether we believe that there was a 10-story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building. I believe that yes, there was a huge gouge. Is that enough of an answer?
Not quite.
Which one?
Steel ripped out between 3rd & 6th floors
or
Gouge, floor 10 to the ground
?
There is a BIG difference

[LashL]

Breaking news: After an event that spanned several hours, witness accounts from different vantage points, at different times, and by those with differing opportunities to observe... are NOT identical.

Stop the presses.

[Christopher7]

wow, so you have some fire chiefs that said it was going to collapse and some that said it was not. Fine. So we all know the building did collapse, and you are contending that the fire chiefs who said it wasn't going to collapse were the correct ones, just to make your little paranoid consipracy world work???
OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof
I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

[beachnut]

OTers often quote the firefighters saying WTC 7 is going to collapse as if it were proof
I'm just saying that not all the chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

Someone has to be wrong; like the CT guys.

CT guys proved wrong for 5 years; most before they even opened their mouth.

[Dog Town]

Breaking news: After an event that spanned several hours, witness accounts from different vantage points, at different times, and by those with differing opportunities to observe... are NOT identical.

Stop the presses.

You might wanna holster that logic, with this one sheriff, CTers are immune.

[Christopher7]

Like most people here, I watched the collapses live. Like, I imagine, many other people, I was surprised to see the towers collapse. This was based on nothing in particular - and given the circumstances, most of us were unlikely to be thinking very closely.
We're talking about WTC 7, not the Trade Towers
I didn't question the 'official story' until i saw the video of WTC 7 for the first time, nearly 4 years after 9-11-01
The question here is about the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7
Do you believe Chief Fellini or the unnamed source of the 10 story gouge ?

[beachnut]

The difference between

"steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors" [Chief Fellini]

and

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

is not a slight difference

Chief Fellini was in charge of operations at West and Vesy. Part of his job was to asses the damage to WTC 7.
He described the damage to the south side as above. He sited this damage and the fires as his reasons for believing WTC 7 would collapse.
If there was a 10 story guoge, he would have said so.


Not quite.
Which one?
Steel ripped out between 3rd & 6th floors
or
Gouge, floor 10 to the ground
?
There is a BIG difference

So let me put it together for you.

Steel ripped out at the 3rd floor, and steel was poking out on the 6th floor, and a big hole form the 10th floor to the ground. And like steel was poking out on the 6th and 3rd floor. Did I tell you about the big hole and all the steel sticking out on the 3rd and 6th floor. And it appears from the fires and damage WTC7 could fail, or fall, or collapse, we should get back, order everyone back. I heard your big 10 story hole but I will not repeat it since I am too busy looking for our lost brothers! Get in my face again and I will knock you lights out! Get back and get to work, put some water on 5 and 6 so we can work over here and make sure the fire does not spread to the other buildings.

Back to work. Did I tell you about the steel poking out and a big hole...

[Oliver]

We're talking about WTC 7, not the Trade Towers
I didn't question the 'official story' until i saw the video of WTC 7 for the first time, nearly 4 years after 9-11-01
The question here is about the 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7
Do you believe Chief Fellini or the unnamed source of the 10 story gouge ?

I also saw the >full< collapse of WTC7 the first time
when i searched for footage about it on the internet.
The collapse started with the collapse of the penthouse.

Now with a little bit of logic this incident tells me that
the "Penthouse fall" made a LOT of damage to WTC7.

Now how many failing columns do you esteem to make
the penthouse on top fall down? :confused:

[LashL]

You might wanna holster that logic, with this one sheriff, CTers are immune.

And I also forgot to add:


Film at 11! one!1!oneone!11elevengetitelevenohnoooes, apparently :D

sheesh - what does it take to get tinhatters to give a nod to reality?

[Christopher7]

It has been pointed out time and again that the diagram shows the 'possible' extent of damage not the extent of damage
I have pointed that out time and time again too. So stop telling me what i have known for a long time.

and that there is other evidence besides the one statement to suggest that a large piece of debris hit the very area in question, namely near columns 69, 72 and 75 or columns 79, 80 and/or 81.The other evidence is the elevator cars that landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft. That's nearly 3/4 of the way through the building.
For debris to penatrate WTC 7 that far after traveling over 300', it would have to have been shot out of a cannon.

[uk_dave]

....it would have to have been shot out of a cannon.

And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?

Or are you just using 'common sense'?

[Skibum]

For debris to penatrate WTC 7 that far after traveling over 300', it would have to have been shot out of a cannon.

Certainly you have done the calculations to back this statement up, would you care to provide them, Please.

[Christopher7]

And the experts disagree with you. I for one, am going to go with what the experts say.
NIST had experts investigate and could only say that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"
Who are these experts who say it is a certainty ?

[Oliver]

NIST had experts investigate and could only say that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"
Who are these experts who say it is a certainty ?

Can we agree that the Penthouse collapse initiated
the global collapse or are you thinking they blew up
the Penthouse and then the rest? :confused:

[Christopher7]

And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?

Or are you just using 'common sense'?
:D
Do you think that large debris form WTC 1 penatrated 3/4 of the way through WTC 7 ?

[Oliver]

NIST had experts investigate and could only say that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"
Who are these experts who say it is a certainty ?

Who are the schoolboys who spout their illiteracy
fairytales all over the net? :boggled:

[Skibum]

:D
Do you think that large debris form WTC 1 penatrated 3/4 of the way through WTC 7 ?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

[LashL]

I, too, am looking forward to seeing him/her provide his calculations to support his "cannon" hypothesis. I suspect it will take him quite a while (read: it's never going to happen)

In the meantime, I have to get some sleep so I just want to post this again so that he/she can respond in a meaningful fashion if and when he/she gets around to it:

Breaking news: After an event that spanned several hours, witness accounts from different vantage points, at different times, and by those with differing opportunities to observe... are NOT identical.

Stop the presses.


Edit to add: Hmm, I meant to quote the posts of uk_dave and Skibum above whilst responding to this but it appears that the quotes did not show up and that I messed up the mutliquote function. (note to tinhatters - see? not every screwup in your lives is attributable to a vast 9/11 conspiracy. No, really.)

[uk_dave]

NIST had experts investigate and could only say that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"
Who are these experts who say it is a certainty ?

It appears possible because they have a scenario where a huge tower collapsed in close proximity to a building which was then described by some eyewitnesses as having extensive structural damage, massive fires and was leaning and making sounds which stable undamaged buildings should not be making.

They consider it possible because on the day the FDNY took the decision to pull any attempt at containing the fires and also pulled the search and rescue operation in the vicinity in order to create a safety zone in the expectation that the building could collapse.

They consider it possible because they are experts in structural engineering, fire engineering and architecture and they used their expertise to assess the preliminary information and form a considered opinion.

They now have to produce a detailed description of how the wtc7 collapsed, not for you but for professionals around the world who have a vested interest in knowing what mechanism caused this collapse and if there was an inherent design feature which made wtc7 more liable to collapse in this situation than another, differently designed building.

If CD was an option then professionals around the world will be up in arms if the report points to design features which it considers to be flaws and which should be avoided via building codes.

[Christopher7]

Certainly you have done the calculations to back this statement up, would you care to provide them, Please.
Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?

[Skibum]

Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?

See post 181, then please provide calculations.

[Christopher7]

Do you always answer a question with a question?
Do you ?

[Oliver]

Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?

Are you dumb? :confused:

[Skibum]

Do you ?


No, not at all.

You made a claim, I asked a question. Now I as well as at least two others await an answer, Please.

[LashL]

And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?

Or are you just using 'common sense'?

Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?

Spoken in true tinhatter copout fashion, Chris. It's silly to try to get out of providing facts and evidence by resorting to stupid and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Old, lame, tired, and pathetic, Chris.

Around here, we require facts and evidence. When you make a claim, you are required to provide evidence to support your claim. Then people here will assess your evidence and respond to it. But you still have to put up or shut up, as the saying goes. and you've provided nothing whatsoever so far.

[Christopher7]

Who are these experts who say it's a certatniy

It appears possible because they have a scenario where a huge tower collapsed in close proximity to a building which was then described by some eyewitnesses as having extensive structural damage, massive fires and was leaning and making sounds which stable undamaged buildings should not be making.

They consider it possible because on the day the FDNY took the decision to pull any attempt at containing the fires and also pulled the search and rescue operation in the vicinity in order to create a safety zone in the expectation that the building could collapse.

They consider it possible because they are experts in structural engineering, fire engineering and architecture and they used their expertise to assess the preliminary information and form a considered opinion.

They now have to produce a detailed description of how the wtc7 collapsed, not for you but for professionals around the world who have a vested interest in knowing what mechanism caused this collapse and if there was an inherent design feature which made wtc7 more liable to collapse in this situation than another, differently designed building.

If CD was an option then professionals around the world will be up in arms if the report points to design features which it considers to be flaws and which should be avoided via building codes.
You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b*******ing

[uk_dave]

You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b*******ing

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D

[JimBenArm]

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D

Hey, no fair! You used those fact-ey thingys again!

[Christopher7]

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D
Do these experts say WTC 7 collapsed into a pile of rubble because of debris damage/fire with 'certainty' or just 'possibly' ?

[uk_dave]

And your experts are....?

[Christopher7]

And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?

Certainly you have done the calculation to back this statement up, would you care to provide them, please.

Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys hate common sense but
Do you think [see post 179] ?


Spoken in true tinhatter copout fashion, Chris. It's silly to try to get out of providing facts and evidence by resorting to stupid and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Old, lame, tired, and pathetic, Chris.

Around here, we require facts and evidence. When you make a claim, you are required to provide evidence to support your claim. Then people here will assess your evidence and respond to it. But you still have to put up or shut up, as the saying goes. and you've provided nothing whatsoever so far.
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

....it would have to have been shot out of a cannon

You don't seem to know the difference between sarcasm and hypothesis

Let me explain

'shot out of a cannon' is absurd, therefore:
it is sarcasm

'large piece of debris penatrates WTC 7 and ejects elevators into hallway north of the elevator shaft'
is a hypothesis

There is NO evidence that debris from WTC 1 ejected the elevator cars

There were no reports of large debris anywhere in WTC 7

The 'debris ejected elevator' hypothesis, is speculation.

"The extent of damage, both structural and to the fireproofing, of core framing is not known" [NIST Appendex L pg 51]

[uk_dave]

How did you manage to quote me and yet turn "evidence" into "evadence" ?

[Christopher7]

How did you manage to quote me and yet turn "evidence" into "evadence" ?Thanx for the sp check:)

[maccy]

Lets assume that the final NIST report doesn't establish conclusively why WTC7 collapsed. How would that be evidence for demolition using explosives?

[Christopher7]

Who are these experts who say it was a certainty

And your experts are....?
I offer no experts to state otherwise, i'm just asking Quad4_72
And the experts disagree with you.
Who are these experts who say WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire
with 'certanty'

[uk_dave]

Who are the experts who say it was CD with certainty?

[Christopher7]

Lets assume that the final NIST report doesn't establish conclusively why WTC7 collapsed. How would that be evidence for demolition using explosives?
It will not be evidence for a CD.

The debris damage/fire hypothesis would remain a 'low probability'.

The lack of evidence for damage to the core columns means that this damage is speculation and should not be included in the collapse calculations or the summary.

That leaves the damage to the south face and fire to account for the collapse of WTC 7.

[Oliver]

*YAWN* Can´t you wait until it´s published?
BTW: Any dates?

[Christopher7]

*YAWN* Can´t you wait until it´s published?
BTW: Any dates?
We are discussing the current report of June 2004 and the flaw there in

We can discuss the final report when it comes out

[Christopher7]

No one can justifiably claim WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty

And the experts disagree with you

Who are these experts who say it was a certainty?

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

I did a google search on the first 3 experts on your list.

I coulden't find any comments they have made about the collapse of WTC 7 being due to debris damage/fire.

Do you know of statements by any of these experts that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire ?

[beachnut]

I did a google search on the first 3 experts on your list.

I coulden't find any comments they have made about the collapse of WTC 7 being due to debris damage/fire.

Do you know of statements by any of these experts that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire ?

I did a google search! Wow; all your knowledge comes from the vast wasteland of the internet! With your ability to put things together no wonder you are lost.

[~enigma~]

I did a google search! Wow; all your knowledge comes from the vast wasteland of the internet! With your ability to put things together no wonder you are lost.Should we tell him they are from the NIST?

[jaydeehess]

There is NO evidence that debris from WTC 1 ejected the elevator cars

There were no reports of large debris anywhere in WTC 7

The 'debris ejected elevator' hypothesis, is speculation.

Of course it could be a couple of kids joy-riding in the elevator and crashing it I suppose.((sarcasm))

[Belz...]

The few* people who thought the building was going to collapse had just seen the Trade Towers collapse. Their fear was well founded but it doesn't mean the building was going to collapse.

The damn building was tilting !

"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did."

Using your own strategy: it doesn't mean that falling the way it did wasn't to be expected.

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.

Ah. So all events will unfold in a predictable, simplistic manner. Closer = more damage, etc., etc.

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Really ?

Damage to core columns and the large debris that did the damage could have been reported by the firefighters who were clearing the last people out of the building. None was reported.

As you said: COULD have been reported. Weren't. COULD.

There are no pictures of the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to be [middle of the south side]

With good reason.

[jaydeehess]

Should we tell him they are from the NIST?

Nah, he's read the reports so obviously he already knows they each authored parts of the reports.

[parky76]

Here it is...unless you have proof that NIST or the FDNY is lieing...or is flat out incorrect...then you have no right, no buisness, no justification to make such claims.

PROVE they are lieing....PROVE they are wrong.....otherwise shut up.

[Christopher7]

No one can justifyably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty

Nah, he's read the reports so obviously he already knows they each authored parts of the reports.
That's right. They are all part of NIST and they concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible"

UK_dave said they are the experts who say WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire with 'certainty'.

Does anyone here understand the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

BTW: Someone said there was no evidence of the elevator cars were ejected by an explosion.
How about eyewitness testimony on 9/11 from someone who was in WTC 7.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage

Start at 6:20. At 6:45 he says "I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion!"

He didn't say "a crashing sound of metal being ripped out" he said "explosion"

This doesn't prove that the elevator cars were ejected by an expolsion but it makes it a possibility.

There is NO proof that the elevator cars were ejected by debris.

We now have 2 possible scenarios.

[Christopher7]

Here it is...unless you have proof that NIST or the FDNY is lieing...or is flat out incorrect...then you have no right, no buisness, no justification to make such claims.

PROVE they are lieing....PROVE they are wrong.....otherwise shut up.
I set out the evidence in post #108. Please read it.

[Coritani]

That's right. They are all part of NIST and they concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible"

Oh, so the final NIST report on WTC 7 is out? Please direct me towards it so I can read it. Thanks.

[JonnyFive]

Why is it so important to you, C7, that we establish it was a gouge of a particular size, anyway?

It is clear from the photographs that there was substantial damage to the WTC7 building from the debris from the tower collapse. So what if it was 8 stories or 12 stories or 10?

Could you please explain where exactly this is leading, or what the point is?

Do you have additional evidence for demolitions other than someone reporting hearing "explosions"? Could you please link to your expert (i.e. written by someone with relevant expertise such as a structural engineer) report that advances the theory of controlled demolition along with the supporting evidence for that theory?

[jaydeehess]

J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out on the basis that it cannot be proved that the gouge/hole/damage was as great as the greatest extent reported by witnesses and shown in the report, and indeed that eyewitness reports do not fully match each other. He is trying to say that the report requires it to be this great in order to support the preliminary probable collapse sequence set out in this report.

It is typical of his ilk to chafe at the idea of 'probable' and 'possible' and other non-definitives and require that definitive conclusions be made from definitive empirical evidence when reports are constructed by gov't agencies. This does not apply to other 'researchers though and thus it is perfectly fine to state that explosives were used because this is a definitive statement even if it is backed up by no more evidence than "it looked like..." statements from the very same people who have drawn the conclusion of CD.

When backed into a corner with the fact that although they have a definitive conclusion of explosive demolition with no corroborating evidence at all they will claim they are 'just asking questions'. These 'questions' though have only one answer that will satisfy them, that explosive demolition was used rather than impact damage and fire.

[einsteen]

Within two days after 9/11 a report appeared why the WTC collapsed. plane in -> fire damage -> collapse. This causal relation is very strong because it works on all levels and once a human being sees a causal relation it is the truth, we are Pavlov dog's!

For #7 there is nothing yet, even not after 5 years, how could that be ?

[jaydeehess]

BTW: Someone said there was no evidence of the elevator cars were ejected by an explosion.
How about eyewitness testimony on 9/11 from someone who was in WTC 7.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage


I see five videos listed.

Do we have to watch all of them or can you be more specific?

Of course we go back to that old bugaboo in which only actual explosions can be characterized as explosions rather than loud booms or bangs.

[JonnyFive]

J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out on the basis that it cannot be proved that the gouge/hole/damage was as great as the greatest extent reported by witnesses and shown in the report, and indeed that eyewitness reports do not fully match each other. He is trying to say that the report requires it to be this great in order to support the preliminary probable collapse sequence set out in this report.

So he's basically arguing that if the gouge isn't quite as large as the NIST report's reported witness estimate, the whole report is invalid?

That's kind of what I thought, but I couldn't quite believe he was really saying that.

That is an utterly moronic idea. C7, could you please tell me how one factor in the report being marginally inaccurate makes the whole report total hogwash?

And please correct me if that's not what you're saying, because it's a ridiculous argument.

[JonnyFive]

Within two days after 9/11 a report appeared why the WTC collapsed. plane in -> fire damage -> collapse. This causal relation is very strong because it works on all levels and once a human being sees a causal relation it is the truth, we are Pavlov dog's!

Maybe you work like that, but I don't think you have any right to speak for the rest of us.

By the way, I would assume the "two days" refers to this (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf#search=%22Bazant%2C%20Zdenek%20P.%3B%20Yon g%20Zhou%20(2001)%22)? Allow me to quote the abstract from that paper:

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.



That wasn't exactly a complete official investigation, it was a speculative paper released to explain a preliminary theory of the collapse.

For #7 there is nothing yet, even not after 5 years, how could that be ?

There is less material on WTC7 than one WTC1 & 2, most likely because it is not seen as being nearly as important. However, your claim that there is "nothing" is patently absurd. For one thing, there are reports on the WTC7.

FEMA report, released in 2002 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf).

Preliminary NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf).

Just an educated guess, but I would imagine the collapse that occurred suddenly and killed nearly two thousand people is considered a little more significant than the collapse that happened after a whole day of being exposed to fire damage, and killed nobody.

Also, bear in mind that the final report on the WTC collapse didn't appear until 2005. Real investigations take time, they don't crop up over night.

[Cuddles]

To save everyone the trouble of further argument I will sum up the complete evidence of both sides.

Hypothesis : Collapse due to debris damage and fire.
Evidence : 1) It was hit be debris.
2) It was on fire.
3) It fell down.

Hypothesis : Controlled demolition.
Evidence : 1) It fell down.

Hey, I'm just answering questions.

[CurtC]

Start at 6:20. At 6:45 he says "I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion!"

He didn't say "a crashing sound of metal being ripped out" he said "explosion"But you've already seen numerous examples of people using the word "explosion" to mean a loud scary noise, whether or not there were explosives involved.
This doesn't prove that the elevator cars were ejected by an expolsion but it makes it a possibility.No, it doesn't make it a possibility - it is no evidence one way or another. To make it a possibility, you would need at least some evidence for it. Since we could reasonably expect there to be some evidence if it were true, and there is zero evidence, it's pretty safe to rule out that possibility for now. If you get any actual evidence, we'll listen.

[tsig]

You are right, it's a poor comparison

Would you care to respond to post 138 or the following ?

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

Yeah I can

I say the WTC 7 collapsed due to to damage and fire.

[uk_dave]

UK_dave said they are the experts who say WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire with 'certainty'.



No I didn't.

[jaydeehess]

Start at 6:20. At 6:45 he says "I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion!"


"I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor"

The OEM was evacuated at 9:44 AM
The south tower collapsed at 9:59 AM
This man was walking down from the 23rd floor sometime after the evac order was given at 9:44.
It stands to reason that the 'explosion' he is reporting on was the result of the collapse of the south tower smashing the windows and sending dust and smoke throughout WTC 7. We know very well that such occured even down on the first floor of WTC 7 when the south tower collapsed from eyewitness accounts there. From those same reports and others, we also know that in the immediate aftermath of the south tower's collapse that the dust and smoke was so thick that it was difficult or impossible to see well enough to move around, that it blocked out the sun for those in the dust. Thus his complaint that they were trapped on the 8th floor "with smoke all around us".

That's 15 floors below where he starts from and 15 minutes to get there IF he immediatly left the 23rd floor at exactly 9:44 AM. More likely, since there was no immediate known danger to those in WTC 7, he gathered up personal items such as jacket and breifcase and made his way out in an orderly fashion.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

4.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE OPERATIONS CHRONOLOGY

8:46 a.m. An aircraft strikes WTC 1. (FEMA 403)

9:01 a.m. WTC Security receives a report of a fire in a parking lot. (PA/WTC Security Radio Channel X)

9:02 a.m. WTC Security receives a report of a gas leak. (Note: Incomplete message, location of leak not identified.) (PA/WTC Security Radio Channel X)

9:03 a.m. An aircraft strikes WTC 2. (FEMA 403) PAPD – by this time a PAPD senior officer has called three times for the evacuation of the World Trade Center, WTC 1 and WTC 2, and then “all buildings in the complex.” (PAPD Radio Channel W)

WTC Security reports that another aircraft has stuck WTC 2. (PA/WTC Security Radio
Channel X)

9:44 a.m. WTC Security receives a communication saying that “They haven’t evacuated the Fire Command over here in building 2 or 1.” (PA/WTC Security Radio Channel X)

9:44 a.m. (E) The Office of Emergency Management operations center inside WTC 7 is evacuated. (FDNY, interview 24, winter 2004)

9:54 a.m. FDNY radio communications on the City-wide, high-rise Channel 7 (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30) A Battalion Chief calls for a Ladder company in the A stairway to extinguish two fires. They are attempting to stretch building hose lines on about floor 78. (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30 recording)

FDNY radio communications on the City-wide, high-rise Channel 7 (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30) A firefighter calls to the Battalion Chief that he is on floor 55 and must stop to rest. (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30 recording)

9:56 a.m. FDNY radio communications on the City-wide, high-rise Channel 7 (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30): inside WTC 2, a firefighter states they are in the B stairway and that they will have to put some fire out in order to get to the A stairway. (PA/WTC Radio Channel 30 recording)

9:59 a.m. FDNY Marine unit reports the collapse of WTC 2. (FDNY World Trade Center Incident Summary, 2001)



Now that also is in the running as the absolute worst video compilation I have ever seen. The sound is so bad because it is the guy pointing his consumer video camera at the TV screen. Do I detect those in the room laughing at one point?
The "flashes", is this a joke? They are papers being blown out of smashed windows and fluttering away downwind for the most part. In other cases it seems it might be the smaoke parting momentarily and the camera picking up light reflection from remaining glass in the building. IF these are explosions then why no video of these 'flashes' from the north side of the building, just the side with all the broken windows and smoke?

C7 , your attempts to back up your claims are getting desparate.

[einsteen]

JohnnyFive,

What if wtc7 was not evacuated ???? One knew it was about to blow up, therefore it was evacuated and therefore research has no priority, it's so obvious what happened with that building.

From a OCT'ers point of view, all buildings with a similar construction as wtc7 are very dangerous especially when they are in the neighbourhood of high buildings.

I know what NIST's answer will be. I'm sure there are high-skilled scientists (also here of course) that also know it was a CD, they will never ever admit it.

Just found this on physorg http://media.spikedhumor.com/77860/building.wmv

[DavidJames]

I know what NIST's answer will be. I'm sure there are high-skilled scientists (also here of course) that also know it was a CD, they will never ever admit it.I'm sure there are highly knowledgeable people who know you have committed multiple heinous crimes, they will never admit it.

[JonnyFive]

What if wtc7 was not evacuated ???? One knew it was about to blow up, therefore it was evacuated and therefore research has no priority, it's so obvious what happened with that building.

It was not about to "blow up", it was about to collapse. They knew that one pretty early on, and the building was evacuated. So what?

Research on WTC7 does not have "no priority". In case you missed it, there are multiple reports on WTC7.

From a OCT'ers point of view, all buildings with a similar construction as wtc7 are very dangerous especially when they are in the neighbourhood of high buildings.

What the hell does this even mean? Why would "OCT'ers" believe that all buildings of similar construction are "very dangerous"? That's nonsense, and you know it.

I know what NIST's answer will be. I'm sure there are high-skilled scientists (also here of course) that also know it was a CD, they will never ever admit it.

Provide evidence of this statement. You can't simply state things like this and just expect us to believe it.

Just found this on physorg http://media.spikedhumor.com/77860/building.wmv

And what, precisely, is the point of that video? It doesn't have anything to do with WTC7 or 9/11, it's an apartment building in Malaysia.

[jaydeehess]

What if wtc7 was not evacuated ???? One knew it was about to blow up, therefore it was evacuated and therefore research has no priority, it's so obvious what happened with that building.

Great, so the towers were not evacuated. Is that then evidence that they were not a case of CD?

That aside, you completely miss the point. It was easier to investigate the towers because there is a lot more data on where the original damage was due to the videos of the planes hitting the buildings, the estimation of the speed and angle at which they hit, the video of the immediate result of the impacts to compare with FEA sims. There is NOTHING about WTC 7 that can compare. There is no video of the damage being inflicted on WTC 7 the same way that there is for the towers. Therefore any research is at a disadvantage right from the start.

I'm sure there are high-skilled scientists (also here of course) that also know it was a CD, they will never ever admit it.


What causes you to be ' sure' of this?

[einsteen]

Provide evidence of this statement. You can't simply state things like this and just expect us to believe it.


If NISTs conclusion will be a CD then I am right and you are wrong, we will see.

[Arus808]

If NISTs conclusion will be a CD then I am right and you are wrong, we will see.

since NIST has basically thrown out that possiblity (they are only addressing CD in an attempt to help future projects to be prepared for any possible terrorisitc acts) you've been wrong from the start.

[JonnyFive]

If NISTs conclusion will be a CD then I am right and you are wrong, we will see.

Actually, I simply asked you to provide evidence of your statement. I will take it that your evidence does not exist, given your reply.

If the NIST's conclusion is CD, then I am happy to examine that in light of actual expert testimony, backed up by evidence, which has somehow been completely absent for the past five years. Even though that is truly unlikely, I am in fact capable of changing my mind. However, I need a reason to change it.

(You'd still be wrong about them never admitting it, but that's trivial)

This doesn't bother me, because I actually am interested in the truth. However, as much as it must pain the CTists, the evidence does not at all point to controlled demolition.

So tell me, einsteen: if the final NIST report indicates that the collapse was most likely due to fire/impact damage leading to a failure of the key structural supports (as the preliminary reports indicate), will you admit it was probably not CD, or will you continue to promote the idea of CD in the face of evidence?

So what was the point of that little video you posted? It did have a point, right?

[Coritani]

What if wtc7 was not evacuated ???? One knew it was about to blow up, therefore it was evacuated and therefore research has no priority, it's so obvious what happened with that building.


So the FDNY, NYPD, and PAPD were all involved? You better have some pretty damn good proof of this assertion.

And, if it's so obvious, why don't any experts agree with you?

[einsteen]

Involved, involved ? I'm no InsideJobber. Were they also involved when the twin towers came down because they couldn't find anything ?

No, nobody knows how a few criminals did it, it might be advanced technology. Jowenko of course, who blasts for 27 years, confirmed it was a CD. As I said before he is absolutely convinced the TTs where 100% gravity driven, he is no loon, CT'er, twoofer he just repeats the official story, maybe he would talk the same bull if he was intimidated by the wtc7 mafia. And there are some other professors who confirmed it (from Switserland I believe), and here is a peer-reviewed article (whatever that means) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

[Arus808]

No, nobody knows how a few criminals did it, it might be advanced technology. Jowenko of course, who blasts for 27 years, confirmed it was a CD.

Jowenko was shown a video, an that's it. He wasn't there to look at the evidence. and Im sorry but I'll take the word of the thousands of eyewitensses on that day, than of some dutch CD expert sitting in front of a monitor with "conspriacy kooks" egging him on, thereby influencing him and his opinion.

[Coritani]

Involved, involved ? I'm no InsideJobber. Were they also involved when the twin towers came down because they couldn't find anything ?


Just before we go on, what is your stance on 9/11? What do you think happened that day?

No, nobody knows how a few criminals did it, it might be advanced technology.[/URL]

It's fallacious to assume that such technology exists(but I can't remember the name of the fallacy - can someone help me out here?).

Jowenko of course, who blasts for 27 years, confirmed it was a CD. As I said before he is absolutely convinced the TTs where 100% gravity driven, he is no loon, CT'er, twoofer he just repeats the official story, maybe he would talk the same bull if he was intimidated by the wtc7 mafia. (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf)


So, he's wrong about the Twin Towers but not about WTC 7?

And there are some other professors who confirmed it (from Switserland I believe)

Names.

, and here is a peer-reviewed article (whatever that means) [URL]http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf)

Peer reviewed by the Journal of 911 studies. Which has no structural engineers on it, IIRC. It was also created by the scholars because none of their papers were able to get accepted into mainstream journals. Which says a bit about the credibility of the Journal of 911 studies.

[einsteen]

Wrong, he has seen the damaged columns, he has seen the debris zone of the whole area, the Naudet brother's movie and some others.

The journalist tried to convince him (possibly for an hour) that it couldn't be a CD because of the chaos of that day et al, but he insists it was a CD.

[Arus808]

Wrong, he has seen the damaged columns, he has seen the debris zone of the whole area, the Naudet brother's movie and some others.


wrong

he saw video of the collapses of the WTC 1 and 2 and shown a video of WTC 7

He's never been to the site. ONly shown pictures, never told what the damage to WTC 7 and only told that it fell on the same day

[Coritani]

Wrong, he has seen the damaged columns, he has seen the debris zone of the whole area, the Naudet brother's movie and some others.

The journalist tried to convince him (possibly for an hour) that it couldn't be a CD because of the chaos of that day et al, but he insists it was a CD.

Answer my question. Jowenko thinks the Twin Towers were not a CD.

Do you think he is wrong about the twin towers, but no WTC 7?

[JonnyFive]

The fact that he believes that one guy's opinion outweighs all other evidence and expert opinion speaks volumes.

I've also seen numerous videos, as well as the debris shortly after the attacks.

By your logic, I say it doesn't look like CD and therefore you must believe me. As a bonus, I actually live in NYC and was there on the day of the attacks. I lived approximately two miles from the site and watched the whole thing unfold live on TV.

I don't even work for the government.

I do, however, work for an insurance company. I suppose that somehow makes me a kind of peripheral shill. I feel so second class now.

[einsteen]

well, at least admit his credentials, his opinion on wtc1,2 are also important for a semi-twoofer as me :)

[Coritani]

well, at least admit his credentials, his opinion on wtc1,2 are also important for a semi-twoofer as me :)

Hrmm. What is your stance on 9/11? What do you think happened that day?

[HyJinX]

well, at least admit his credentials, his opinion on wtc1,2 are also important for a semi-twoofer as me :)

Ok...I admit he's a demolitions expert. Expert are wrong all the time...especially in situations like this where he, himself, probably hasn't studied every aspect of collapse of WTC7. So, YES, I admit he's a demolitions expert...but perhaps a poor researcher.

[einsteen]

Hrmm. What is your stance on 9/11? What do you think happened that day?

who am I :D , just a software guy who started twoofing after a friend asked me repeatedly to watch his DVD. I laughed at him and made him look like a fool on my work. I went a little bit to deep into it, learned also wrong things, it's good that forums like this keep me sharp.

What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.

[Coritani]

What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD

State your evidence for this. All of it.

- shanksville ===> no plane

Many people here can prove to you that this is false. I'm not one of them.

- pentagon 50%

interesting. What casts doubt in your mind about the offiial theory?

- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.

Les Robertson, Lead Structural Engineer on the construction of the Twin Towers, only calculated for one 707 flying at landing speed (about 180MPH). Also, considering it would be landing (i.e, finishing it's flight) it would probably be a bit lighter. What happened on 9/11 was that a fully-fueled 767 slammed into the towers at 500+MPH. A very different situation.

Also, he said that fuel and fire was not taken into account in the calculations. If you want a source on all this information, all you have to do is ask.

Romero supports the official theory.

[HeyLeroy]

So what happened to the people on the Shanksville plane? Apologies if you've stated your opinion on this elsewhere, these threads grow so fast.

[jaydeehess]

I do, however, work for an insurance company. I suppose that somehow makes me a kind of peripheral shill. I feel so second class now

Well yes, of course! The insurance co.'s wrote all those really big cheques to Larry Silverstein so that means that the insurance co.'s made a $hite-can load of money by writing all those che............. Hmmmm?????

[Alt+F4]

What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.

In regard to Shanksville, are you suggesting the coroner who identified all 40 passengers is lying?
(http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=16809193&postID=116647578174933982)

[jaydeehess]

What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.

Well that is a strange mix of beliefs since you just stated;

Involved, involved ? I'm no InsideJobber.

So you do not accept that any of this was an inside job BUT you believe that someone inside WTC 7, or from the NYFD, or at the very least, someone with the authority to convince the NYFD to evacuate the building, knew that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosive demolitions.

You are no insidejobber BUT you believe that somehow flt 93's crash in Shanesville was faked somehow by someone who managed to spread enough debris and body parts about that it took hundreds of volunteers days to gather it all up, that someone, somehow managed to dig that crater only a few hundred feet away from people's homes without them noticing.

You are no insidejobber BUT you are not quite sure that flt 77 hit the Pentagon which would mean that something else managed to carry out the damage seen to the building, a missile, a truck bomb or another type of fast aircraft.

What do you mean we don't 'see' the simulation? Do you expect that there is a mpeg animation of the tower's impact and fire damage? That is not what an FEA simulation does. Try googling "finite element analysis" and seeing if there is a primer on it that you can follow.

[CHF]

here is a peer-reviewed article (whatever that means)

In the case of the "journal for 911 studies" peer reviews means: We gave it to some fellow kooks who said it was OK.

In the real world that's not peer-review, and your attempt to pass it off as such speaks to the desperation of your argument.

[tsig]

If we throw Ben Wa...I mean billiard balls at his house we can frame Judy Wood thus killing 2 birds with one stone. Ain't being in the NWO grand :D

The new order of the world is on the back of every dollar bill.