Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[jaydeehess]

Ok so Christoper 7 hasn't said anything about C-4 explosive but it made for a neat thread title.:blush:

Christopher 7 did say that he believes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition BUT in his thread about WTC7 and NIST appendix L he states;
Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's on this thread

Ok then perhaps we need this, a separate thread for C7 to discuss CD.

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

[Coritani]

My god, what have you done?

I predict another 10,000+ posts thread. But then again, I'm probably wrong. C7 ain't as far away from reality as the other Christopher.

[jaydeehess]

My god, what have you done?

I predict another 10,000+ posts thread. But then again, I'm probably wrong. C7 ain't as far away from reality as the other Christopher.


We do not want to go assigning characteristics based on the similarity of forum names. After all mine is taken from my initials JDS which is uncannily similar to our old friend jdx

[Coritani]

We do not want to go assigning characteristics based on the similarity of forum names. After all mine is taken from my initials JDS which is uncannily similar to our old friend jdx

Yeah, I know. 'Twas a joke.

[jaydeehess]

Christopher 7 assures me that he will be responding to this thread tonight.



When I search the NIST database I get 167 returns on a search of
"WTC 7" 2006
One of the first ones is http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec06.htm

NIST is analyzing scenarios for the event that initiated the collapse of WTC 7. As a part of this work, NIST is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST will estimate the magnitudeof hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure ofone or more critical elements as a result of blast.
��Phase IIdentify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods. Preliminary section cutting shall be considered. Compare estimated overpressures for each scenario against windowstrength.
��Phase IIFor blast scenarios with overpressures that clearly would not have broken windows, the worst case scenario(s) will be analyzed using SHAMRC software to determine overpressures at windows.
��Phase IIIIf Phase II overpressures did not clearly fail windows, 3 blast scenarios will be selected to determine the sound levels that would be transmitted outside the building through intact windows.

[R.Mackey]

I don't know if this will be central to your discussion, and I certainly don't mean to poison any wells, but previously we discussed the motivation for NIST to study explosives scenarios with world-class yokel 28th Kingdom. My explanation is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2233702#post2233702).

[jaydeehess]

I don't know if this will be central to your discussion, and I certainly don't mean to poison any wells, but previously we discussed the motivation for NIST to study explosives scenarios with world-class yokel 28th Kingdom. My explanation is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2233702#post2233702).

As dogmatic as Christopher 7 is I don't believe that he is anything like 28thK.

My interest at this point is more along the lines of just what evidence the CT's think they have for CD in WTC 7 that bests the evidence of collapse by impact/fires.

Christopher 7 believes in CD and I have asked him to lay out the evidence.

We know that the building suffered damage due to impacts by pieces of WTC 1 (pieces of WTC 2 hit it as well but most likely only smaller and/or lighter debris that took out windows but did not do structural damage) , AND , we know that there were extensive fires in the building.

We know for ceratin that extensive damage was done to the SW corner of the building by falling debris from WTC 1. There are references by witnesses of significant damage to more central portions of the south face as well.

Several of the fires, most notably that at the eastern portion of the 7th floor, would, by them selves, have been multi-alarm fires.

Therefore, given this empirical yet circumstantial evidence to back up the contention that the imapct damage and/or the fires caused the collapse of WTC 7, I wish to understand what evidence there is for controlled demolition of WTC 7.

I do not want a tirade against the evidence for impact/fire initiation, I want the evidence FOR CD. I want to also understand why it, whatever it is, should be considered the most compelling of the two bodies of evidence.

[Christopher7]

Ok so Christoper 7 hasn't said anything about C-4 explosive but it made for a neat thread title.:blush:

Have at it Christopher 7 ......................
Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

The physical evidence that was quickly removed and destroyed.
There was no need to do so and it made a real invistegation impossible.

It's like trying to determine what caused a plane crash without any pieces of the airplane.

The government confiscated over 6.000 photographs and 6,000 video clips.
They have been withheld from the public for over 5 years and now they want to charge $13,000 for them. [or go thru the freedom of information act]
There was no reason to remove them from the public in the first place.
The Masoui trial was an excuse not a reason as there were a number of photographs and videos that survived the purge.
Everyone knows what destruction was done. The photographs and videos had no berring on the planning of the attacks, which is what he was charged with.
In any case, that excuse is now gone.
Those photographs and videos belong to "we the people" not the government.
This is just another example of the Bush administration arrogance and desire to hide the truth about 9/11.
Most Americans don't even know that the government is withholding this evidence because it is never mentioned in the MSM.
Most Americans don't remember WTC 7 because MSM will not show the existing videos of it's collapse.

[Coritani]

Sup C7.

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

The physical evidence that was quickly removed and destroyed.
There was no need to do so and it made a real invistegation impossible.

It's like trying to determine what caused a plane crash without any pieces of the airplane.


Source? How quickly is 'quickly'?

The government confiscated over 6.000 photographs and 6,000 video clips.
They have been withheld from the public for over 5 years and now they want to charge $13,000 for them. [or go thru the freedom of information act]
There was no reason to remove them from the public in the first place.

Yes there was: it was a criminal investigation. Not abnormal.

Those photographs and videos belong to "we the people" not the government.

Actually, the photos belong to whatever entity took the photo.

Most Americans don't even know that the government is withholding this evidence because it is never mentioned in the MSM.
Most Americans don't remember WTC 7 because MSM will not show the existing videos of it's collapse.

Uhh, there's dozens of videos. They're the ones that CTs use to parrot the 'fell in 6 seconds' lie.


There's certainly members here with more experience in criminal investigation laws and what not who can tell you far more than I can.


Now that we've got that out of the way, let's see some evidence of bombs.

[gumboot]

Under US case law and British Common Law any private property seized as part of a criminal investigation remains the property of the individual that owned it at the time it was seized.

In the case of video or photographs, these are also protected by copyright law, and the US Government would be violating both copyright and property law by releasing them to the public without the owner's consent.

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

Well as interesting this may be it is not evidence of a CD. Evidence you don't have is not evidence of anything.

You imply malicious intent in keeping photos out of the public view. However $13,000 is really not that great an amount for any organization to come up with. Its the price of a good used car. As has been pointed out many times the copyright on these photos belongs to the entity that took them and as such the owners can rightly charge for their usage.

You also imply malicious intent in the removal and disposal of the remains of the building. Do you have a place in mind where one could have stored the rubble from a 47 storey building? Now I too am dismayed that almost all of the steel was disposed of but it is fact that some was kept.

[R.Mackey]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

The physical evidence that was quickly removed and destroyed.
There was no need to do so and it made a real invistegation impossible.
I'll ignore the fact that "starting with the evidence you don't have" is totally specious, and merely correct a mistake of yours.

I've seen the claim that "there was no reason to remove WTC7 debris so quickly" over and over again, and it's wrong. As I argued in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1847955#post1847955), the FEMA WTC Performance Study, Chapter 7 (the link in that post has gone bad, but you can order a copy through here (http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm)) clearly indicates that the debris from WTC 7 was a load on other nearby buildings. Its removal was essential to prevent further damage and other collapses.

Now, please continue, and use the evidence that you do have, please. Speculating on what you don't have might have said is misleading at best.

[Gravy]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.And by doing that you hope to prove controlled demolition? That won't work.

The government confiscated over 6.000 photographs and 6,000 video clips.False. Those items were donated to the investigation.

They have been withheld from the public for over 5 years and now they want to charge $13,000 for them. [or go thru the freedom of information act]And your movement is incapable of raising $13,700, despite the "fact" that 84% of Americans agree with you? What does that tell you?

There was no reason to remove them from the public in the first place.Since they weren't public in the first place, your comment is meaningless.
The Masoui trial was an excuse not a reason as there were a number of photographs and videos that survived the purge.
Everyone knows what destruction was done. The photographs and videos had no berring on the planning of the attacks, which is what he was charged with.
In any case, that excuse is now gone.You are not making sense.
Those photographs and videos belong to "we the people" not the government.
This is just another example of the Bush administration arrogance and desire to hide the truth about 9/11.Please cite the precedent for the public release of all the evidence in an investigation.

Most Americans don't even know that the government is withholding this evidence because it is never mentioned in the MSM.No Americans know that, because it's false. You can easily obtain the photos and video. Why don't you?

Most Americans don't remember WTC 7 because MSM will not show the existing videos of it's collapse.Then why was it on TV the other day, and why is it featured in a History Channel documentary?

Please respond.

[Belz...]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.


You want to start an investigation with lack of evidence ?

No wonder you guys haven't gotten anywhere in over 5 years.

[Architect]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.



I have no evidence of the £1m that was stolen mysteriously from my bank account yesterday; will my insurers accept this line of argument?

[CHF]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

....."cuz the evidence we do have is rather inconvenient for my argument."

:dl:

Start with the evidence we don't have....

Brilliant!

[Foolmewunz]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.



Sig worthy. I call dibs!

This should be the brass placque on the entrance to the Truthers Secret Club House. They have already filled volumes with all their posts and blogs on the evidence they don't have.

Would that one of the cretins would post something on evidence we do have. If we were to remove every JREFer post (and the ensuing CTer non-answer)on the following topics, most of these threads would be about twenty posts:
> Do You Have Evidence for That Claim
> Have You Actually Read the NIST Report
> What are YOUR Credentials
> You Do Know that The Onion is Satire, Don't You

:spjimlad:

[Christopher7]

Sig worthy. I call dibs!
:D :D :D Be sure to add
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words.
Allow me to re-phrase that.

Let's start with; the evidence the government has destroyed
and the evidence they are withholding.

[Christopher7]

Sup C7.
Source? How quickly is 'quickly'?

Before it could be analyzed. A few weeks, i believe.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf

pg 2 E.1
"The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on the data in the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered."

Yes there was: it was a criminal investigation. Not abnormal.There was no need to remove all the photographs and videos of 9/11 from public view.
Maybe you don't have a problem with that, but i do.

Some were in private hands and survived the purge.
Without them we would not know that there are some problems with the 'Official' story.

Actually, the photos belong to whatever entity took the photo.Then why is the government selling them for $13,000 ?
Why not release them to their rightful owners so they can do with them as they wish?
Some people sell their photographs and videos of 9/11,
others post them on the internet for free.


ETA: If they needed to confiscate all the video clips and photographs of 9/11 for the Masoui trial, why didn't they confiscate the videos of the Trade Towers collapsing that we have all seen on TV countless times ?

[Christopher7]

Well as interesting this may be it is not evidence of a CD. Evidence you don't have is not evidence of anything.
I was just pointing out that the most important evidence, the physical evidence, was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

You imply malicious intent in keeping photos out of the public view. However $13,000 is really not that great an amount for any organization to come up with. Its the price of a good used car. As has been pointed out many times the copyright on these photos belongs to the entity that took them and as such the owners can rightly charge for their usage.Yes, the owners can charge or post them for free. The government has no right make that decision for them.

You also imply malicious intent in the removal and disposal of the remains of the building.Yes

Do you have a place in mind where one could have stored the rubble from a 47 storey building?Right where it was.

To do a proper analysis of how and why the building collapsed, each main framing member would be photographed, and its location noted before it was removed, then the broken ends would be inspected to see why they broke.

Now I too am dismayed that almost all of the steel was disposed of but it is fact that some was kept.None from WTC 7

[Christopher7]

And by doing that you hope to prove controlled demolition? That won't work.
No

False. Those items were donated to the investigation.If you say so

And your movement is incapable of raising $13,700, despite the "fact" that 84% of Americans agree with you? What does that tell you?If 'my movement' buys the $13,700 package, can they then post it on the web for free ?

Since they weren't public in the first place, your comment is meaningless.
You are not making sense.
Please cite the precedent for the public release of all the evidence in an investigation.Not all the evidence, just the pics and vids of 9/11.

He was on trial for planning the attacks. [or charges to that effect]
The jury already knew what happened that day. They had seen the towers collapse many times, they had seen the Pentagon burning, there was no need to sequester 6,000 video clips and 6,000 photographs showing the details.

Most Americans don't even know that the government is withholding this evidence because it is never mentioned on MSM

No Americans know that, because it's false.
foolmewunz:
Got one for ya.

You can easily obtain the photos and video. Why don't you?$13,600

Then why was it on TV the other day, and why is it featured in a History Channel documentary?I saw the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time nearly 4 years after it happened.
Most Americans have forgotten all about WTC 7.

Thanx for the heads up, i'll check the listings to see if they're going to run it again soon.

[beachnut]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.

The physical evidence that was quickly removed and destroyed.
There was no need to do so and it made a real invistegation impossible.

It's like trying to determine what caused a plane crash without any pieces of the airplane.

The government confiscated over 6.000 photographs and 6,000 video clips.
They have been withheld from the public for over 5 years and now they want to charge $13,000 for them. [or go thru the freedom of information act]
There was no reason to remove them from the public in the first place.
The Masoui trial was an excuse not a reason as there were a number of photographs and videos that survived the purge.
Everyone knows what destruction was done. The photographs and videos had no berring on the planning of the attacks, which is what he was charged with.
In any case, that excuse is now gone.
Those photographs and videos belong to "we the people" not the government.
This is just another example of the Bush administration arrogance and desire to hide the truth about 9/11.
Most Americans don't even know that the government is withholding this evidence because it is never mentioned in the MSM.
Most Americans don't remember WTC 7 because MSM will not show the existing videos of it's collapse.

Are all truthers dumb? You are kidding right?

What evidence are you saying was whisked away? WTC took 7 months to clean up. (there is still stuff being found)

Airplane crashed due to terrorist pilots! CTers need an investigation to figure this out? Terrorist flew planes into buildings! The planes did exactly what planes do when flown into buildings at high speeds. I can tell you that is what they look like. Investigation done... (unless you have some facts supporting something else; not one CTer has a fact to change this; do you?)

How many trained aircraft accident investigators do CTers have? I am one and the planes were flown into buildings on purpose. Questions. I am one expert trained by the USAF. So who are your experts. If you have any fact that you think I am wrong you must tell us now! (you must of been lied to by idiots in the truth movement)

No the photos belong to the person who took them; end of story. The people who took them own them when the case is done. The people who took them can sell them etc. You have no rights to take someone's property; are you a NAZI or something. "We the people" decided the stuff is ours when we own it and you can not have it because we respect our rights and your rights to your stuff or our stuff but not both.

Are you challenged by this stuff?

[Belz...]

Do you have a place in mind where one could have stored the rubble from a 47 storey building?

Right where it was.

Ah, yes. Leave those right there so no new construction effort can be undertaken there for over five years. That'll work.

Feel free to return to reality any time.

To do a proper analysis of how and why the building collapsed, each main framing member would be photographed, and its location noted before it was removed, then the broken ends would be inspected to see why they broke.

EACH member ? Again, any time.

[Belz...]

I saw the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time nearly 4 years after it happened.

I saw it in the afternoon on 11 September, 2001. And I'm not even American.

[JimBenArm]

:D :D :D Be sure to add
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words.
Allow me to re-phrase that.

Let's start with; the evidence the government has destroyed
and the evidence they are withholding.
How do you know this existed, or ever existed? You're just making stuff up again!

[jaydeehess]

No

I saw the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time nearly 4 years after it happened.
Most Americans have forgotten all about WTC 7.
.

I am Canadian and I saw it on the evening news of Sept 11/01.

If Americans simply do not watch the news or read news papers beyond the captions of the pictures and therefore do not know the addendum to the collapses of the better known WTC towers and Pentagon it is hardly the fault of the MSM or the gov't. Has the collapse of WTC 7 been a secret that has been hiding in plain view for 5 1/2 years?

[aggle-rithm]

Let's start with the evidence we don't have.



Absence of evidence is evidence of controlled demolition?

That's a new one.

[aggle-rithm]

And your movement is incapable of raising $13,700, despite the "fact" that 84% of Americans agree with you? What does that tell you?



If you turn it around and look at it from another angle: Is charging $13,700 for something REALLY the best way to hide evidence of mass murder?

I picture a bank robber videotaping incriminating evidence, then offering the video for sale on the Internet on the theory that the cops would never be able to raise the money...

[aggle-rithm]

If 'my movement' buys the $13,700 package, can they then post it on the web for free ?


Since that's more money than they're willing to spend for something that may very well reveal inconvenient truths, I guess we'll never know, will we?

[jhunter1163]

You'd think Dylan would fork over the $13,700. There must be a lot of facts in there about the events of 9/11...

Oh... I guess I see why he wouldn't want it after all.

[jaydeehess]

If 'my movement' buys the $13,700 package, can they then post it on the web for free ?


Dylan has not seemed to have a problem with using copyrighted music in his videos, neither does A. Jones and IIRC several other CT videographers. They'd be bothered by copyright on images?

[jaydeehess]

Right where it was.

To do a proper analysis of how and why the building collapsed, each main framing member would be photographed, and its location noted before it was removed, then the broken ends would be inspected to see why they broke.

A completely untenable senario for two reasons.
First as has been pointed out, there is the economic pressures of keeping a major part of Manhattan from even starting to be repaired. Never mind the rebuilding of the above ground structures there is also the fact that WTC 7 was a major power grid hub and I would assume also communications as well, then there is sewer and water and subway systems. It had to be removed ASAP if that part of Manhattan was to be made habitable again.

Second there is the rescue/recovery effort. Though it could be assumed that no living person was in WTC 7 , its debris extended into several other buildings as well and there may have been someone who was already dead due to injuries from the tower collapses still in the building when it also collapsed.

This was not a single vehicle accident where a car runs off the road into a tree. It was more akin to a multiple vehicle collision on a major highway. In that case the cars are removed asap, just as soon as the dead and injured are removed. By your logic it would behoove the authorities to leave all vehicles in place until all were photographed from several angles and only then could they be removed and the roadway put back in service.

[aggle-rithm]

A completely untenable senario for two reasons.
First as has been pointed out, there is the economic pressures of keeping a major part of Manhattan from even starting to be repaired. Never mind the rebuilding of the above ground structures there is also the fact that WTC 7 was a major power grid hub and I would assume also communications as well, then there is sewer and water and subway systems. It had to be removed ASAP if that part of Manhattan was to be made habitable again.

Second there is the rescue/recovery effort. Though it could be assumed that no living person was in WTC 7 , its debris extended into several other buildings as well and there may have been someone who was already dead due to injuries from the tower collapses still in the building when it also collapsed.

This was not a single vehicle accident where a car runs off the road into a tree. It was more akin to a multiple vehicle collision on a major highway. In that case the cars are removed asap, just as soon as the dead and injured are removed. By your logic it would behoove the authorities to leave all vehicles in place until all were photographed from several angles and only then could they be removed and the roadway put back in service.

Not only that, but from a crime standpoint, WTC7 could be seen as an innocent bystander caught up in a larger crime. There was little mystery as to why it collapsed. The only reason an investigation was done at all was to see if there were vulnerabilities in the design that could be avoided in the future.

The investigation favored by the troofers would be like running blood tests on a nun shot and killed while walking by a gang war to see if she was poisoned by the ambulance driver en route to the hospital.

[Coritani]

You'd think Dylan would fork over the $13,700. There must be a lot of facts in there about the events of 9/11...

Oh... I guess I see why he wouldn't want it after all.

God forbid he spends money on 9/11. Money making (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73650) is more his thing. Like the rest of the twoof movement.

Especially since he claims he has a $20 million budget. $13700 is nothing compared to that.

[jaydeehess]

$20M?? I thought it was $2M

No matter $13,500 is 0.675% of the lesser $2,000,000 figure(it would be 0.0675% of $20,000,000)

Dylan wanted a big expose, had the means to obtain the images that the gov't had that would amount to only 0.675% of the budget for the video. Had there been some images in these that he believed were of use to him he could then apply to be able to use them in his commercial project. Given permission he could then use them, refused and he could make sure his video includes the fact that there are images showing something of interest which he has been refused permission to use in "Loose Change". Its win-win for Avery. Even if there were no images he wanted to use he could include that fact, with a little spooky music, in the video.

So what can be inferred from this? That Dylan Avery is not in fact interested in pursueing The Truth AND/OR that he is a liar and the budget was never really anything like $2,000,000.

[Coritani]

$20M?? I thought it was $2M

No matter $13,500 is 0.675% of the lesser $2,000,000 figure(it would be 0.0675% of $20,000,000)

Dylan wanted a big expose, had the means to obtain the images that the gov't had that would amount to only 0.675% of the budget for the video. Had there been some images in these that he believed were of use to him he could then apply to be able to use them in his commercial project. Given permission he could then use them, refused and he could make sure his video includes the fact that there are images showing something of interest which he has been refused permission to use in "Loose Change". Its win-win for Avery. Even if there were no images he wanted to use he could include that fact, with a little spooky music, in the video.

So what can be inferred from this? That Dylan Avery is not in fact interested in pursueing The Truth AND/OR that he is a liar and the budget was never really anything like $2,000,000.

Korey Rowe said this, but then Dylan said it was only 2 million. Then Dylan said that it was 22 million - 2 million for the profuction, the rest for marketing, copyrights etc. I can't remember where he said this though.

Either way, $13700 is a small pric to pay for him and his lackeys. They're just being lazy.

[jaydeehess]

profuction

I realize its just a typo but it really could be a descriptor for "Loose Change":D

So if its $20M for copyrights etc. then that would be the budget from which the purchase of rights to use these images in a commercial project would come from and the $13500 probably from the production budget.

"Lazy" would be taking the high road in describing DA and his cadre on this topic.

[Coritani]

I realize its just a typo but it really could be a descriptor for "Loose Change":D

So if its $20M for copyrights etc. then that would be the budget from which the purchase of rights to use these images in a commercial project would come from and the $13500 probably from the production budget.

"Lazy" would be taking the high road in describing DA and his cadre on this topic.

I blame a lack of sleep last night.;)

A louder than words profuction...

[Christopher7]

Ah, yes. Leave those right there so no new construction effort can be undertaken there for over five years. That'll work.
Feel free to return to reality any time.
5 years ? Prehaps it is you who should return to reality.


EACH member ? Again, any time.They removed the large beams one at a time.
All they had to do was photograph and catalog each piece as they went.
This would have made the cleanup take longer but, with modern technology,* not that much longer.
*[hand held computers, satellites for photographs]

[Dog Town]

They removed the large beams one at a time.
All they had to do was photograph and catalog each piece as they went.
This would have made the cleanup take longer but, with modern technology,* not that much longer.
*[hand held computers, satellites for photographs]

Why would that be needed?

[Christopher7]

I saw it in the afternoon on 11 September, 2001. And I'm not even American.
You don't appear to be human either. :D

[Christopher7]

I am Canadian and I saw it on the evening news of Sept 11/01.

If Americans simply do not watch the news or read news papers beyond the captions of the pictures and therefore do not know the addendum to the collapses of the better known WTC towers and Pentagon it is hardly the fault of the MSM or the gov't. Has the collapse of WTC 7 been a secret that has been hiding in plain view for 5 1/2 years?

I watch the news, all networks, but mostly CNN, BBC, CSPAN, LINK TV, and FSTV. There has been virtually nothing about WTC 7 in the last 5 years except for a 5 second clip in the *History Channel 9/11 a year later special and the '9/11 Conspiracy Theory' special on LINK TV. That's when i saw WTC 7 implode for the first time. When i saw the History Channel special again, [Sept. '05] that 5 second clip did not escape my notice.

*[I'm going to buy the one Gravy mentioned and see what they show]

Most people i have told about WTC 7 barley remember it or don't remember it.
None have ever seen the video of the collapse, or don't remember. [having seen it only once on 9/11]

You can blame the public for not knowing if you want.

Dan Rather thought it looked like a CD but that was the last time i heard anything about WTC 7 on the news until recently.

Have you seen the collapse of WTC 7 on TV in the last 5 years, if so when and on what program ? [other than the 5 second clip in the HC special]

[Christopher7]

Absence of evidence is evidence of controlled demolition?

That's a new one.
No. WMD's in Iraq. At least thats what Rummy said.

[Christopher7]

If you turn it around and look at it from another angle: Is charging $13,700 for something REALLY the best way to hide evidence of mass murder?
The evidence has been hidden for 5 years, and yes, charging more than all but a few could pay for, and then restricting putting it on the web for free because of copyright, would be the next best thing.

[Christopher7]

A completely untenable senario for two reasons.
First as has been pointed out, there is the economic pressures of keeping a major part of Manhattan from even starting to be repaired. Never mind the rebuilding of the above ground structures there is also the fact that WTC 7 was a major power grid hub and I would assume also communications as well, then there is sewer and water and subway systems. It had to be removed ASAP if that part of Manhattan was to be made habitable again.

Second there is the rescue/recovery effort. Though it could be assumed that no living person was in WTC 7 , its debris extended into several other buildings as well and there may have been someone who was already dead due to injuries from the tower collapses still in the building when it also collapsed.

This was not a single vehicle accident where a car runs off the road into a tree. It was more akin to a multiple vehicle collision on a major highway. In that case the cars are removed asap, just as soon as the dead and injured are removed. By your logic it would behoove the authorities to leave all vehicles in place until all were photographed from several angles and only then could they be removed and the roadway put back in service.
Most of your posts are intelligent.
This one is not.

[Christopher7]

Not only that, but from a crime standpoint, WTC7 could be seen as an innocent bystander caught up in a larger crime. There was little mystery as to why it collapsed.
That is a matter of opinion.

[Christopher7]

Why would that be needed?
To determine for sure what made WTC 7 collapse instead of guessing.

Have you read the NIST Report ?

It is supposition upon supposition ending in "the following general sequence of events appears possible"

Without any physical evidence they are not going to be able to do much more than that.

Though dwarfed by the Trade Towers, this is still a major event with huge implications for building codes.

A through and investigation should have started immediately and the physical evidence should have been examined to determine he cause.

NIST took 3 years to put out a preliminary report.
It is going to be nearly 6 years before they release the final report.
This could have and should have been done in 1 year or 2 at the most.

Maybe you think it was a good idea to destroy the physical evidence without first inspecting and analyzing, but i don't.

[Belz...]

5 years ? Prehaps it is you who should return to reality.

2001-09 to 2007-01 isn't a tad over 5 years ?

Wow. That's new.

They removed the large beams one at a time.
All they had to do was photograph and catalog each piece as they went.

And that would have accomplished what ?

I saw it in the afternoon on 11 September, 2001. And I'm not even American.

You don't appear to be human either.

Why ? Because I don't susbscribe to your retarded view of reality ?

I saw 7 collapse on the evening news, and it's my understanding that people in America would've been quite riveted to their TV set that day. How they could've missed the collapse of a 47 storey building is beyond me. Perhaps you were already too busy drinking kool-aid with your CT pals, salivating at the thought of a new conspiracy theory to keep you occupied, to notice.

[Belz...]

The evidence has been hidden for 5 years

Oh, so NOW it's 5 years ?

You can blame the public for not knowing if you want.

No, I blame you.

No. WMD's in Iraq. At least thats what Rummy said.

What does this have to do with 9/11 ?

To determine for sure what made WTC 7 collapse instead of guessing.

It is supposition upon supposition ending in "the following general sequence of events appears possible"

Without any physical evidence they are not going to be able to do much more than that.

That's because the people at NIST aren't morons. They know what a 110-storey building can do to surrounding structures when it collapses. Etc.

NIST took 3 years to put out a preliminary report.
It is going to be nearly 6 years before they release the final report.
This could have and should have been done in 1 year or 2 at the most.

Speculation. You don't have any expertise in the relevant fields. How can you possibly make such a claim ?

[aggle-rithm]

That is a matter of opinion.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE that WTC7, after having been hit by huge chunks of debris from the collapse of a nearby 110-story building, collapsed for some other reason.

It's also POSSIBLE that John F. Kennedy died of a brain hemmorage an instant before he was hit by the third bullet.

Would you say, therefore, that it's only a matter of opinion that JFK died from a bullet wound to the head?

Would you say that the fact that he COULD have died of a brain hemmorage suggests in any way that some OTHER crime was committed that day?

The brain hemmorage and speculative "second crime" are both unknown and unecessary entities that should be cut out of any rational argument. Same goes for controlled demolition and Larry Silverstein's masterful crime of blowing up his own building for no apparent reason.

[jaydeehess]

I watch the news, all networks, but mostly CNN, BBC, CSPAN, LINK TV, and FSTV. There has been virtually nothing about WTC 7 in the last 5 years except for a 5 second clip in the *History Channel 9/11 a year later special and the '9/11 Conspiracy Theory' special on LINK TV. That's when i saw WTC 7 implode for the first time. When i saw the History Channel special again, [Sept. '05] that 5 second clip did not escape my notice.

*

Most people i have told about WTC 7 barley remember it or don't remember it.
None have ever seen the video of the collapse, or don't remember. [having seen it only once on 9/11]

You can blame the public for not knowing if you want.

Dan Rather thought it looked like a CD but that was the last time i heard anything about WTC 7 on the news until recently.

Have you seen the collapse of WTC 7 on TV in the last 5 years, if so when and on what program ? [other than the 5 second clip in the HC special]

Chris, on Sept 11 2001 I was in charge of the move to another building of a cable TV system in a small town in Canada. We started in the morning and had one of two 10foot diameter satellite dishes taken down when one of the guys happened to notice through the open door of the building that the channel that the TV was tuned to was showing a large aircraft flying into one of the towers. We stopped all work. I called the head office and told them we had already taken down the dish that we got CNN, A&E and WTBS from. All other signals were on the other dish(Canada's Anik F1). We waited until noon to take off the other channels and instead got the CNN dish (at that time satellite G5) moved to the new site and set up first. By 6 pm we had all major TV networks back on at the new site. I worked there until midnight finishing up. All through this I had the monitor on. For the most part it did not matter that I had taken down CNN first thing in the morning since almost all stations were carrying the CNN feed anyway. Shortly after 6 pm I saw WTC 7 come down. I saw it several more times before midnight. I saw it many more times the next day on various channels. That next day I was installing the new(to that town) digital cable system. I had to check every channel as I got them on. Without fail every single one that was not a specialty channel(for eg. The Game Channel) was giving updates that often included the fact that, if not the video of, the collapse of WTC 7.

WTC 7 was however much overshadowed by the collapses of the towers and the events at the Pentagon. So was the crash in Penn. Why is that? Is it because the MSM was trying to supress those two items?
NO
The other events simply carry more weight.
The towers were already known world wide, not so WTC 7. I had never heard of WTC 7 until Sept 11/01, I doubt many outside of New York had.
The Pentagon is also known worldwide and is the [I]home of the most powerful armed forces in the world.I had never heard of WTC 7 until Sept 11/01, I doubt many outside of New York had.

Nor had I or anyone outside of Pennsylvania ever heard of Shankesville prior to 9/11/01

Since that day I have noticed many docuementaries concerning the events of 9/11/01. I have watched some. They tend to concentrate on the towers and the Pentagon or the happenings in the planes, primarily flt 93. Why primarily flt 93? Is it beacuse the MSM wants to suppress the ventes on the other 3 planes?
NO
Flt 93 carries more weight than the others because the passengers fought back. There's more story to its story!

You may not like that news concentrates on what the audience can most easily relate to but that is the way it is.

However was there ample chance for you or anyone else to have learned of the collapse of WTC 7.
YES

The fact that many people do not immediatly recall that WTC 7 fell is a consequence of its anonymity prior to 9/11/01 and the fact that most people just have not beeen talking about 9/11/01 as much as people like you or I.

[jaydeehess]

Most of your posts are intelligent.
This one is not.

I felt it was a fair analogy. You are aware that analogies do always break down at some point aren't you?

FACT is that in order to get Manhattan going again the debris had to be removed and that the economic impact of not doing so would have been enormous. Not sure how you could dispute that.

[jaydeehess]

To determine for sure what made WTC 7 collapse instead of guessing.

Have you read the NIST Report ?

It is supposition upon supposition ending in "the following general sequence of events appears possible"

Without any physical evidence they are not going to be able to do much more than that.

Though dwarfed by the Trade Towers, this is still a major event with huge implications for building codes.

A through and investigation should have started immediately and the physical evidence should have been examined to determine he cause.

NIST took 3 years to put out a preliminary report.
It is going to be nearly 6 years before they release the final report.
This could have and should have been done in 1 year or 2 at the most.

Maybe you think it was a good idea to destroy the physical evidence without first inspecting and analyzing, but i don't.



NIST has said why it has taken so long to get around to again looking at WTC 7(see the other thread)

You and others of your persuasion have also had 6 years to find some evidence of controlled demilition. I have asked you for that evidence. So far you have produced nothing other than what-you-don't-have.

Will you be then getting around to the actual topic of this thread anytime soon Chris?

[jaydeehess]

No. WMD's in Iraq. At least thats what Rummy said.

Given that you will find few supproters of the Bush admin and even fewer of Donald Rumsfeld on this forum(though perhaps more than on LC) do you really think that was a witty riposte?

Personally I doubted the evidence of WMD in quantity all along. The admin's publically available evidence was flimsy.

However, at least they tried, at least they had something however bogus it was.

So its a bad analogy. They had evidence, bad evidence but evidence nonetheless. You are arguing that no evidence IS evidence in itself.

[aggle-rithm]

The evidence has been hidden for 5 years, and yes, charging more than all but a few could pay for, and then restricting putting it on the web for free because of copyright, would be the next best thing.

So you believe it's reasonable for someone, having committed one of the most heinous crimes in history, to put evidence that would implicate him up for sale, right out in the open, on the theory that the authorities won't be able to afford it?

You DON'T think it would be more reasonable to simply hide or destroy this evidence?

Really?

[The Almond]

NIST took 3 years to put out a preliminary report.
It is going to be nearly 6 years before they release the final report.

That's an awful long time to spend fabricating a report to support a pre-defined hypothesis, don't you think? It sure is a good thing that NIST scientists are in on such a great scam. They don't have to do any work or research, just BS day in and day out. Awesome!

This could have and should have been done in 1 year or 2 at the most.

Umm, on what basis are you making this claim? Is it based on your vast experience with forensic investigations?

Maybe you think it was a good idea to destroy the physical evidence without first inspecting and analyzing, but i don't.

How would you go about analyzing billions of tons of rubble? What tests would you perform?

[Christopher7]

The fact that many people do not immediatly recall that WTC 7 fell is a consequence of its anonymity prior to 9/11/01 and the fact that most people just have not beeen talking about 9/11/01 as much as people like you or I.
True
I was glued to CNN mostly but somehow managed to miss the fall of WTC 7.
Most people have never seen or don't remember the collapse of WTC 7.
Were it not for the fact that it looks like a CD , this would not be a problem.
Now there is renewed interest in the collapse of WTC 7 but the MSM will not show the video on any news program. [correct me if i'm wrong]
Case and point: Fox news had Stephen Jones on and refused to show the video of the collapse of WTC 7.
This the most serious issue of our time. MSM, with few exceptions, [Paula Zahn interviews Dylan] doesn't cover it despite a large and growing number of people believe there should be an [I]independent investigation and coverage on MSM news.

[jaydeehess]

True
I was glued to CNN mostly but somehow managed to miss the fall of WTC 7.
Most people have never seen or don't remember the collapse of WTC 7.
Were it not for the fact that it looks like a CD , this would not be a problem.
Now there is renewed interest in the collapse of WTC 7 but the MSM will not show the video on any news program. [correct me if i'm wrong]
Case and point: Fox news had Stephen Jones on and refused to show the video of the collapse of WTC 7.
This the most serious issue of our time. MSM, with few exceptions, [Paula Zahn interviews Dylan] doesn't cover it despite a large and growing number of people believe there should be an [I]independent investigation and coverage on MSM news.


I don't consider FoxNews to be MSM frankly. Two words, Tony Snow. I am NOT saying that FoxNews is covering up for the admin but they would be very well aware of the political bent of Jones and that basically he is part of a movement that is accusing Fox's wonderboy, GWB, of being complicit in mass murder.

Sure there is renewed interest in WTC 7 BUT only amoung those of us who are still at all concerned about WTC 7. You simply cannot force people to want to see a program about a building they didn't know about in the first place and only saw anything about for a few days, 5 years ago. Your passion is not the same as the majority of people.

Now I re-iterate;
You and others of your persuasion have also had 6 years to find some evidence of controlled demilition. I have asked you for that evidence. So far you have produced nothing other than what-you-don't-have.

Will you be then getting around to the actual topic of this thread anytime soon Chris?

ETA; I see that I posted shortly after you did and may not yet have had time to post your evidence tonight at this time.

[Christopher7]

A completely untenable senario for two reasons.
First as has been pointed out, there is the economic pressures of keeping a major part of Manhattan from even starting to be repaired.
Economic pressures should not trump the proper investigation of an event of this magnitude.

Never mind the rebuilding of the above ground structures there is also the fact that WTC 7 was a major power grid hub and I would assume also communications as well, then there is sewer and water and subway systems. It had to be removed ASAP if that part of Manhattan was to be made habitable again.Cataloging and photographing the framing members as they were removed would not delay the process a great deal.

Second there is the rescue/recovery effort. Though it could be assumed that no living person was in WTC 7 , its debris extended into several other buildings as well and there may have been someone who was already dead due to injuries from the tower collapses still in the building when it also collapsed.So what? None of that has anything to do with weather or not they should catalogue and photograph the framing as it was removed.

This was not a single vehicle accident where a car runs off the road into a tree. It was more akin to a multiple vehicle collision on a major highway. In that case the cars are removed asap, just as soon as the dead and injured are removed. By your logic it would behoove the authorities to leave all vehicles in place until all were photographed from several angles and only then could they be removed and the roadway put back in service.Here's where you went off the deep end.
In a multiple car pileup, nothing is moved until the damage to all the vehicles has been photographed, and their locations and directions precisely noted.
This is to determine how it happened and who is at fault.
This is the way it's done in California. In Canada, you're not so 'sue' crazy, so procedures might be different.

In any case, the only way to determine what caused the collapse with any degree of certainty, [not just the initiating event, but the subsequent failures] is to photograph and note the precise location and attitude of each piece of framing [easily done by satellite] and catalog it [easily done with a hand held computer] as it is removed.

[Christopher7]

I don't consider FoxNews to be MSM frankly. Two words, Tony Snow. I am NOT saying that FoxNews is covering up for the admin but they would be very well aware of the political bent of Jones and that basically he is part of a movement that is accusing Fox's wonderboy, GWB, of being complicit in mass murder.

Sure there is renewed interest in WTC 7 BUT only amoung those of us who are still at all concerned about WTC 7. You simply cannot force people to want to see a program about a building they didn't know about in the first place and only saw anything about for a few days, 5 years ago. Your passion is not the same as the majority of people.
Amen

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


Exibit A: [the reason i am here]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

A.1

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

[PerryLogan]

You're here because of a blurry video clip, obviously faked.

I'm here because Randi has cast a spell on me.

[MRC_Hans]

Amen

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


Exibit A: [the reason i am here]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

A.1

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

C7, just a question:

What is it exactly that happens in a controlled demolition?

... Since I'll be awayfor some time, I'll answer it myself:

1) Supporting elements of a building are destroyed, near the base of the building. Usually by explosives.

2) Deprived of support, the building collapses under gravity.

Now, if the supporting elements of a building are destroyed for other reasons, like debris falling on it and subsequent extensive fires, what can be expected to follow?

2) Deprived of support, the building collapses under gravity.

So why is it so strange that the fall of WTC7 resembles a controlled demolition?

Another question: The italian clip you show, the "squips" are compared. Do you really, really think the puffs from the two buildings look alike?

Hans

[jaydeehess]

Chris,
You and others of your persuasion have also had 6 years to find some evidence of controlled demilition. I have asked you for that evidence. So far you have produced nothing other than what-you-don't-have.

Will you be then getting around to the actual topic of this thread anytime soon Chris?

[aggle-rithm]

Economic pressures should not trump the proper investigation of an event of this magnitude.


Well, the authorities believed that a "proper" investigation should focus on who, how, and why the attacks occured, not the question of why a building that had a skyscraper fall on it would catch fire and collapse.

That would be like investigating a bank robbery by focusing on why all the leftover pennies in the bank weren't in rolls, instead of going after the bad guy.

[Belz...]

Were it not for the fact that it looks like a CD [IMO], this would not be a problem.

It doesn't really look like a CD except for the fact that most buildings that fall down do so because humans demolish them.

Economic pressures should not trump the proper investigation of an event of this magnitude.

Every meal I eat should be delicious.

In any case, the only way to determine what caused the collapse with any degree of certainty, [not just the initiating event, but the subsequent failures] is to photograph and note the precise location and attitude of each piece of framing [easily done by satellite] and catalog it [easily done with a hand held computer] as it is removed.

"Oh, golly gosh. Two huge towers fell on this one, and it collapsed. I guess we're going to have to photograph every piece of it to be sure we know why." Right.

[A W Smith]

I searched all CD videos and in every single one of them you can clearly hear the explosives going off loudly. Why is it that in every single video of the WTC you hear no explosives whatsoever during the collapse?

[Christopher7]

You're here because of a blurry video clip, obviously faked.

I'm here because Randi has cast a spell on me.
If you think all the videos were faked, you have cast a spell on yourself.

[Christopher7]

C7, just a question:

What is it exactly that happens in a controlled demolition?

... Since I'll be awayfor some time, I'll answer it myself:

1) Supporting elements of a building are destroyed, near the base of the building. Usually by explosives.
As described by this eyewitness [start at 1:20]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

2) Deprived of support, the building collapses under gravity.

Now, if the supporting elements of a building are destroyed for other reasons, like debris falling on it and subsequent extensive fires, what can be expected to follow?

2) Deprived of support, the building collapses under gravity.

So why is it so strange that the fall of WTC7 resembles a controlled demolition?Yes, it 'resembles' a CD.

Another question: The italian clip you show, the "squips" are compared. Do you really, really think the puffs from the two buildings look alike?Maybe they were trying to minimize the external signs that it was a CD.

[Christopher7]

It doesn't really look like a CD except for the fact that most buildings that fall down do so because humans demolish them.
ALL high rise buildings, before and after 9/11 that have resulted in a 'global collapse', have been CD's.

"Oh, golly gosh. Two huge towers fell on this one, and it collapsed. I guess we're going to have to photograph every piece of it to be sure we know why." Right.Exaggerate much?

[Christopher7]

I searched all CD videos and in every single one of them you can clearly hear the explosives going off loudly. Why is it that in every single video of the WTC you hear no explosives whatsoever during the collapse?
Either they have no sound or they were taken from a distance and started after the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

No 2 buildings are exactly alike so no 2 demolition 'rigs' are exactly alike.

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.

[Gravy]

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.Why was this amazing event not caught on video? Please explain.

Why was the bowing of the exterior columns on both towers at the collapse points clearly recorded (and commented on from the air and the ground) but not these huge explosions you refer to? Please explain.

There are no "squibs" until after the collapses begin: even where smoke and flames are visibly fanned by air pressure changes in the towers, no perturbations appear when these supposed explosions go off. Please explain.

The large "squib" high on the north face of the north tower has an average speed of 35 mph and accelerates as the collapse progresses. Please explain how explosives can account for that.

Finally, please explain what should happen to the air pressure (and light dust, smoke, and debris) in the towers as the collapses progress.

[Gravy]

ALL high rise buildings, before and after 9/11 that have resulted in a 'global collapse', have been CD's.False. Earthquakes have leveled high-rises.

Here's comparable logic to yours, Chris:

"Oswald could never have shot JFK, because of all the presidents who had been shot before JFK, NONE were shot by Oswald!"

Get a grip on yourself, man. If you want to discuss what caused the WTC buildings to collapse, you have to discuss the damage and fires in those buildings.

The ones who said the building was fully involved were wrong.
I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see.

east and north sides. east side in shadow = afternoon

west side in sunlight = afternoon

This building is NOT anything close to being 'fully involved'

[Coritani]

Either they have no sound or they were taken from a distance and started after the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

No 2 buildings are exactly alike so no 2 demolition 'rigs' are exactly alike.

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.

The person who said this - known only as "Darryl" is a first year NYU Med student. Not a demolitions expert, not a fireman, not an engineer.

Anyway, being a medical student, he wouldn't be one to have expert knowledge of demolitions and building collapses. He probably wouldn't know a demolition charge if he heard it. Anything could've made a "clap of thunder" - falling steel, or a transformer explosion, for example. Bear in mind that he never claims that he hears a demolition charge - just a "clap of thunder".

If we are to take this literally, we are to believe there was a thunderstorm brewing inside WTC 7.

Also, the two-phase collapse portrayed here does not necessarily mean it was caused by explosives. Obviously, one part of the building must've failed, then the rest of the building came down. And it did! First, the Penthouses fell, then the rest of the building did. Good to see that his testimony fits in with the official theory.

Noone else, to my knowledge, has acknowledged that there was a shockwave. And definitely no experts.

[Redtail]

Either they have no sound or they were taken from a distance and started after the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8


So none of the videos that started just after the first plane hit had sound?

No 2 buildings are exactly alike so no 2 demolition 'rigs' are exactly alike.

So WTC 7 was the only CD in history that had no sound of explosives?

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.

So they blasted from the top down?

[A W Smith]

Either they have no sound or they were taken from a distance and started after the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

No 2 buildings are exactly alike so no 2 demolition 'rigs' are exactly alike.

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.

Chris yes there were videos with sound. Compare them with the scores of CD videos online. In All the cd videos with audio regardless of distance you can clearly hear multple explosions that are in sequence and very loud. No two demolitions are the same but they ALL sound the same.

[Christopher7]

The person who said this - known only as "Darryl" is a first year NYU Med student. Not a demolitions expert, not a fireman, not an engineer.
Right. Only demo experts, firemen and engineers are qualified to know an explosion when they hear one.

Anyway, being a medical student, he wouldn't be one to have expert knowledge of demolitions and building collapses. He probably wouldn't know a demolition charge if he heard it.Of course not.

Anything could've made a "clap of thunder" - falling steel, or a transformer explosion, for example. Bear in mind that he never claims that he hears a demolition charge - just a "clap of thunder".Plausible deniability. The deniers best friend.

If we are to take this literally, we are to believe there is a thunderstorm brewing in WTC 7.Perhaps we shoulden't take the statement 'literally'

Also, the two - phase collapse portrayed here does not necessarily mean it was caused by explosives.Not necessairly, but quite possibly.

Obviously, one part of the building must've failed, then the rest of the building came down. And it did! First, the Penthouses fell, then the rest of the building did. Good to see that his testimony fits in with the official theory.He didn't say anything about the penthouse. He just said it sounded like a clap of thunder, a shock wave went through the building and all the windows blew out. A second later, the building came down.
That sure as hell sounds like a CD!

Noone else, to my knowledge has acknowledged that there was a shockwave. And definitely no experts.to your knowledge

[Christopher7]

So none of the videos that started just after the first plane hit had sound?
Hello
We're talking about WTC 7

So WTC 7 was the only CD in history that had no sound of explosives?

Daryl and Craig heard explosions.

Rember, they had [most] everybody get back 600'


So they blasted from the top down?No

[Christopher7]

Chris yes there were videos with sound. Compare them with the scores of CD videos online. In All the cd videos with audio regardless of distance you can clearly hear multple explosions that are in sequence and very loud. No two demolitions are the same but they ALL sound the same.
No. Some are louder than others.
Some have a lot of crackeling and then loud booms.
Some have a series of booms.
Some start with a big boom like WTC 7.

[Coritani]

Right. Only demo experts, firemen and engineers are qualified to know an explosion when they hear one.

True, but it may take the qualification of being a Fireman, Demo expert or engineer to accurately determine the source of that explosion.

Plausible deniability. The deniers best friend.

So you have no evidence that it is a bomb and not anything else?

Perhaps we shoulden't take the statement 'literally'

Exactly. Explosion does not mean explosive, as so many CFs think.

Not necessairly, but quite possibly.

Quite possibly?

At any rate, it is not in your favour.

He didn't say anything about the penthouse.

So? Was he looking at the penthouse? He describes a two phase collapse, and the official theory states that there was a two phase collapse.

He just said it sounded like a clap of thunder,

The first phase: the collapse of the penthouses. This could easily cause this 'clap of thunder' sound.

a shock wave went through the building and all the windows blew out. A second later, the building came down.


The second phase of the collapse, as the rest of the building falls. Gee, it's certainly helpful that you're citing eyewitness accounts that support the official theory. It makes my life alot easier.

That sure as hell sounds like a CD!

In your opinion. In your biased, non - expert opinion.

to your knowledge

If you have any other witnesses (particularly Demo experts) who claim that there was a 'shockwave', post them. Remember that there were several demo teams present when WTC 7 collapsed. Number of Demo experts who claim they heard demolition charges go off: 0.

[A W Smith]

No. Some are louder than others.
Some have a lot of crackeling and then loud booms.
Some have a series of booms.
Some start with a big boom like WTC 7.


pont me to a CD video that only has one loud boom. I can find none.

[Gravy]

Chris, your "squibs" would like a word with you.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045c43ec6c7bf4.jpg

Maybe some day you'll stop to think about why these brilliant demolitions experts chose, as you posit, to risk placing charges where they were absolutely unnecessary.

Do you ever stop to THINK, Chris?

[Christopher7]

Why was this amazing event not caught on video? Please explain.
Maybe it was.
Are you going to put up $13,700 for the answer?
How long has this offer been available?

Why was the bowing of the exterior columns on both towers at the collapse points clearly recorded (and commented on from the air and the ground) but not these huge explosions you refer to? Please explain.

There are no "squibs" until after the collapses begin: even where smoke and flames are visibly fanned by air pressure changes in the towers, no perturbations appear when these supposed explosions go off. Please explain.

The large "squib" high on the north face of the north tower has an average speed of 35 mph and accelerates as the collapse progresses. Please explain how explosives can account for that.

Finally, please explain what should happen to the air pressure (and light dust, smoke, and debris) in the towers as the collapses progress.This is a debate about evidence of a CD in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

False. Earthquakes have leveled high-rises.
Like these?

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3192/taiwansixslc1.jpg

Earthquakes don't make steel frame high rise buildings disintegrate into a pile of rubble mostly within the original footprint of the building.

Like this:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

[R.Mackey]

I see an important distinction between all of your earthquake photos and the WTC towers, one related to their state prior to collapse. Do you?

[Belz...]

ALL high rise buildings, before and after 9/11 that have resulted in a 'global collapse', have been CD's.

You're making my point, Chris. The only thing that makes you think it was a CD is the fact that you've ONLY seen high-rise buildings collapse because of CDs. You have no basis for comparison, and you're using your own ignorance as an argument.

Exaggerate much?

I'm sure some of WTC2 got into number 7. My point stands, and since you haven't been able to respond to it...

[Belz...]

Right. Only demo experts, firemen and engineers are qualified to know an explosion when they hear one.

They would be more likely to identify it as such, yes.

Plausible deniability. The deniers best friend.

Evasion seems to be yours.

That sure as hell sounds like a CD!

Most loud noises tend to sound like one another, don't you agree ?

Earthquakes don't make steel frame high rise buildings disintegrate into a pile of rubble mostly within the original footprint of the building.

I would expect not, because most earthquakes don't involve jet planes.

[Gravy]

Maybe it was.
Are you going to put up $13,700 for the answer?So I should pay for YOUR research? That's an interesting concept. Perhaps you should think more carefully about that.

Why not ask the "84%" of Americans who agree with you to ante up? What kind of "movement" do you belong to that's incapable of raising a total of $13,700 from a population of 252 million people who agree with you, in order to bring down these horrible, horrible inside-jobbers? Was your "Trick or Treat for Truth" really such a bust?

Third time: were any explosions heard at the WTC on 9/11 that weren't bombs or demo charges?

[jaydeehess]

Either they have no sound or they were taken from a distance and started after the big bang.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

No 2 buildings are exactly alike so no 2 demolition 'rigs' are exactly alike.

The 'clap of thunder' was probably most of the explosives going off at once or in very rapid succession.
The squibs were over 500' up and far away from any camera.

This ONLY in response to a comment by Smith about the sound of explosives.

I ask yet again if you are going to post any evidence of explosives in WTC 7.

You have been asked to present your case several times now and have so far not only failed to do so, you have completely ignored the query.

[jaydeehess]

Like these?

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3192/taiwansixslc1.jpg

Earthquakes don't make steel frame high rise buildings disintegrate into a pile of rubble mostly within the original footprint of the building.

Like this:

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

Earthquakes take buildings down by swinging them back and forth. (this is a simplification as EVERY building will react somewhat differently to different quakes, too many variables, x,y,z velocities and frequency and the characteristic resonance freqs of the building, the ground type, foundation type....) The greatest stress is at ground level at the pivot point for a building in this motion, and the greatest stress at ground level would occur at the perimeter, any central columns are not bending as much as the perimeter columns. When connections to the ground along ONE side (foundation-column junction) fail, the entire building is leaning, it drops a distance of ONE or TWO storeys while leaning and topples.

WTC 7 , it is supposed, lost one column in the center of the structure. That took out other central columns. The stress created would be pulling the perimeter inwards. The failure, it is supposed, originated somewhere below the 13th floor and therefore not neccessarily akin to most earthquake damage. The horizontal progression of collapse went west from the initiating column failure but seems not to have gone east. The east portion was different from the west portion in the way loads were transferred, the east being more of a conservative post and beam system all the way to the ground. The SW corner of the building was severly damaged and would offer no resistance to inward pulling.

You pointed out that all CD's are different. So are all collapes.

[jaydeehess]

That sure as hell sounds like a CD!

Most loud noises tend to sound like one another, don't you agree ?

I have asked on many occasions what it would sound like when a steel column snaps or a floor collapses. Would it be a whoosh, a whistle, a ping, or a bang/boom?

I can make a 'gunshot' by clapping two 2 X 6's, I can make an 'explosion' by dropping a large book on the floor. In fact the building I work in is structural brick with heavy wood cross members. I work on the first floor and the group on the second floor often drops a heavy camera bag( professional beta cam weighs about 25 pounds) on the floor. They do not drop it hard enough to damage the camera but hearing it while on the first floor you'd swear that someone just set off a small bomb. Newcomers in my area have been known to duck at the sound.

My point, lest someone wish to mischaracterize the above, is that "sounds like" is very much not clear evidence of anything specific.

[The Almond]

I have asked on many occasions what it would sound like when a steel column snaps or a floor collapses. Would it be a whoosh, a whistle, a ping, or a bang/boom?


At school, we used to test reinforcing steel (called rebar) in a universal testing machine. When testing the bars in tension, they would deform to a certain amount, undergo strain hardening and then finally snap. The little wires and #3 bars made a loud pop, but nothing to write home about. One day, though, we tried putting in a #18. When it broke, we had professors and students coming in from the 3rd floor wondering what the hell was going on. The noise was deafening, like a cannon going off or something.

[jaydeehess]

At school, we used to test reinforcing steel (called rebar) in a universal testing machine. When testing the bars in tension, they would deform to a certain amount, undergo strain hardening and then finally snap. The little wires and #3 bars made a loud pop, but nothing to write home about. One day, though, we tried putting in a #18. When it broke, we had professors and students coming in from the 3rd floor wondering what the hell was going on. The noise was deafening, like a cannon going off or something.


I watched the testing of sea ice and iceberg cores in a portable lab in the Arctic. the samples were cylinders of ice about 3 inches in dia. and about 8 inches long. they were compressed until they broke. 1st year sea ice wasn't too bad but icebergs and multi-year ice was incredibly tough. when it shattered it broke with a gunshot bang. Iceberg ice and some multi-year ice is stronger than the steel hulls of icebreaker ships.

[Christopher7]

So I should pay for YOUR research? That's an interesting concept. Perhaps you should think more carefully about that.
My research?
So you think these photographs and videos will help me prove it was a CD?
Don't you want to see them?
Shouldn't they be part of your research too?

Why not ask the "84%" of Americans who agree with you to ante up? What kind of "movement" do you belong to that's incapable of raising a total of $13,700 from a population of 252 million people who agree with you, in order to bring down these horrible, horrible inside-jobbers? Was your "Trick or Treat for Truth" really such a bust?I can only speak for myself and i'm about $13,600 shy.

Third time: were any explosions heard at the WTC on 9/11 that weren't bombs or demo charges?I don't know.

[Gravy]

My research?
So you think these photographs and videos will help me prove it was a CD?
Don't you want to see them?
Shouldn't they be part of your research too?I'm not the one questioning the evidence. You are.

I can only speak for myself and i'm about $13,600 shy.So start a fund-raising effort. You thing the U.S. government committed the 9/11 attacks, and you are trying to break open the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history, aren't you?

No, or course you aren't. You're just playing video games. You have no interest in solving this huge "unsolved" crime. You had to be pestered and embarrassed into contacting NIST, after I sent them the information that you refused to send, and you can't be bothered to raise a few dollars to unmask the evil villains who murdered thousands of Americans.

That's pathetic, Chris.

I don't know.Thank you.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2244381&postcount=186

Now you know.

[A W Smith]

I can only speak for myself and i'm about $13,600 shy.



Why not get ANOTHER paper route? Thats it. Double up. Buy a Schwinn with saddle baskets. Consider it a business investment. Yeah go full out dude.

[Belz...]

No, or course you aren't. You're just playing video games. You have no interest in solving this huge "unsolved" crime. You had to be pestered and embarrassed into contacting NIST, after I sent them the information that you refused to send, and you can't be bothered to raise a few dollars to unmask the evil villains who murdered thousands of Americans.

That's pathetic, Chris.

You know, when you put it like that, it really makes you wonder whether these guys actually believe their own nonsense.

[aggle-rithm]

Why not get ANOTHER paper route? Thats it. Double up. Buy a Schwinn with saddle baskets. Consider it a business investment. Yeah go full out dude.

$13,500 would be a pretty small investment, considering he'd be an international celebrity for breaking the biggest story in...well, in history, really.

The talk-show circuit alone would make him a millionaire.

[Christopher7]

I'm not the one questioning the evidence. You are.
Fair enough

So start a fund-raising effort. You thing the U.S. government committed the 9/11 attacks, and you are trying to break open the biggest conspiracy in U.S. history, aren't you?I'm on it
Would you happen to know where these pricy pics & vids are for sale?

No, or course you aren't. You're just playing video games. You have no interest in solving this huge "unsolved" crime. You had to be pestered and embarrassed into contacting NIST, after I sent them the information that you refused to send, and you can't be bothered to raise a few dollars to unmask the evil villains who murdered thousands of Americans.On the contrary sir. I didn't send the information to them because i didn't think it would do any good. When you said you wanted to send it, i told you to go ahead. They are not going to read it, your challenge was pure sarcasm.

[Belz...]

I'm on it

Then you will raise the 13,000 dollars ?

Or are you just blowing smoke ?

[Belz...]

I just can't help but notice you haven't answered my previous points, Chris. Just like other CTers.

Run, run, run.

[Christopher7]

Chris, your "squibs" would like a word with you.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045c43ec6c7bf4.jpg

Maybe some day you'll stop to think about why these brilliant demolitions experts chose, as you posit, to risk placing charges where they were absolutely unnecessary.

Do you ever stop to THINK, Chris?
All the time Gravy.

Neither of us knows exactly what was necessary to bring WTC 7 straight down into a pile of rubble.

[Coritani]

All the time Gravy.

Neither of us knows exactly what was necessary to bring WTC 7 straight down into a pile of rubble.

Huh. So, the perps stuck a bunch of explosives in the top SW corner (remember, CFs are always saying it was blown out from the bottom), for no reason, and then detonated them after they detonated the rest of the building.

For no reason. :confused:

[Christopher7]

You're making my point, Chris. The only thing that makes you think it was a CD is the fact that you've ONLY seen high-rise buildings collapse because of CDs. You have no basis for comparison,
There is no basis for comparison because fire has never caused a global collapsed before or since 9/11.

For comparison we have:

the Meridian Plaza [38 story] burned for 18 hours and it did not collapse.

1 New York Plaza [50 story] burned for 6 hours and it did not collapse.

The Caracas Tower [56 story] burned for 17 hours and it did not collapse.

[beachnut]

There is no basis for comparison because fire has never caused a global collapsed before or since 9/11.

For comparison we have:

the Meridian Plaza [38 story] burned for 18 hours and it did not collapse.



Fire was fought and put out! Show me One Meridian Plaza today.

All the fires you presented were fought. End of comparison. Fires not fought can lead to collapse. Every real fireman knows there is danger of collapse in a fire. Why are you not as smart as firemen?

[Christopher7]

Huh. So, the perps stuck a bunch of explosives in the top SW corner (remember, CFs are always saying it was blown out from the bottom), for no reason, and then detonated them after they detonated the rest of the building.

For no reason. :confused:
How the F am i supposed to know?

Your other point is better.

After viewing the squib vid frame by frame, i can see where you are justified to doubt the validity of the squibs, if you were of a mind to do so.

[Pardalis]

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

[Christopher7]

Then you will raise the 13,000 dollars ?

Or are you just blowing smoke ?
I put in a request for the photographs of WTC 7

I might be able to buy that much

You can ask for an estimate before you buy

Info. at:

http:www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm (http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm)

[Coritani]

How the F an i supposed to know?

Your other point is better.

After viewing the squib vid frame by frame, i can see where you are justified to doubt the validity of the squibs, if you were of a mind to do so.

You should know these things. After all, you are accusing people of mass murder here. Don't forget that.

[Christopher7]

Chris, why don't you wait for the NIST final report?
Because i have found a serious mistake in the current government report that has led a lot of people to believe that there was this

huge gouge, 100' high by 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

This was the most serious reported damage to WTC 7 and it is a misinterpretation of damage described by others.


If you want to live in tomorrowland, you may.


You guys used to love that Progress Report so much, now you say

"it's two and a half years old, wait until the final report comes out"

[Christopher7]

You should know these things. After all, you are accusing people of mass murder here. Don't forget that.
I am still learning all these things. WTF do you think i'm here for.

Are you capable of learning anything new?


I know that what i am saying is very grave.

I understand your anger.

Understand mine.

[Belz...]

For comparison we have:

the Meridian Plaza [38 story] burned for 18 hours and it did not collapse.

1 New York Plaza [50 story] burned for 6 hours and it did not collapse.

The Caracas Tower [56 story] burned for 17 hours and it did not collapse.

Wow. You're making my point again. You're using non-events as proof that another event couldn't happen.

There is no basis for comparison because fire has never caused a global collapsed before or since 9/11.

You are not ignorant, sir. You are dishonest. I've told you more than once that a giant skyscraper collapsed near 7 WTC and damaged it. Your claim that "fire" never caused this or that, ignoring the physical damage to the building and other circumstances (diesel tank, construction, etc.) leading to the collapse shows that you have no interest in the truth, but prefer to cling to your preconceived fantasies.

After viewing the squib vid frame by frame, i can see where you are justified to doubt the validity of the squibs, if you were of a mind to do so.

Which you're not ?

Because i have found a serious mistake in the current government report that has led a lot of people to believe that there was this

huge gouge, 100' high by 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

This was the most serious reported damage to WTC 7 and it is a misinterpretation of damage described by others.

So you haven't seen this (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm) ?

[A W Smith]

Name another suspension bridge that has failed like the Tacoma Narrows

ysa-5MBnD2k

[Pardalis]

Because i have found a serious mistake in the current government report

Yeah but they, the NIST's scientists, have access to much more information and evidence than you, simple lay person whith his computer.

I'd trust the final NIST report over your observations ANYTIME.

[jaydeehess]

All the time Gravy.

Neither of us knows exactly what was necessary to bring WTC 7 straight down into a pile of rubble.

Well this thread was started because you stated that you believe that it was brought down by demolitions yet for the most part you still refuse to tell us what about the collapse causes you to believe that. For the most part all you have done is say what there is that is not known.

Known:
- mechanical damage to the structure by WTC 1 debris, in some places this is major damage that is quite well known to have occurred and in others it can be inferred to be major due to glimpses through the smoke in photographs and by the eyewitness reports of FF's there at the time.

- Fires that started relatively small but due to their not being suppressed grew until the entire building was filled with smoke due to the fires on many floors.

- the building housed several diesel fuel tanks

-the collapse originated in the column structure below the east penthouse which fell into the center of the building first.

- the collapse progressed west from the origin along the center of the building.

- the building 'kinked' along a vertical plane that runs through the position of the column structure that failed first.

Now Chris, what in the above causes you to believe that the collapse was caused by explosives that were placed in order to bring the building down,
and/or
what additional evidence do you have that enables you to believe as you say you do?

[jaydeehess]

Name another suspension bridge that has failed like the Tacoma Narrows

ysa-5MBnD2k


,,,, more to the point name one that did so prior to the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge.

[jaydeehess]

Because i have found a serious mistake in the current government report that has led a lot of people to believe that there was this

No, you have found what you characterize as a serious mistake even though the very 'error' you point to in no way affects the preliminarily derived sequence of collapse.

Your only point is that some people would read into the report something that may not have been the case on 9/11/01 and then you went so far as to suggest that it was deliberatly done in such a way as to have some people read it that way.

[Christopher7]

Well this thread was started because you stated that you believe that it was brought down by demolitions yet for the most part you still refuse to tell us what about the collapse causes you to believe that. For the most part all you have done is say what there is that is not known.
For the most part i have been answering posts.

The primary evidence is the video that shows the penthouse collapsing, thus creating a void so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Then the rest of the center falls just before the outer walls to draw them in.
The result is the implosion of WTC 7 and the debris pile is mostly within the original footprint of the building.
[It would be impossible to get all the debris to fall within the original footprint]

[Belz...]

The primary evidence is the video that shows the penthouse collapsing, thus creating a void so the east and west walls could fall inward.

So the evidence that it was controlled was that it collapsed ? You're not getting any better at this, are you ?

[jaydeehess]

For the most part i have been answering posts.

......... the video that shows the penthouse collapsing, thus creating a void so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Then the rest of the center falls just before the outer walls to draw them in. ]

Well we all know this much


The result is the implosion of WTC 7 and the debris pile is mostly within the original footprint of the building.

No, the result is that the core of the building failed first. You still have shown no evidence that this was caused by any explosives being placed on the columns in question. All you have now stated is that NIST was correct in their assesment of the sequence of collapse.

It would be impossible to get all the debris to fall within the original footprint

Which it did not! A couple of surrounding buildings suffered major damage. Any debris that fell to the south hit WTC 6(or 5, I forget now) and so any further damage that occured there would not be particularily visible unless the parts of WTC 7 that hit it remained intact and recognizable.


So far now the 'evidence' that has you convinced that this was a controlled demolition is that there is no evidence and that the building collapsed from the center first.

Is that really all you have?

Really?

[jaydeehess]

It would be impossible to get all the debris to fall within the original footprint

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg

That's 30 West Broadway with a substantial bit of damage from #7. This illustrates that the east part of the building fell somewhat NE. Photos from the south show that the western portion fell to the south (into Vesey Street and onto what was left of WTC 6)

[Christopher7]

The result is the implosion of WTC 7 and the debris pile is mostly within the original footprint of the building

No,
Wrong

When a building falls in on itself, that's called an implosion, whatever the cause.

Implosion has become synonymous with controlled demolition because up until 9/11, that's the only thing that has made a high rise building implode.

NIST said the debris pile was contained mostly within the original footprint.


the result is that the core of the building failed first. You still have shown no evidence that this was caused by any explosives being placed on the columns in question. All you have now stated is that NIST was correct in their assesment of the sequence of collapse.The sequence of the collapse is consistent with the NIST report and a building implosion.

Which it did not! A couple of surrounding buildings suffered major damage. Any debris that fell to the south hit WTC 6(or 5, I forget now) and so any further damage that occured there would not be particularily visible unless the parts of WTC 7 that hit it remained intact and recognizable.NIST Apx.L pg 33
The debris from WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

Some debris damaged buildings to the north and to the south.

That's not surprising given that WTC 7 was 570 feet tall and only 170 feet from front to back.

So far now the 'evidence' that has you convinced that this was a controlled demolition is that there is no evidenceThe visual evidence is:

WTC 7 displays all the characteristics of a building implosion.

You cannot ignore Daryl and Craig or say that what they heard were definitely not explosions.

Implosion by CD cannot be ruled out.


The evidence for debris damage/fire is:

There was significant/severe debris damage and a lot of fire on the south side of WTC 7.
Likely damage to a core column.

Four fire chiefs thought it was going to collapse.

NIST says it "appears possible" that the failure of a single key column led to the global collapse.

Collapse due to debris damage/fire is by no means certain.

[Belz...]

Implosion by CD cannot be ruled out.

And that's the CT's MO. If you can't rule out my theory completely, then it is true.

Just like creationists.

[A W Smith]

Wrong

When a building falls in on itself, that's called an implosion, whatever the cause.



and then you say



The visual evidence is:

WTC 7 displays all the characteristics of a building implosion.

[jaydeehess]

Wrong

When a building falls in on itself, that's called an implosion, whatever the cause.

Implosion has become synonymous with controlled demolition because up until 9/11, that's the only thing that has made a high rise building implode.

from wiki:
Buildings are colloquially described to implode when demolished through explosives, causing them to collapse on themselves. Implosion is the inward collapse

I have never seen the use of 'implode' in describing an inward collapse except in the case of demolitions by the use of explosives. Whenever a building on fire has had inner column fail and the roof fall in I have seen it reported as a collapse. There are ample examples of buildings with the walls still partially standing and the rest of the building has collapsed inward. Nonetheless, if you can find any reference to an implosion that does not refer to a CD I'd be interested in seeing it, thanks.


The sequence of the collapse is consistent with the NIST report and a building implosion.

NIST Apx.L pg 33
The debris from WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

Some debris damaged buildings to the north and to the south.

That's not surprising given that WTC 7 was 570 feet tall and only 170 feet from front to back
The visual evidence is:

WTC 7 displays all the characteristics of a building implosion..


So once again this, in your humble opinion, must be a demolition because it sorta looks like one. In fact it displays a few aspects of a controlled demolition, one of which is that gravity worked in the same direction as it does in a CD.

You cannot ignore Daryl and Craig or say that what they heard were definitely not explosions.

Why not? You have no problem ignoring many things that others have said. It that reserved only for Chris Sarns?

These two report a loud noise and personally characterize it as that of an explosion. That is as far as this goes.

Implosion by CD cannot be ruled out.

,,,, and ,,,,

The evidence for debris damage/fire is:

There was significant/severe debris damage and a lot of fire on the south side of WTC 7.
Likely damage to a core column.

Four fire chiefs thought it was going to collapse.

NIST says it "appears possible" that the failure of a single key column led to the global collapse.

So many of the trained personel on site at that time say it was going to collapse to the popint that the NYFD pushed all people back from the building farther than the building is high , there are fires on many floors and on all 4 sides(one of the biggest fires was on the 7th floor and involved about 20% of the north side to the east of the center), the building suffered significant structural damage due to impacts ,,,,,,,, and you have that two guys heard a loud boom and the building fell inward.(oh yeah and some windows blew out when the collapse was already well underway)

To you this constitutes showing that CD is a much better explanation for the cause of the collapse.

(with apologies to aggle-rithm)
Really?


Collapse due to debris damage/fire is by no means certain.

No, but the preponderance of evidence points to it being a collapse as a result of mechanical damage due to debris impacts and fire damage. That you choose to accept the outside chance of pre-planted explosives says a lot about either your gullibility or your political prejudices(or both). It also illustrates your unwillingness to use that old 'critical thinking' thing so bandied about on these here web forums.

[Christopher7]

from wiki:


I have never seen the use of 'implode' in describing an inward collapse except in the case of demolitions by the use of explosives.
Neither have i.

Whenever a building on fire has had inner column fail and the roof fall in I have seen it reported as a collapse.
There are ample examples of buildings with the walls still partially standing and the rest of the building has collapsed inward. Nonetheless, if you can find any reference to an implosion that does not refer to a CD I'd be interested in seeing it, thanks.You're referring to the toilet paper factory, and other wide open or 4 story buildings.

Please site an example of a steel frame, high rise building collapsing in the center.

So once again this, in your humble opinion, must be a demolition because it sorta looks like one. In fact it displays a few aspects of a controlled demolition, one of which is that gravity worked in the same direction as it does in a CD.WTC 7 more than 'sorta looks like' an implosion.

It has all the visual characteristics, including the total collapse into a pile of rubble, mostly within it's original footprint. IMHO

You cannot ignore Daryl and Craig or say that what they heard were definitely not explosions

Why not? You have no problem ignoring many things that others have said. It that reserved only for Chris Sarns?There are conflicting statements:

Daryl heard 'a clap of thunder' about one second before the lower floors caved out.

Craig said "I know an explosion when I hear one."

and

Two experts from Controlled Demolition Inc., who said that they were there and that they did not hear any explosions.

These two report a loud noise and personally characterize it as that of an explosion. That is as far as this goes.They were there and heard the explosions. You were not.

You don't know what they heard and you cannot rule out the possibility that they indeed, heard explosions.

You constantly insist that they are wrong and you are right.

So many of the trained personel on site at that time say it was going to collapseOnly 3 or 4 that i know of. [source: Gravy's list]


No, but the preponderance of evidence points to it being a collapse as a result of mechanical damage due to debris impacts and fire damage. That you choose to accept the outside chance of pre-planted explosives says a lot about either your gullibility or your political prejudices(or both).My belief that WTC 7 was an implosion is because of what i see in the videos of the collapse,
and that it disintedrated in to a pile of rubble, mostly within it's original footprint.

[Belz...]

You're referring to the toilet paper factory, and other wide open or 4 story buildings.

Please site an example of a steel frame, high rise building collapsing in the center.

"Please cite an example so impossibly similar to WTC7's case that you won't be able to."

WTC 7 more than 'sorta looks like' an implosion.

It collapsed. Demolished buildings collapse. Please explain what other similarity you noticed.

It has all the visual characteristics, including the total collapse into a pile of rubble, mostly within it's original footprint. IMHO

"Mostly". Seems like you're keeping yourself some wiggle-room. Fact is: it damaged nearby buildings when it collapsed. Controlled demolitions don't do that. Ergo, that is NOT a similarity between the two. What other characteristics, out of "all [of them]", did you notice ?

Daryl heard 'a clap of thunder' about one second before the lower floors caved out.

Craig said "I know an explosion when I hear one."

ONE explosion ? Do you know ANYTHING about building demolitions ?

They were there and heard the explosions. You were not.

You're right. He wasn't. But since we can see more faces of the building we're more apt to judge the situation then the people who were there. No, wait. That's not MY argument.

You don't know what they heard and you cannot rule out the possibility that they indeed, heard explosions.

Again with the proving negatives. What IS it with you guys ?

You constantly insist that they are wrong and you are right.

I'm seeing a pot and a kettle.

My belief that WTC 7 was an implosion is because of what i see in the videos of the collapse,
and that it disintedrated in to a pile of rubble, mostly within it's original footprint.

So your "belief" is based on your layman, second-hand observations, and on an incorrect assessment of the event. Nice.

[jaydeehess]

"This thread is NOT about CD" so says Chris 7 on another thread.

So I am bumping this one since he has lost sight of it since Feb 09/07.

Once again Chris,, have at it.

Perhaps you'd like to give a short , point by point list of your evidence of CD that has been discussed in this thread so far.

[Christophera]

Source? How quickly is 'quickly'?

As quickly as you can put your finger in your nose or wipe your ............

Yes there was: it was a criminal investigation. Not abnormal.

Comparatively as abnormal as putting your finger in your mouth after picking and wiping.

Actually, the photos belong to whatever entity took the photo.

Knowing where your fingers go, you mean the entity that confiscated the photos.

Uhh, there's dozens of videos. They're the ones that CTs use to parrot the 'fell in 6 seconds' lie.

And they are excellent evidence which you have to then put your finger in your eye to ignore.

There's certainly members here with more experience in criminal investigation laws and what not who can tell you far more than I can.

That is hilarious. They wouldn't know a law if the broke it or supported its violation. They would do everything they could to silence somebody that exposed their violations or support for violations.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's see some evidence of bombs.

This is way better than bombs.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Sorry for being so nasty, but I am really pi$$ed at this place for CENSORSHIP.

[Arus808]

you weren't censored, Christophera, you were suspended for spamming and abuse of the forum rules.

if you continue to post links to your website as a reply to everything, with nothing new to add and ad hom attacks against other posters, you will be reported again for abuse.


ETA : and that is not a picture of the core exploding; which you've been told more than once; that a still image doesn't show what is really happening. That is what happens when a collapse occurs.

[Christophera]

you weren't censored, Christophera, you were suspended for spamming and abuse of the forum rules.

if you continue to post links to your website as a reply to everything, with nothing new to add and ad hom attacks against other posters, you will be reported again for abuse.


ETA : and that is not a picture of the core exploding; which you've been told more than once; that a still image doesn't show what is really happening. That is what happens when a collapse occurs.

Perhaps you do not know the site you post on.

I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell there is no way to find this post that was removed from the thread it was posted in.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2248014#post2248014

An entire page was removed from the "Realistic" thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=277

compare the last number in that url to the page number displayed when you activate the link. Weird stuff here. But you would know evidence if you put it in your eye.

[Arus808]

Perhaps you do not know the site you post on.

I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell there is no way to find this post that was removed from the thread it was posted in.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2248014#post2248014


again, you're showing that you are a liar Chris,

any "post" deemed by the mods to be spam or not on topic are moved to another forum ( http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19 ). YOu receive notices of the move by an automatic post to you by the mods.


An entire page was removed from the "Realistic" thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=277

compare the last number in that url to the page number displayed when you activate the link. Weird stuff here. But you would know evidence if you put it in your eye.

false , which shows you dont understand the workings of vBulletin; its a function of the php script that when a number on the Page= exceeds the total number of pages, it shows the last page on that url

go ahead and plug in page=376 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=376) and see what page displays (page 276)

Its to prevent Search engines from accessing and crawling pages that do not exist.



Before assuming something nefarious, its best to learn about the software.

[Christopher7]

"This thread is NOT about CD" so says Chris 7 on another thread.

So I am bumping this one since he has lost sight of it since Feb 09/07.

Once again Chris,, have at it.

Perhaps you'd like to give a short , point by point list of your evidence of CD that has been discussed in this thread so far.
OK let's try this again. For starters, view this video please

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

[CHF]

Christopher7

I watched your googlevideo link hoping to finally see a video which captures the sound of the WTC7 demolition charges going off.

I didn't hear any.

Please show me a video that picks up the rapid-fire demolition sequence. Those charges are LOUD. Any mic in the area should have picked them up.

[Christophera]

ETA : and that is not a picture of the core exploding; which you've been told more than once; that a still image doesn't show what is really happening. That is what happens when a collapse occurs.

So I was mistaken about the function of the BB software. But my post was not spam is was a serious rebuttal which applies to you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2248014#post2248014

And when it comes to lying, well, you take the cake because demolitions look like this, not collapses.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

[CHF]

And when it comes to lying, well, you take the cake because demolitions look like this, not collapses.

Who said WTC7 didn't look like a demolition?

The problem for you is that it didn't sound like one and the FDNY said it would collapse from structural damage.

And I'm sure you don't wanna blame the FDNY for the demolition and/or coverup.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7

I watched your googlevideo link hoping to finally see a video which captures the sound of the WTC7 demolition charges going off.
I didn't hear any.
Please show me a video that picks up the rapid-fire demolition sequence. Those charges are LOUD. Any mic in the area should have picked them up.
As you well know, there are no videos of the collapse with the sounds of explosives currently available on the web.
So ignore everything else.

The government collected, and has kept from public view, over 6,000 video clips and over 6,000 photographs.

You can now see them for a measly $13,800

Chances are that one of the news clips was close enough to hear the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.

[Christopher7]

Who said WTC7 didn't look like a demolition?
Actually, i have heard people say WTC 7 doesn't look like a CD on this forum.
I take it you agree that it looks like a CD.

[CHF]

As you well know, there are no videos of the collapse with the sounds of explosives currently available on the web.
So ignore everything else.

Well see that's the problem.

Demolition charges are LOUD! Very loud! It's simply not possible that NONE of the WTC7 videos captured the bangs.

If charges took down WTC7 then there would be clear audio evidence and THOUSANDS of people saying they heard them. No audio = no demolition.

The government collected, and has kept from public view, over 6,000 video clips and over 6,000 photographs. You can now see them for a measly $13,800

No problem! Rosie and Charlie Sheen have millions of $$$.

Chances are that one of the news clips was close enough to hear the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.

Two problems:

1) everyone in southern NYC would have heard the charges, not just "Daryl."

2) a demolition involves dozens - even hundreds - of charges going off in rapid sequence. A "clap of thunder" won't cut it.

And yes - WTC7 does indeed look like a demolition.

But then Mark Roberts looks like Robert Deniro and my brother looks like Patrick Roy.

Doesn't mean Mark's a movie star or that my bro won 4 Stanley Cups, does it?

[Christopher7]

Well see that's the problem.

Demolition charges are LOUD! Very loud! It's simply not possible that NONE of the WTC7 videos captured the bangs.

If charges took down WTC7 then there would be clear audio evidence and THOUSANDS of people saying they heard them. No audio = no demolition.
Everyone [or most everyone] was kept back 600 feet, that's two blocks.

Most everyone had buildings between them and WTC 7.

Few, including Daryl and Craig, heard the explosions.

There is no set sequence of demolition size or timing.

Every CD is tailored to the task at hand.

[jaydeehess]

Everyone [or most everyone] was kept back 600 feet, that's two blocks.

Most everyone had buildings between them and WTC 7.

Few, including Daryl and Craig, heard the explosions.

There is no set sequence of demolition size or timing.

Every CD is tailored to the task at hand.

Oh, come on C7. I could hear a shotgun easily at 600 feet.

The sequence of any supposed CD of WTC 7 would include (if the hypothesis of those who subscribe to a CD collapse is the case) those that blow columns 79, and/or 80, and/or 81 and/or the transfer trusses and perhaps followed by those that blow the interior columns not only at the lower floors but at intervals all the way to the top and then there are the ones that produced the 'squibs' which go off after the north wall has started to drop.

How many would that be then Chris 7?
Was there only ONE? The 'thunderclap' was the only one heard? Just ONE?

In the much bigger buildings , WTC 1 & 2 we are told that the boom,boom,boom was evidence of demiolitions but there is no boom,boom,boom at WTC 7. So, only ONE boom?

However, the sound, at least that one sound, could be an explosion. It is by no means a given though since it could also be a steel member giving up and snapping. We also have no way of knowing the timing of this sound do we? Did it occur before the east penthouse started to sink or after it had already began to plunge? Since we do not know then it could also be the equipment in the east penthouse breaking free and impacting the 47th floor. It also appears that the falling of the east penthouse initiated the separation of the east and west portions of the building( there is a natural shear plane there. taking out a few columns would increase the likihood of such a separation along that plane since it would be weaker than any other plane) and the 'thunderclap' could then also be the east section separating from the west.



CHF writes:
a demolition involves dozens - even hundreds - of charges going off in rapid sequence. A "clap of thunder" won't cut it

In the video Chris 7 supplies above the narrator says "hundreds". Chris 7 might not agree.
The narrator also states tha the building fell in 6 seconds which is a blatant lie. That completely ignores the interior failures that are part and parcel of the collapse. Something happened well before the east penthouse starts to sink inward. The time it took to collapse MUST start at the time this initial failure occured. The 6 seconds is just the time it took for the north facade to fall, some to the south and some to the north.

As for the manner of collapse it does fall almost within its own footprint. Significant damage is done to 30 West Broadway and other debris does impact the buildings to the east and west and WTC 6 to the south. This is a fairly compact area but is it direct evidence of a CD?
No, it isn't. The building's initial failure occured in the interior of the building and progressed through the core. This would cause the building to fall inward on itself. But the south wall was already damaged and thus weakened and that would cause that section (the western section) to preferentially also fall southward. I am not sure why the east section went north east.

So we have two bits of circumstantial evidence of CD. The loud bang and the manner of collapse.
These two bits of circumstantial evidence do have other explanations as well though and are therefore not conclusive.
Chris 7 however also states that in regard to the other hypothesis, DD/F, that there is no direct, empirical evidence of DD/F to the area of the initial failure and this is the case for the CD hypothesis as well. There is no direct, empirical evidence of explosives being placed or going off in WTC 7 let alone them being placed or going off in the area of the initial failure.

[Christopher7]

Oh, come on C7. ........ there is no boom,boom,boom at WTC 7. So, only ONE boom?
Craig said "...and all the time you're hearing thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, ...I think I know an explosion when I hear it.

If you wish to base your denial on the lack of audio evidence you are safe,
but don't say there is NO evidence of explosions.

Don't tell me again that it 'could have been something else' until you can be honest and say the other half;
it could have been explosions.

CHF writes:

In the video Chris 7 supplies above the narrator says "hundreds". Chris 7 might not agree.There could be hundreds of explosions in very rappid sucsession that could sound like a clap of thunder.

To say that it just can't be because of this or that is denial.

You cannot rule out the possibility that Daryl and Craig heard the explosions of a CD.

The narrator also states tha the building fell in 6 seconds which is a blatant lie. That completely ignores the interior failures that are part and parcel of the collapse.That should be 7 seconds, as if it mattered.
It ignores the penthouse because i am referring to the entire building.
The 'building' fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

As for the manner of collapse it does fall almost within its own footprint. Significant damage is done to 30 West Broadway and other debris does impact the buildings to the east and west and WTC 6 to the south. This is a fairly compact area but is it direct evidence of a CD? It is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Surrounding buildings were not a consideration.

So we have two bits of circumstantial evidence of CD. The loud bang and the manner of collapse.two bits of circumstantial evidence.
Understate much?

These two bits of circumstantial evidence do have other explanations as well though and are therefore not conclusive.Not conclusive, but it is enough to consider a professional building implosion as one possible explanation.

Chris 7 however also states that in regard to the other hypothesis, DD/F, that there is no direct, empirical evidence of DD/F* to the area of the initial failure and this is the case for the CD hypothesis as well. There is no direct, empirical evidence of explosives being placed or going off in WTC 7 let alone them being placed or going off in the area of the initial failure.*DD/DFF

The physical evidence was destroyed.

There is this empirical evidence

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8754/wtc7debris91jl2.jpg

I think these beams have been cut.

You can find a reason to believe otherwise but you cannot dismiss the possibility that it is what it looks like.


http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

The blue discoloration suggests heat.

You can ask unanswerable questions as a way to deny this evidence.

You can find a reason to dismiss or deny any evidence presented to you

but you cannot honestly reject this evidence out of hand.

[Gravy]

As you well know, there are no videos of the collapse with the sounds of explosives currently available on the web.
So ignore everything else.

The government collected, and has kept from public view, over 6,000 video clips and over 6,000 photographs.

You can now see them for a measly $13,800

Chances are that one of the news clips was close enough to hear the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.I have repeatedly asked you when you will raise that measly sum from the 84% of the adult American public who you claim support you.

Will you start the fundraising campaign this weekend, Chris?

If not, why?

[Gravy]

Pure intellectual cowardice. Chris, I showed you last summer why those columns weren't cut, but broke at their splices: every single one of them. You can read my analysis and look at the pretty pictures again here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Don't be an intellectual coward, Chris. It's unbecoming of an adult.

[tonicblue]

Don't know if this is the right thread to bring this up but apparently another engineer is onboard.

This guy was engineer of the year in 1998 and was "feted by 500 colleagues for design of steel structures"


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6001

[Gravy]

Don't know if this is the right thread to bring this up but apparently another engineer is onboard.

This guy was engineer of the year in 1998 and was "feted by 500 colleagues for design of steel structures"

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6001

The link says he'll be discussing the issues with an activist. It doesn't say what side he's taking. If he's a conspiracist, I look forward to reading his engineering analysis: he'll be the first!

ETA: I assume, by the way he's promoted by the symposium ad, that he's a truther. I'll email him to see. To be clear, he was "Engineer of the year" in Hamilton, Ontario. Not trying to take anything away from him...just wanted to point out that it didn't mean "Engineer of the year for the solar system" or somesuch.

[Christopher7]

I have repeatedly asked you when you will raise that measly sum from the 84% of the adult American public who you claim support you.

Will you start the fundraising campaign this weekend, Chris?

If not, why?
There was NO legitimate reason to remove 6,000 video news clips and 6,000 photographs from the public in the first place.

I got a reply to my Freedom of Information Act request, made on 2-6-07, on 3-12-07.

I have been put in the "all other requesters" category.

They will contact me when they complete the fee estimate.

A citizen should not have to take up a collection and go thru the FOIA to see what was once public information.

You don't have a problem with that because you are happy to have this information kept from the public as long as possible.

If you were as interested in the truth as i am, you would be following your own advice and starting a fund raising campaign and or putting your money where you mouth is.

[Christopher7]

Pure intellectual cowardice. Chris, I showed you last summer why those columns weren't cut, but broke at their splices: every single one of them.
You showed the two bent columns.
You did not show these beams nor can you deny the blue discoloration, indicating heat.
2/3 of the cut on both beams is very straight.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

These beams were cut using heat from a acetylene torch or explosive device IMO.

You can claim that these plates broke off if you want but you cannot rule out the possibility that they were cut.

[Gravy]

A citizen should not have to take up a collection and go thru the FOIA to see what was once public information.Please tell us when this information was public, before being made private.

I'm very interested to hear your response.

[Gravy]

These beams were cut using heat from a acetylene torch or explosive device IMO.

You can claim that these plates broke off if you want but you cannot rule out the possibility that they were cut.I can't? I already did, conclusively. Disagree? Go ahead, Chris: show the science that your opinion is based on.

Do you care at all about the crazy things you say? Do you even give a bit of a damn?

Then explain how your scenario is possible. Include all the photos of WTC 7's columns, and include your explanation of the splice plate/column separations. No more bullcrap. Do it. Now.

Don't forget to refer to the images in my paper: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

[Christopher7]

Please tell us when this information was public, before being made private.

I'm very interested to hear your response.
News clips are by their nature, public.

You don't think it was wrong for the government to collect and withhold all these video clips and photographs from the public for 5 years.

You don't think it is wrong that we should now have to pay to see them.

I do

BTW The fees are for the search and duplication of the 'documents', not for royalties.

[Gravy]

News clips are by their nature, public.Do explain, Chris.

Then explain why all the amateur photography that NIST used is also public.

I'm here. Explain.

[tonicblue]

News clips are by their nature, public.

You don't think it was wrong for the government to collect and withhold all these video clips and photographs from the public for 5 years.

You don't think it is wrong that we should now have to pay to see them.

I do

BTW The fees are for the search and duplication of the 'documents', not for royalties.

Is it also true that each person has to pay? I heard that once you obtain them you cannot disseminate or broadcast them in any way.

[Gravy]

Is it also true that each person has to pay? I heard that once you obtain them you cannot disseminate or broadcast them in any way.Rather than saying "I heard," you should present the statements from the source. Do you agree that that's a good idea? For instance, exactly what are the copyright issues with the images in NIST's collection?

tonicblue, this is my third request. When you make a claim about a serious issue, will you try to include all available information?

[tonicblue]

Rather than saying "I heard," you should present the statements from the source. Do you agree that that's a good idea? For instance, exactly what are the copyright issues with the images in NIST's collection?

tonicblue, this is my third request. When you make a claim about a serious issue, will you try to include all available information?

I was asking a question. If you can answer it then please do.

[Christopher7]

I can't? I already did, conclusively. Disagree? Go ahead, Chris: show the science that your opinion is based on.
If you say "conclusively" that those steel 'splices' broke off, then you are in denial.

You are not an expert on metal, cutting charges, or other demolitions techniques.

The blue discoloration is a clear sign the metal was heated accross the mostly straight break.
What is your science?

Then explain how your scenario is possible. Include all the photos of WTC 7's columns, and include your explanation of the splice plate/column separations. No more bullcrap. Do it. Now.On this thread i am presenting the evidence for explosives in WTC 7 and am defending the validity of that evidence.

You reject any evidence of CD and then say, "you have no evidence."

I think you are in denial and you think i'm out of my mind.
Ain't democracy interesting?

You want to get in to an endless speculation conversation.
No thank you.

I prefer to debate the evidence.

[Mobyseven]

The blue discoloration is a clear sign the metal was heated accross the mostly straight break.

Actually, the blue discolouration appears to have been caused by poor white balancing, or file compression, or both.

If you had a closer shot of the beams I could make a more accurate judgement, but thats the most likely cause of the 'blue discolouration' you're seeing.

[jaydeehess]

If you wish to base your denial on the lack of audio evidence you are safe,
but don't say there is NO evidence of explosions.

...Don't tell me again that it 'could have been something else' until you can be honest and say the other half;
it could have been explosions.


How did you miss my saying "However, the sound, at least that one sound, could be an explosion."?



[QUOTE][QUOTE]CHF writes:

There could be hundreds of explosions in very rappid sucsession that could sound like a clap of thunder.

To say that it just can't be because of this or that is denial.

Much like your denial that there can be any other damage or that the damage seen could have affected interior columns?




More later............

[jaydeehess]

That should be 7 seconds, as if it mattered.
It ignores the penthouse because i am referring to the entire building.
The 'building' fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

7 seconds would be starting only when the penthouse was actually beginning to sink. This now ignores , as I stated earlier, any interior failures that occured out of sight of the cameras. It looks to my eye that the interior, core columns failed in a horizontal sequence that had the center of the building falling. That pulled the perimeter walls inward, the north side pivoting over the original Con-ed building except for the eastern portion that was beyond that original structure. The eastern portion seemed to then twist slightly and go NE. The south face falling inward but had already suffered damage that caused it to fall apart quickly. It may have prevented some southward movement of the north facade as that side came over the Co-ed structure and as the Con-ed structure buckled, the north face would now come straight down with it. Some southward momentum would cause the upper portions of the north face to continue past the line of the south face.

Point is that in timing the collapse one is being very disingenuous to start the timing at after the initial failure that only manifested itself when the east penthouse began moving. That is like saying it takes 3 hours to travel from here to Montreal because the flight takes that long. It would ignore the fact that it takes a 2 1/2 hour drive to get to a large airport from which to board a jet and that one must be at the airport 1 1/2 hours in advance of the flight time as well as other matters such as automobile storage at a park n' fly.



As for the manner of collapse it does fall almost within its own footprint. Significant damage is done to 30 West Broadway and other debris does impact the buildings to the east and west and WTC 6 to the south. This is a fairly compact area but is it direct evidence of a CD?
It is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Surrounding buildings were not a consideration.

Really???
If so then why bother designing a collapse that falls mostly within its own footprint at all? It would make more sense to have it topple south thus mingling its debris with that of WTC 6 and WTC 1.
You are aware that this statement is at exact opposite odds with many another CTist concerning WTC 7 in which it is said that WTC 7 was brought almost straight down in order to limit damage?



Quote:
So we have two bits of circumstantial evidence of CD. The loud bang and the manner of collapse.
two bits of circumstantial evidence.
Understate much?

Ok, two points that could be regarded as meaning several things including indicators of explosive use.



Quote:
These two bits of circumstantial evidence do have other explanations as well though and are therefore not conclusive. Not conclusive, but it is enough to consider a professional building implosion as one possible explanation.


Barely, IMHO.


Quote:
Chris 7 however also states that in regard to the other hypothesis, DD/F, that there is no direct, empirical evidence of DD/F* to the area of the initial failure and this is the case for the CD hypothesis as well. There is no direct, empirical evidence of explosives being placed or going off in WTC 7 let alone them being placed or going off in the area of the initial failure.
*DD/DFF

The physical evidence was destroyed.

How convenient for your arguement. Just invoke a further conspiracy whenever you reach a deadend..

There is this empirical evidence

It looks very much like the columns snapped at their connections as Gravy has already pointed out. During construction in the WTC complex it was simply NOT POSSIBLE to use steel sections longer than 30 feet because it was not possible to drive them into the area. In the extreme conditions of the collapse the connections were subject to forces well beyond anything they were designed to take and they failed just as could be expected. In shear action a joint is always going to be weaker than the contiguous parts of the column.
That they snapped at the joints is evidence that the column suffered shearing forces NOT explosives. The discolorization does not resemble any explosive residue either IMHO.

[Gravy]

So, Chris, now you're contending that the conspirators tore out the walls and exterior panels of WTC 7 and blowtorched the splice plates on the exterior columns, then, presumably wired the building with explosives and put everything back together again, without anyone noticing.











Care to rethink that, buddy?

[Christopher7]

Do explain, Chris.

Then explain why all the amateur photography that NIST used is also public.

I'm here. Explain.
The amateuer photos were private. So what?
The news video clips were public.
There is NO legitimate reason to hide the evidence they contain for 5 years.
There was NO legitimate reason to destroy the physical evidence.
You are content with this destruction of evidence and withholding of evidence.
It spells 'cover up' to me.

[Christopher7]

So, Chris, now you're contending that the conspirators tore out the walls and exterior panels of WTC 7 and blowtorched the splice plates on the exterior columns, then, presumably wired the building with explosives and put everything back together again, without anyone noticing.
No
I'm describing what i can see in the photograph.

You deny the obvious implosion of WTC 7 with the deniers favorite refrain
"there is no way they could have done it"
as if you had universal knowledge.

[Christopher7]

Actually, the blue discolouration appears to have been caused by poor white balancing, or file compression, or both.

If you had a closer shot of the beams I could make a more accurate judgement, but thats the most likely cause of the 'blue discolouration' you're seeing.
"poor white balancing" ?

"file compression" ?

Sounds like BS to me, please explain.

[Christopher7]

7 seconds would be starting only when the penthouse was actually beginning to sink. This now ignores , as I stated earlier, any interior failures that occured out of sight of the cameras.
Standard nit pick and babble.
I have stated, and a reasonable person would agree, that "the building" means the entire building, but you know that.
You cannot deny that the north face fell at near freefall and the entire event is consistant with a professional building implosion.

[Gravy]

The news video clips were public.

Second request: please explain this statement.

[Gravy]

No
I'm describing what i can see in the photograph.Then please explain, as clearly as you can, how you think the splice plate was blowtorched, and if you think that was part of the conspirators' demolition work.

[Christopher7]

Second request: please explain this statement.
Asked and answered.

You are a master of point evasion.

There was NO justification for collecting these video clips and pictures and keeping them from the public for 5 years.

There is NO justification for releasing them only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

[Gravy]

Asked and answered.Third time: please explain how video shot by a news company is public property.

[Christopher7]

Third time: please explain how video shot by a news company is public property.
When it is broadcast

[Gravy]

When it is broadcastFourth time: when CNN shoots and broadcasts news video, who owns the rights to it: you, or them?

[LashL]

The link says he'll be discussing the issues with an activist. It doesn't say what side he's taking. If he's a conspiracist, I look forward to reading his engineering analysis: he'll be the first!

ETA: I assume, by the way he's promoted by the symposium ad, that he's a truther. I'll email him to see. To be clear, he was "Engineer of the year" in Hamilton, Ontario. Not trying to take anything away from him...just wanted to point out that it didn't mean "Engineer of the year for the solar system" or somesuch.

Now, this is interesting...

Friday March 23, 7:00 p.m.
The Skydragon Centre
27 King William Street , Hamilton Ontario Canada

What:

Hamilton 9/11 Symposium

Join founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies and long-time peace activist Graeme MacQueen and Professor Emeritus of structural engineering Bob Korol for a discussion of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. The speakers will screen a film and present both primary and secondary research on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. The evening will present a rigorous and scholarly analysis of one of the most important events in recent history. Bring your questions and your open mind!

More Info

http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/a8c91423-7582-466b-930c-02bc69ff8677

I think I will attend this event and see what Mr. Korol has to say. Hamilton is not very far from where I live. Perhaps Dr. Greening will also be interested in attending as Mr. Korol is from his alma mater as well.


EDIT TO ADD: DOH! I just realized that this event was YESTERDAY - I guess I won't be attending after all.:o

Edit to add: And it appears that Dr. Greening was there (http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthmovement/thread/bc4c16e1-55e5-47ba-96ac-2745afc1037a), too.

[jaydeehess]

Standard nit pick and babble.
I have stated, and a reasonable person would agree, that "the building" means the entire building, but you know that.
You cannot deny that the north face fell at near freefall and the entire event is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Well Chris the 'entire building' took much longer than 6 or even 7 seconds to collapse.

What took 6 to 7 seconds to collapse was the portion of the building that was no longer benefitting from the support of the core column. Seems to me the number bandied about is 6.5 seconds for the north wall to collapse. That is about 10% longer than free fall. Given that there was no internal support for the building that number seems resonable.

Yes, I can deny that the time it took for the north face to fall and the entire event are consistent with a professional building implosion other than to say that yes, demolitions make a loud noise and the building does fall down.

The points you have made so far are slim as far as serving to make that hypothesis very good. Your main arguements can easily be attributed to other causes tha explosives and the arguement about cut columns DOES INDEED require that you totally ignore or manage to explain how these charges were fastened to the columns and have no one noticing.
Remember, the video you instructed us to watch states that it would take hundreds of charges. They had to be installed by someone at sometime and kept hidden until use(installing them in a badly damaged building on fire on Sept 11/01 is a non-starter)


White balance and compression are terms that have to do with photography and electronic storage of photographs respectively.

Whenever a news agency takes a video it retains the copyright on that material no matter whether or not they broadcast it. You may IIRC, show no more than 10 seconds of video without prior permission. Any other use of it, especially commercial use, without the express permission of that agency, in writing, is a contravention of that copyright.

[Mobyseven]

"poor white balancing" ?

"file compression" ?

Sounds like BS to me, please explain.

On digital cameras white balancing is important to obtain natural colours. Without getting into details of why it is necessary, you do it by focusing your camera on a pure white object (a sheet of paper will generally do just fine) and adjusting the white balance on your camera until the white paper looks white in the photographs/video footage as well. Most digital cameras now have automatic white balancing, but they don't always work well (hence I usually check and adjust myself before doing anything important).

I specified digital cameras because previously this was a feature of the film used - for example, tungsten film which is used most commonly for indoor photography where incandescant bulbs (with a tungsten filament) are used for lighting. Using regular film for this produces an orange-yellow cast where objects should be white. If you are interested I have some example photographs sitting around that I could scan in and show you. I took them when I was dating a graphic design student and was teaching her some basic photography. I took one photo using 400ASA daylight film in her room (which was lit with fluorescent lights), using a Canon EOS 500 if I remember correctly (and there is a chance that I don't), and then I took another photo from the same position with the same lighting, but using a fluorescent light filter to colour adjust.

I take that back. I can't find the photgraphs, which means that she probably has them, which means I'm not going to go get them.

But, I was doing tests on a video camera a few nights ago and I have the footage from that (which includes cycling through the colour temperatures to white balance for a fluorescant light). If you are interested I can probably post that (for anyone who is interested)...would I have to post at YouTube first and then put in one of those YouTube links people post here to do that?

As for file compression...well, there isn't too much I can say on that. Unless you're working with a camera that captures RAW image files, the second you take your photo you are already working with a compressed image (usually a JPEG - some cameras capture TIF files, which are much better quality and not compressed as much but also take up a hell of a lot more memory). And file compression will often change colours in a photograph (not dramatically, usually), or at the very least make them unclear. Resaving JPEG files, or converting between different file formats will exaggerate this effect.

So no, it is not BS as all. Anything you are still unclear about?

[jaydeehess]

To illustrate the damage what compression does to a video file our graphics guy showed the same "station ident" in two formats.
The first was uncompressed video.
The second was an .avi file that had been edited and then re-rendered as yet another .avi file. So this was only two compressions (from raw to .avi then from .avi to .avi after editing)

The second was crap! In a station ident there are of course lettering and the edges of the letters were missing in some parts and black specks were in solid color areas, the background was waves on a beach and it now looked like waves on a toxic waste dump since the sparkle off the wave tops was now washed out.

The lesson, only edit using original uncompressed files and save your work uncompressed. You can export an .avi or mpeg file later when it is needed.

We also go to great lengths to have all cameras on a multi camera shoot , look the same. That includes white balance, color balance(color phase and saturation) and pedestal level(black balance). I am constantly reminding camera people to use the same white board to white balance each camera and to, furgodssake, not use snow or ice (ie. at a hockey game) to do a white balance.

[Christopher7]

Fourth time: when CNN shoots and broadcasts news video, who owns the rights to it: you, or them?
Them

Interesting that your concern is for copyright and not the public right to know the facts about 9/11.

You have not responded to my statement that there is no justification for the government to collect these videos and photographs and keep them from the public for 5 years.

We have all seen the collapse of the Towers many times on TV.
The FEMA and NIST reports contain a few of the photographs .
If it's OK to show some of the videos and photographs, why not all of them?

[Gravy]

Them
Excellent. Why did it take me asking four times to get you to admit that these recordings aren't public property?

Interesting that your concern is for copyright and not the public right to know the facts about 9/11.No one has interfered with your right to know any facts.

You have not responded to my statement that there is no justification for the government to collect these videos and photographs and keep them from the public for 5 years.That's because I was waiting for your response to my ownership issue. NIST was granted the rights to use the images by their owners. You can purchase copies.

I hope that clears things up.

[Mobyseven]

Christopher 7: Are you happy with my explanation of white balancing and compression?

[Mobyseven]

We also go to great lengths to have all cameras on a multi camera shoot , look the same. That includes white balance, color balance(color phase and saturation) and pedestal level(black balance). I am constantly reminding camera people to use the same white board to white balance each camera and to, furgodssake, not use snow or ice (ie. at a hockey game) to do a white balance.

Where do you work?

I can imagine the importance of all cameras being balanced correctly with eachother...if only I had the chance to do a multi camera shoot. Guess I'll have to stick with my one-camera setup for the moment.

Having said that, I'm getting better results with this new camera than you generally see in this price range (AUS$1800 - Panasonic NV-GS500). Of course, it's rrp is $2199, but I got it through the shop I used to work for, so...:D

[Christopher7]

Well Chris the 'entire building' took much longer than 6 or even 7 seconds to collapse.
You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds. Most people understand what that means.
If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem.


The points you have made so far are slim as far as serving to make that hypothesis very good. Your main arguements can easily be attributed to other causesYour ability to come up with alternate reasons for everything does not change or lessen the evidence i have presented.


tha explosives and the arguement about cut columns DOES INDEED require that you totally ignore or manage to explain how these charges were fastened to the columns and have no one noticing.It is not necessary for me to explain every aspect of the CD.
You ask for something i could not possibly know and use that as an excuse to ignore the evidence presented.


Remember, the video you instructed us to watch states that it would take hundreds of charges. They had to be installed by someone at sometime and kept hidden until use(installing them in a badly damaged building on fire on Sept 11/01 is a non-starter)Right. You can't believe that anyone could do this, so it didn't happen.
Of course, you are an expert, up to date on the state of the art tools and techniques.

White balance and compression are terms that have to do with photography and electronic storage of photographs respectively.

Whenever a news agency takes a video it retains the copyright on that material no matter whether or not they broadcast it. You may IIRC, show no more than 10 seconds of video without prior permission. Any other use of it, especially commercial use, without the express permission of that agency, in writing, is a contravention of that copyright.Thank you

[Gravy]

You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds.Of course it did. Except for the portion the size of several apartment buildings on my block that didn't. :rolleyes:

[Christopher7]

No one has interfered with your right to know any facts.
The government has interfered with everyone's right to know the facts by collecting and withholding these videos and photographs form the public for 5 years.
Since the physical evidence was quickly destroyed, the videos, photographs and witness statements are only evidence we have.

Making me go thru the Freedom of Information Act to see them is interfering with my right to know the truth about 9/11.

NIST was granted the rights to use the images by their owners. You can purchase copies.You missed an important fact in my earlier post.
The money is for the search and duplication, not royalties.

[Gravy]

Who said anything about royalties? The owners of the images gave them to NIST to be used in its investigation, not to you.

Clear enough?

Now, for the second time:

Please explain, as clearly as you can, how you think the splice plate was blowtorched, and if you think that was part of the conspirators' demolition work.

[LashL]

You are playing word games.
WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds. Most people understand what that means.
If you have a problem with that statement, then you have a problem.

It is you that has the problem, Chris. WTC7 did not fall in 7 seconds. You know that and yet you continue to repeat what you know to be a lie.

You cannot artificially separate one portion of the collapse (the final ~7 seconds of it) from the entirety of it (you know, the collapse from start to finish) and then claim that "WTC7 fell in 7 seconds" unless you are deliberately grossly dishonest with yourself - and others.

[Christopher7]

On digital cameras white balancing is important to obtain natural colours.
Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

[Christopher7]

It is you that has the problem, Chris. WTC7 did not fall in 7 seconds. You know that and yet you continue to repeat what you know to be a lie.

You cannot artificially separate one portion of the collapse (the final ~7 seconds of it) from the entirety of it (you know, the collapse from start to finish) and then claim that "WTC7 fell in 7 seconds" unless you are deliberately grossly dishonest with yourself - and others.
On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building

[Gravy]

Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpgMore cowardice?

Chris, I know your memory is very short, but a few hours back I reminded you that I showed you why you are wrong. If you have an issue with the analysis in my WTC 7 paper, out with it.

[Gravy]

On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building

You're a Stundie machine, a Stundie stud, a Stundie god.

[Christopher7]

Who said anything about royalties? The owners of the images gave them to NIST to be used in its investigation, not to you.
The owners did the right thing, the government did not.

There is no justification for releasing a few of the photographs and withholding the rest.

[Christopher7]

Chris, I know your memory is very short, but a few hours back I reminded you that I showed you why you are wrong. If you have an issue with the analysis in my WTC 7 paper, out with it.
What analysis? page # please

[Gravy]

The same analysis that I presented to you on this forum months ago, for which you had no answer. Use my paper's index.

[LashL]

On the contrary sir, i can do whatever i bloody well want.
It's a mater of how you define the word building



You cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously with a post like that.

[Christopher7]

The same analysis that I presented to you on this forum months ago, for which you had no answer. Use my paper's index.

I used your index, saw the pretty pictures and a comment by you.
If you want me to read your analysis, give me the page number

[Christopher7]

You cannot possibly expect to be taken seriously with a post like that.
You guys are so in denial you can't even admit that WTC 7 fell at close to freefall speed.

[gumboot]

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

The photo has been overexposed and poorly white-balanced. I think that where (what I assumed) was bright poorly balanced sky bleeds into the top of the beam is the 'blue discolouration'.

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot

Once again, Gumboot sees the obvious that Mobyseven failed to recognise.

[Mobyseven]

Thank you for the info.

It all comes down to:

Do you think these splices broke off or do you think they have been cut by a heat source.
I consider this evidence of a cutting charge of some kind.
You may disagree but you cannot dismiss this evidence out of hand IMO.


What I think in this case is pretty irrelevant. I don't have the required expertise to tell you that, and even people with relevant expertise would (I imagine) have trouble analysing the cause of a break from a photograph.

That is why I open the question to anybody here who DOES have that knowledge - can someone with the relevant expertise tell me what may have caused that?

[Christopher7]

Christoper, I don't see any blue discolouration in the steel of the picture you posted. Care to identify it?

Also what is the source of that image? It's very very wrong. For starters it's fish-eyed, which makes no sense at all (who wanders around with a fish-eye lens on their stills camera?). Secondly, the large white section behind/above the foreground core column looks very suspicious.

What's the dea?

-Gumboot
Here's the full photo that i have.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2063/64795019wk8.jpg

[gumboot]

Here's the full photo that i have.

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/2063/64795019wk8.jpg



Ah, thanks. It makes a lot more sense now. The white is the sky and that pale blue is actually some other structure in the background.

Now where's this "blue discolouration"? Surely you don't mean the staining at the top of the severed column?

-Gumboot

ETA. And once again, why on earth was that taken with a fisheye lens?

[Christopher7]

What I think in this case is pretty irrelevant. I don't have the required expertise to tell you that, and even people with relevant expertise would (I imagine) have trouble analysing the cause of a break from a photograph.

That is why I open the question to anybody here who DOES have that knowledge - can someone with the relevant expertise tell me what may have caused that?
You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut.

[Christopher7]

Ah, thanks. It makes a lot more sense now. The white is the sky and that pale blue is actually some other structure in the background.

Now where's this "blue discolouration"? Surely you don't mean the staining at the top of the severed column?
Yes, i do

[gumboot]

Yes, i do

Er... okaaaay...

That's not blue-discolouration due to to heating.

Frankly it looks like a water stain to me.

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

How can you possibly say that you don't need any expertise to determine what caused the break? The difference may in fact be impossible to tell to the untrained eye.

It's like someone at LC once said: "Would you consider that a clean cut on a sheet of paper indicates the usage of scissors? Because I do."

Someone pointed out to him that a scalpel would do exactly the same thing.

A regardless of this, your hypothesis doesn't take into account that it may have been cut during the process of cleaning up debris.

I, however, will await the professional judgement of someone with the knowledge required to explain this.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut.

I cannot, no. Others may be able to though. And just because there is the remotest possibility that your claim may be true, that doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it is probably true.

It's possible that my neighbour comes into my room while I sleep and removes some socks, explaining why I have odd socks left over at the moment. However, it is a remote possibility, and the preponderance of odd sock can more probably be explained by the fact that my room needs a clean at the moment (just moved a lot of stuff in).

I can set up a test for this, and that would provide me with evidence to make a judgement one way or the other. But until (or if) I decide to do that, I will have to accept that while it is possible that my neighbour is sneaking into my room, it is probable that my room is just too messy to find anything right now.

See the analogy?

[Mobyseven]

Er... okaaaay...

That's not blue-discolouration due to to heating.

Frankly it looks like a water stain to me.

-Gumboot

I still think that it's something else, like white paint or a spot where the beam has been chipped, that just looks blue due to the poor white balance, over-exposure, and file compression.

Definately not blue-discolouration due to heating though.

[jaydeehess]

Where do you work?

I can imagine the importance of all cameras being balanced correctly with eachother...if only I had the chance to do a multi camera shoot. Guess I'll have to stick with my one-camera setup for the moment.

Having said that, I'm getting better results with this new camera than you generally see in this price range (AUS$1800 - Panasonic NV-GS500). Of course, it's rrp is $2199, but I got it through the shop I used to work for, so...:D

I work for a small TV station and the same company owns the cable tv business in this town. Thus I also help out in the cable tv access station's shoots which includes local hockey games. We have a remote production truck. For a hockey game we use 3 cameras, computer CG, and an instant replay for which we utilize an SVHS vtr left over from before we went to a digital recording system, it has a very good shuttle/jog system that makes it good for instant slo-mo replay.

All three cameras must look the same and the color balance(phase and saturation levels) from the vtr and the computer must be the same as the cameras as well. It would not do to have the replay display the team shirts off from true color otherwise some people might suggest we were faking the whole thing.

Our cameras cost about $25000.00 each. A new high def camera can be purchased now in the range of $25,000 to $100,000 each. Frankly there are some of the lower cost ones which display an image that is as good as the $100K ones or at least it is difficult to see $75K worth of improvement. We may be getting two new hi-def capable cameras in the next year since the upper echelons of the co. have an eye to taking us to hi-def broadcast.

[LashL]

You guys are so in denial you can't even admit that WTC 7 fell at close to freefall speed.

Let's see. You want to redefine the meaning of the word "building" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2458053&postcount=184) and you think that it is "[us] guys" who are in denial?

WTC7 most certainly did not fall "at close to freefall speed".

:eyes:

[Gravy]

I used your index, saw the pretty pictures and a comment by you.
If you want me to read your analysis, give me the page number


I showed you several exterior columns from WTC 7. I provided a description of how those columns had milled ends and were connected by welded splice plates attached to their flanges. I showed you a construction photo of those columns in place. I showed you photos that show that all of the broken exterior columns broke at their splices (I have many more such photos). I showed you splice plates that had fractured above column ends, below column ends, and columns that had lost their splice plates entirely. What is missing from every photo of the column ends? Torch marks where you claim the splice plates were cut (remember, such cuts would have left marks on the columns as well), and any sign of blast effects.

And by the way, I had showed you all of this last Summer.

Now it's your turn to explain.

How did the conspirators, with all their equipment, gain access to all the exterior columns? This would have required tearing out the walls and removing the fireproofing, all around the building. So how'd they do it.
Why did no one see such work being done?
How did they cut the splice plates without leaving marks on either the plates or the columns?
Why did they "cut" the splice plates in such random ways: sometimes above the column joint, sometimes below the joint, sometimes removing the splice plate entirely (not an easy job!)? Why not cut the splice plates at the logical location: the column joint?
How can you show that the column joints didn't separate because of the collapse alone, without the help of torches or explosions?
Why, if explosives were planted on exterior columns, do no explosions appear during WTC 7's collapse? Why was no exterior sheathing blasted off?
Why did experts on the scene report that there were no sounds similar to demolitions charges during WTC 7's collapse?I dread to read the tortured things that you are going to write in response, but have at it.

[Mobyseven]

I work for a small TV station and the same company owns the cable tv business in this town. Thus I also help out in the cable tv access station's shoots which includes local hockey games. We have a remote production truck. For a hockey game we use 3 cameras, computer CG, and an instant replay for which we utilize an SVHS vtr left over from before we went to a digital recording system, it has a very good shuttle/jog system that makes it good for instant slo-mo replay.

All three cameras must look the same and the color balance(phase and saturation levels) from the vtr and the computer must be the same as the cameras as well. It would not do to have the replay display the team shirts off from true color otherwise some people might suggest we were faking the whole thing.

Our cameras cost about $25000.00 each. A new high def camera can be purchased now in the range of $25,000 to $100,000 each. Frankly there are some of the lower cost ones which display an image that is as good as the $100K ones or at least it is difficult to see $75K worth of improvement. We may be getting two new hi-def capable cameras in the next year since the upper echelons of the co. have an eye to taking us to hi-def broadcast.

For the moment I'll have to make do with making independant films on my camera.

Nowhere near as good quality as yours, but for Mini-DV it isn't bad...step up from the family-camcorder variety anyway.

True 16:9 widescreen, 3CCD, manual focus ring, Leica Dicomar lens...I'm pretty happy all things considered...:D

[Christopher7]

You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

How can you possibly say that you don't need any expertise to determine what caused the break? The difference may in fact be impossible to tell to the untrained eye.
The breaks are mostly straight and there is blue discoloration. This is clear evidence that they were cut IMO.
It would take an group of experts to say definitively but anyone not in denial would say "It does not look like the steel broke off".

A regardless of this, your hypothesis doesn't take into account that it may have been cut during the process of cleaning up debris.
No one climbed up there and cut this section of framework while the fires were still burning.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4196/copyof1vm4.jpg

I, however, will await the professional judgement of someone with the knowledge required to explain this.A single opinion would not be sufficient.
A professional organization like the Structural Engineers Association of New York would have sufficient credibility.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut

I cannot, no.Thank you for your honesty.

Others may be able to though. And just because there is the remotest possibility that your claim may be true, that doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it is probably true.

[Christopher7]

I still think that it's something else, like white paint or a spot where the beam has been chipped, that just looks blue due to the poor white balance, over-exposure, and file compression.
Hogwash.
Your brief moment of honesty seems to have passed.

Definately not blue-discolouration due to heating though.
So now you're an expert?

[LashL]

So now you're an expert?

Ahem.

Says the guy who wrote:

The blue discoloration is a clear sign the metal was heated accross the mostly straight break.

Kindly provide your credentials and the expertise upon which you base that statements.

And, by the way, what is the definition of the word "building" in your world?

[Christopher7]

Let's see. You want to redefine the meaning of the word "building" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2458053&postcount=184) and you think that it is "[us] guys" who are in denial?

WTC7 most certainly did not fall "at close to freefall speed".

:eyes:
You just keep tellin' yourself that.

It does not matter how we differ on the definition of building or freefall.

The speed of the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with a professional building implosion.

[LashL]

You just keep tellin' yourself that.

It does not matter how we differ on the definition of building or freefall.

The speed of the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with a professional building implosion.

Au contraire. It most certainly does matter how you define "building" and how you define "freefall" when you repeatedly (and wrongly) claim that the "building" fell at "close to freefall speed" as you have done.

It appears that you now recognize how wrong you are and that you are now engaging in that time honoured Troofer sport called "moving the goal posts". At this rate, I suspect it will not take too long before the sport becomes a Troofer Olympic event.

[Gravy]

Chris, please respond to the questions in my post #205.

[Christopher7]

I showed you several exterior columns from WTC 7. I provided a description of how those columns had milled ends and were connected by welded splice plates attached to their flanges. I showed you a construction photo of those columns in place. I showed you photos that show that all of the broken exterior columns broke at their splices (I have many more such photos). I showed you splice plates that had fractured above column ends, below column ends, and columns that had lost their splice plates entirely. What is missing from every photo of the column ends? Torch marks where you claim the splice plates were cut (remember, such cuts would have left marks on the columns as well), and any sign of blast effects.
You did not show this photo

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg


How did the conspirators, with all their equipment, gain access to all the exterior columns? This would have required tearing out the walls and removing the fireproofing, all around the building. So how'd they do it.
Why did no one see such work being done?
How did they cut the splice plates without leaving marks on either the plates or the columns?
Why did they "cut" the splice plates in such random ways: sometimes above the column joint, sometimes below the joint, sometimes removing the splice plate entirely (not an easy job!)? Why not cut the splice plates at the logical location: the column joint?
How can you show that the column joints didn't separate because of the collapse alone, without the help of torches or explosions?
Why, if explosives were planted on exterior columns, do no explosions appear during WTC 7's collapse? Why was no exterior sheathing blasted off?
Why did experts on the scene report that there were no sounds similar to demolitions charges during WTC 7's collapse?I dread to read the tortured things that you are going to write in response, but have at it.How the f am i supposed to know any of that?

Let's look at the evidence and not waste time arguing the infinitely arguable.

You can't believe that anyone could pull it off, therefore, it didn't happen.

[LashL]

How the f am i supposed to know any of that?


Stundie material - The Troofers Refrain.

[Gravy]

How the f am i supposed to know any of that?
It's understandable that you feel overwhelmed. You constantly make claims for which you have no evidence.

Let's try a simple question: could the columns in the photos have separated without the use of explosives or pre-cutting of splice plates? If not, why? Be specific.

[Christopher7]

Au contraire. It most certainly does matter how you define "building" and how you define "freefall" when you repeatedly (and wrongly) claim that the "building" fell at "close to freefall speed" as you have done.
That sir, is a matter of opinion.

It appears that you now recognize how wrong you are and that you are now engaging in that time honoured Troofer sport called "moving the goal posts". People outside this discussion couldn't care less about how we define building or freefall.

The essence of the building in freefall is that it looks like a

professional building [I]implosion.

The videos are the primary evidence.

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.

[Gravy]

Chris, I don't think you want to play the photo game with me. You cannot defend your claims because they are nonsensical. Rational people reject such nonsense. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046076fdaadd5e.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046076f5459a53.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790460771daa4f83.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790460771dabd624.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790460775430409a.jpg

[Christopher7]

It's understandable that you feel overwhelmed. You constantly make claims for which you have no evidence.
I have presented evidence. You deny that it is evidence and then say that i have no evidence.

Let's try a simple question: could the columns in the photos have separated without the use of explosives or pre-cutting of splice plates? If not, why? Be specific.There you go again.

You ask me to speculate so you can attack anything i say.

No thank you

You cannot justifiably dismiss the possibility that the splices were cut.

[Gravy]

That sir, is a matter of opinion.Careful who you call sir.

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.No, Chris, it is you who is in denial. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913)

[Gravy]

You ask me to speculate so you can attack anything i say.

No thank you

You cannot justifiably dismiss the possibility that the splices were cut.Chris, you are speculating on the splices being cut, without having the slightest evidence to support that claim, or any explanation of how that could have been accomplished by the conspirators.

Chris, could the splices have fractured from the collapse? Yes or no?

[The Doc]

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.

Well I don't know about you, but every building implosion I have seen there are huge flashes, loud explosion noises in quick succession and visible explosions.

None of which were observed at WTC7.

[gumboot]

I worked for 2 1/2 years with a professional armourer, so I'm pretty familiar with steel and how it changes colour when heated.

That is not heat-discoloured.

-Gumboot

[Christopher7]

Chris, I don't think you want to play the photo game with me. You cannot defend your claims because they are nonsensical. Rational people reject such nonsense. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times.
Actually, most of the people that i have shown those photos think the steel was cut.

Some are not sure but none say that those beams broke off.

Apparently you think that there is no chance that they cut.

Your 'Verizon Bldg - Sheared Splice Plate' photo shows a bent beam with an irregular tear as would be expected of steel.
Steel is malleable. It does not break*. It bends, rips and tears.

*Stress fractures are not a factor here.

[Mobyseven]

The breaks are mostly straight and there is blue discoloration. This is clear evidence that they were cut IMO.
It would take an group of experts to say definitively but anyone not in denial would say "It does not look like the steel broke off".

Then what does steel look like when it "breaks off"?

If you cannot answer that, then you cannot say that the beams must have been cut.

No one climbed up there and cut this section of framework while the fires were still burning.

Thankyou for that context.

A single opinion would not be sufficient.
A professional organization like the Structural Engineers Association of New York would have sufficient credibility.

No, a single opinion is NOT sufficient. That is why you claiming that the beams must have been cut holds no water at all.

A single expert opinion would be better than no opinion, or a non-expert opinion.

The collective opinion of a number fo experts would be better than the single expert opinion.

Thank you for your honesty.

Anytime.

[Gravy]

Steel is malleable. It does not break*. It bends, rips and tears.

*Stress fractures are not a factor here.Please explain why the splice plates could not have fractured. Back up your claims with facts. Fair enough?

[Mobyseven]

Hogwash.
Your brief moment of honesty seems to have passed.

Dear Ed you are an insincere [rule 8].

If you disagree with my analysis, then tell me WHY. Don't just say 'hogwash', give reasons.

And why on earth would you consider that I am being dishonest in my analysis?

So now you're an expert?

Anybody feel free to correct me on this, but unless the laws of physics have changed since I last checked, steel does not turn blue when it is heated, and it does not turn blue when it cools. I don't need to be an expert to tell you that.

[gumboot]

Your 'Verizon Bldg - Sheared Splice Plate' photo shows a bent beam with an irregular tear as would be expected of steel.
Steel is malleable. It does not break*. It bends, rips and tears.

(my bolding)

1. to smash, split, or divide into parts violently; reduce to pieces or fragments: He broke a vase.
2. to infringe, ignore, or act contrary to (a law, rule, promise, etc.): She broke her promise.
3. to dissolve or annul (often fol. by off): to break off friendly relations with another country.
4. to fracture a bone of (some part of the body): He broke his leg.
5. to lacerate; wound: to break the skin.
6. to destroy or interrupt the regularity, uniformity, continuity, or arrangement of; interrupt: The bleating of a foghorn broke the silence. The troops broke formation.
7. to put an end to; overcome; stop: His touchdown run broke the tie. She found it hard to break the cigarette habit.
8. to discover the system, key, method, etc., for decoding or deciphering (a cryptogram), esp. by the methods of cryptanalysis.
9. to remove a part from (a set or collection): She had to break the set to sell me the two red ones I wanted.
10. to exchange for or divide into smaller units or components: She broke a dollar bill into change. The prism broke the light into all the colors of the rainbow.
11. to make a way through; penetrate: The stone broke the surface of the water.
12. Law.
a. to open or force one's way into (a dwelling, store, etc.).
b. to contest (a will) successfully by judicial action.
13. to make one's way out of, esp. by force: to break jail.
14. to better (a given score or record): He never broke 200 in bowling or 80 in golf.
15. to disclose or divulge personally in speech or writing: He broke the good news to her at dinner.
16. to solve: The police needed only a week to break that case.
17. to rupture (a blood vessel): She almost broke a blood vessel from laughing so hard.
18. to disable or destroy by or as if by shattering or crushing: to break a watch.
19. to cause (a blister, boil, or the like) to burst, as by puncturing: She broke the blister with a needle.
20. to ruin financially; make bankrupt: They threatened to break him if he didn't stop discounting their products.
21. to overcome or wear down the spirit, strength, or resistance of; to cause to yield, esp. under pressure, torture, or the like: They broke him by the threat of blackmail.
22. to dismiss or reduce in rank.
23. to impair or weaken the power, effect, or intensity of: His arm broke the blow.
24. to train to obedience; tame: to break a horse.
25. to train away from a habit or practice (usually fol. by of).
26. Electricity. to render (a circuit) incomplete; stop the flow of (a current).
27. Journalism.
a. to release (a story) for publication or airing on radio or television: They will break the story tomorrow.
b. to continue (a story or article) on another page, esp. when the page is not the following one.
28. Pool. to cause (racked billiard balls) to scatter by striking with the cue ball.
29. Sports.
a. (of a pitcher, bowler, etc.) to hurl (a ball) in such a way as to cause it to change direction after leaving the hand: He broke a curve over the plate for a strike.
b. (in tennis and other racket games) to score frequently or win against (an opponent's serve).
30. Nautical. to unfurl (a flag) suddenly by an easily released knot.
31. to prove the falsity or show the lack of logic of: The FBI broke his alibi by proving he knew how to shoot a pistol.
32. to begin or initiate (a plan or campaign), esp. with much publicity: They were going to break the sales campaign with a parade in April.
33. to open the breech or action of (a shotgun, rifle, or revolver), as by snapping open the hinge between the barrel and the butt.
–verb (used without object)
34. to shatter, burst, or become broken; separate into parts or fragments, esp. suddenly and violently: The glass broke on the floor.
35. to become suddenly discontinuous or interrupted; stop abruptly: She pulled too hard and the string broke.
36. to become detached, separated, or disassociated (usually fol. by away, off, or from): The knob broke off in his hand.
37. to become inoperative or to malfunction, as through wear or damage: The television set broke this afternoon.
38. to begin suddenly or violently or change abruptly into something else: War broke over Europe.
39. to begin uttering a sound or series of sounds or to be uttered suddenly: She broke into song. When they entered, a cheer broke from the audience.
40. to express or start to express an emotion or mood: His face broke into a smile.
41. to free oneself or escape suddenly, as from restraint or dependency (often fol. by away): He broke away from the arresting officer. She finally broke away from her parents and got an apartment of her own.
42. to run or dash toward something suddenly (usually fol. by for): The pass receiver broke for the goal line.
43. to force a way (usually fol. by in, into, or through): The hunters broke through the underbrush.
44. to burst or rupture: A blood vessel broke in his nose. The blister broke when he pricked it.
45. to interrupt or halt an activity (usually fol. by in, into, forth, or from): Don't break in on the conversation. Let's break for lunch.
46. to appear or arrive suddenly (usually fol. by in, into, or out): A deer broke into the clearing. A rash broke out on her arm.
47. to dawn: The day broke hot and sultry.
48. to begin violently and suddenly: The storm broke.
49. (of a storm, foul weather, etc.) to cease: The weather broke after a week, and we were able to sail for home.
50. to part the surface of water, as a jumping fish or surfacing submarine.
51. to give way or fail, as health, strength, or spirit; collapse: After years of hardship and worry, his health broke.
52. to yield or submit to pressure, torture, or the like: He broke under questioning.
53. (of the heart) to be overwhelmed with sorrow: Her heart broke when he told her that he no longer loved her.
54. (of the voice or a musical instrument) to change harshly from one register or pitch to another: After his voice broke, he could no longer sing soprano parts.
55. (of the voice) to cease, waver, or change tone abruptly, esp. from emotional strain: His voice broke when he mentioned her name.
56. (of value or prices) to drop sharply and considerably.
57. to disperse or collapse by colliding with something: The waves broke on the shore.
58. to break dance.
59. (of a horse in a harness race) to fail to keep to a trot or pace, as by starting to gallop.
60. Botany. to mutate; sport.
61. Linguistics. to undergo breaking.
62. Billiards, Pool. to make a break; take the first turn in a game.
63. Sports. (of a pitched or bowled ball) to change direction: The ball broke over the plate.
64. Horse Racing, Track. to leave the starting point: The horses broke fast from the gate.
65. Boxing. to step back or separate from a clinch: The fighters fell into a clinch and broke on the referee's order.
66. to take place; occur.
67. Journalism. to become known, published, or aired: The story broke in the morning papers.
68. Horticulture. to produce flowers or leaves.
–noun
69. an act or instance of breaking; disruption or separation of parts; fracture; rupture: There was a break in the window.
70. an opening made by breaking; gap: The break in the wall had not been repaired.
71. a rush away from a place; an attempt to escape: a break for freedom.
72. a sudden dash or rush, as toward something: When the rain lessened, I made a break for home.
73. a suspension of or sudden rupture in friendly relations.
74. an interruption of continuity; departure from or rupture with: Abstract painters made a break with the traditions of the past.
75. an abrupt or marked change, as in sound or direction, or a brief pause: They noticed a curious break in his voice.
76. Informal.
a. an opportunity or stroke of fortune, esp. a lucky one.
b. a chance to improve one's lot, esp. one unlooked for or undeserved.
77. the breaks, Informal. the way things happen; fate: Sorry to hear about your bad luck, but I guess those are the breaks.
78. a brief rest, as from work: The actors took a ten-minute break from rehearsal.
79. Radio, Television. a brief, scheduled interruption of a program or broadcasting period for the announcement of advertising or station identification.
80. Prosody. a pause or caesura.
81. Jazz. a solo passage, usually of from 2 to 12 bars, during which the rest of the instruments are silent.
82. Music. the point in the scale where the quality of voice of one register changes to that of another, as from chest to head.
83. break dancing.
84. a sharp and considerable drop in the prices of stock issues.
85. Electricity. an opening or discontinuity in a circuit.
86. Printing.
a. one or more blank lines between two paragraphs.
b. breaks. suspension points.
87. the place, after a letter, where a word is or may be divided at the end of a line.
88. a collapse of health, strength, or spirit; breakdown.
89. Informal. an indiscreet or awkward remark or action; social blunder; faux pas.
90. Billiards, Pool. a series of successful strokes; run.
91. Pool. the opening play, in which the cue ball is shot to scatter the balls.
92. Sports. a change in direction of a pitched or bowled ball.
93. Horse Racing, Track. the start of a race.
94. (in harness racing) an act or instance of a horse's changing from a trot or pace into a gallop or other step.
95. Bowling. a failure to knock down all ten pins in a single frame.
96. Boxing. an act or instance of stepping back or separating from a clinch: a clean break.
97. any of several stages in the grinding of grain in which the bran is separated from the kernel.
98. Botany. a sport.
99. Journalism. the point at the bottom of a column where a printed story is carried over to another column or page.
100. Nautical. the place at which a superstructure, deckhouse, or the like, rises from the main deck of a vessel.
101. breaks, Physical Geography. an area dissected by small ravines and gullies.
102. Mining. a fault or offset, as in a vein or bed of ore.

I don't think you know what "break" means.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Anybody feel free to correct me on this, but unless the laws of physics have changed since I last checked, steel does not turn blue when it is heated, and it does not turn blue when it cools. I don't need to be an expert to tell you that.


Actually it does, but it doesn't look like that.

-Gumboot

[Mobyseven]

I worked for 2 1/2 years with a professional armourer, so I'm pretty familiar with steel and how it changes colour when heated.

That is not heat-discoloured.

-Gumboot

My suspicions are confirmed...

[Mobyseven]

Actually it does, but it doesn't look like that.

-Gumboot

Or not...I thought steel glowed red-orange when heated, and returned to essentially it's original colour provided it hadn't been welded or alloyed?

[Christopher7]

Chris, you are speculating on the splices being cut, without having the slightest evidence to support that claim,
That sir, is a matter of opinion

or any explanation of how that could have been accomplished by the conspirators.So what? You want i should prove every element of the crime?
If that is where you are putting the goalposts, you are blissfully safe in your denial.

Chris, could the splices have fractured from the collapse? Yes or no?Not [mostly] straight like that.

Neither of us is qualified to say for sure but you cannot justifiably rule out that they were cut IMO.

[gumboot]

Or not...I thought steel glowed red-orange when heated, and returned to essentially it's original colour provided it hadn't been welded or alloyed?

We'd get it on steel when we'd been angle-grinding it. Very deep rich blue stain at the edge of the cut. Usually means the steel has been heated and cooled very fast, and is very sharp. It usually comes away very easily. We're talking a narrow strip maybe 5mm from the edge of the cut.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

You claimed that the splice plates could not have fractured. For the second time, present your evidence to back that claim.

If you have none, just say so. That's what rational adults do.

[Christopher7]

I don't think you know what "break" means.

-Gumboot
Good point. Should be "break off straight"

Steel will bend, deform and tear in an irregular manner as in this photo

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6858/gravydl9.png

Break: To separate into 2 pieces
Rip: Tear or be torn
Tear: To pull something apart

[Christopher7]

You claimed that the splice plates could not have fractured. For the second time, present your evidence to back that claim.

If you have none, just say so. That's what rational adults do.
Now you want i should prove a negative?

O master of misquote

What part of "not [mostly] straight like that" don't you understand?

[Gravy]

Now you want i should prove a negative?

O master of misquote

What part of "not [mostly] straight like that" don't you understand?No, Chris, you made a positive claim.

First, look at the photos I posted. None of them show a "mostly straight" break. There are jagged breaks in the splice plates above the column ends, below the column ends, and column ends where the splice plates are completely gone.

Present your evidence that the splice plates could not have broken in the way they did. There's a whole field of science devoted to this subject. You must have something: a website you can refer me to, anything.

Chris: do you have anything with which to back your claim, besides your opinion?

[Gravy]

Good point. Should be "break off straight"

Steel will bend, deform and tear in an irregular manner as in this photo
Chris, you posted a photo of splice plates that did not break off straight. The one on the left could hardly be less straight. The one on the right that the arrows point to goes from high above the column end, to even with the column end.

What's your explanation?

[Mobyseven]

We'd get it on steel when we'd been angle-grinding it. Very deep rich blue stain at the edge of the cut. Usually means the steel has been heated and cooled very fast, and is very sharp. It usually comes away very easily. We're talking a narrow strip maybe 5mm from the edge of the cut.

-Gumboot

I stand corrected. From your description, that doesn't sound anything like what has been posted in that picture.

[gumboot]

Break: To separate into 2 pieces
Rip: Tear or be torn
Tear: To pull something apart


Christopher, both ripping and tearing involve breaking.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Well I don't know about you, but every building implosion I have seen there are huge flashes, loud explosion noises in quick succession and visible explosions.

None of which were observed at WTC7.

Not to mention that in professional implosions any damage to other buildings is usually very slight.

30 West Broadway and the Verizon building(coutesy of the above photos) suffered damage that is inconsistent with a professional implosion.
Chris will argue that the surrounding buildings were not a consideration. Why then was the supposedly professional implosion designed such that most of the structure did fall within it own footprint. That is NOT a requirement for professional demolitions, many structures are brought down in such a way as to have the structure move in a specfic direction. In one docuementary I saw concerning the demolitions of Las Vegas casinos the term "pull" was used to describe such action. (it did not involve the use of cable, just used the timing of the explosives to have the building fall away from another structure only a few feet from the one coming down.

Seems Chris then wants it both ways; the building came almost straight down and therefore the professional demolition was used to drop the building into its own footprint , AND it really didn't matter where the building fell as far as the conspiractors were concerned.

However, IF the whole idea was to hide evidence that WTC 7 was used in some way to cause the collapse of the other two towers, or to destroy other docuements and evidence contained in the offices in that building then the most effective direction of collapse would have been to have it fall onto WTC 6 and have its debris co-mingle with that of WTC 6 and WTC 1.

These 'professionals' were out-to-lunch it seems.

Chris also cannot explain why it is that all the columns that he says were cut seem to have separated only at column splices. He will not even venture a guess at how the installation of these charges and their control mechanisms was accomplished.

You can't believe that anyone could pull it off, therefore, it didn't happen.

Until at least some cogent arguement is made that suggests that it could be accomplished AND some evidence is brought forward to suggest that these columns were cut by demolition charges the whole hypothesis turns on your personal incredulity that debris damage and/or fire could not have brought the building down.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by gumboot
We'd get it on steel when we'd been angle-grinding it. Very deep rich blue stain at the edge of the cut. Usually means the steel has been heated and cooled very fast, and is very sharp. It usually comes away very easily. We're talking a narrow strip maybe 5mm from the edge of the cut.

-Gumboot I stand corrected. From your description, that doesn't sound anything like what has been posted in that picture.


Forgive me if it has been mentioned already but it seems to me that when steel is bent to the point of snapping that the steel would also heat up in much the same way that bending a coat hanger back and forth will cause it to snap and that the material next to the break is quite hot.

So the mere existance of heat at that point still would not be direct evidence of anything other than the fact that the steel snapped. A chemical analysis would be required to show the existance of explosive residue.

[Christopher7]

No, Chris, you made a positive claim.
You have misquoted me again.

could the fractures have fractured from the collapse? Yes or no.?

Not [mostly] straight like that.
Neither of us is qualified to say for sure but you cannot justifiably rule out that they were cut IMO.

You clamed that the splice plates could not have fractured.
For an English major, your reading comprehension skills really suck.

First, look at the photos I posted. None of them show a "mostly straight" break.These column splices are severed mostly straight and the column is not bent.
[note wall curves the same as the beam due to fisheye lens]

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

These are also mostly straight and the columns are not bent.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1298/copyof3et9.jpg

In this photo, the columns are bent and the splice plates have been ripped apart in an irregular manner.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/6858/gravydl9.png

In this photo the column is bent and the splice plates have broken in a saw tooth pattern where there were holes all the way across the plate.
[possibly bolt holes]

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6924/12rg0.jpg

The splice plates were strong enough to hold the columns together while the columns bent, to a point, then they gave way.

On the other hand, in the first two photos the splices were severed mostly straight but the beams are NOT bent.

[Gravy]

.


On the other hand, in the first two photos the splices were severed mostly straight but the beams are NOT bent.

Chris, in the second photo, one of the column ends above the spandrel is
completely missing
See the damage to the flange on the spandrel next to it? Think it got by something hard?

Yes, Chris, structural steel can fracture. Yes, structural steel breaks.

In the extremely strong earthquake that struck Kobe and other parts of southern Hyogo Prefecture on January 17, 1995, structural steel was found to have snapped like sticks of chalk. ...structural steel materials broke before they could dissipate energy through inelastic deformation, suggesting that a force smaller than the design force was able to destroy them.

Development of an Analysis of Structural Steel Fracture and Development of Technical Solutions. (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build98/PDF/b98144.pdf)



Since you can tell which connections were severed by man and which by nature, please tell us how the breaks in the following photos occurred.

Photo 1
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046089e5c9d6e1.jpg

1________
2________
3________
4________

Photo 2
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904608a0c92a125.jpg

1________
2________
3________
4________

Photo 3
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904608a0c974889.jpg

1________
2________
3________
4________
5________
6________
7________
8________

[LashL]

That sir, is a matter of opinion.

People outside this discussion couldn't care less about how we define building or freefall.

The essence of the building in freefall is that it looks like a

professional building [I]implosion.

The videos are the primary evidence.

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.

I am sorry to have to point it out to you, but your post above is completely uneducated or completely irrational, or both.

When you (repeatedly) make the statement that a particular building collapsed at "close to free fall speed", it most certainly does matter that you have tried to redefine the terms "building" and "free fall into something unrecognizable (even leaving aside the obvious misnomer in the "free fall speed" nomenclature).

You are simply trying to move the goalposts and doing a very, very poor job of it. That might work on the tinhatter forums that you frequent, particularly the Loose Change forum where facts do not matter and are not required; where legitimate research is anathema; and where evidence means something that somebody told somebody who told somebody else something that they saw on television once, and then somebody else posted it on the internet somewhere. But it doesn't work here.

[Christopher7]

.

Chris, in the second photo, one of the column ends above the spandrel is
completely missing
So what? The columns are not bent but the splices were severed mostly straight.

See the damage to the flange on the spandrel next to it? Think it got by something hard?Yes

Yes, Chris, structural steel can fracture. Yes, structural steel breaks.
Yes.

Since you can tell which connections were severed by man and which by nature, please tell us how the breaks in the following photos occurred.I said that the splices on the bent beams were ripped apart or broke where the [bolt?] holes went all the way across the splice.
I'm not going to debate every break. Suffice it to say that some appear to have broken and some appear to have been cut.

My main concern is these two columns that were not bent and the splices were severed mostly straight.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/5668/wtc7debris111td0.jpg

Same here

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1298/copyof3et9.jpg

[Mobyseven]

Could you be a little bit more specific about that second picture? I feel like I'm trying to find Wally in a sea of striped red shirts...

[Christopher7]

Could you be a little bit more specific about that second picture? I feel like I'm trying to find Wally in a sea of striped red shirts...
The splices [the pieces welded to the sides of the vertical columns] all severed in the same place and mostly straight.
The columns are not bent.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9571/copy2of3pi1.jpg

[Christopher7]

cloudshipsrule:
Thank you for acknowledging that what Daryl heard and saw is evidence of a CD. It is very credible because it was on 9/11 shortly after WTC 7 collapsed.
Craig's statement "...and the whole time you're hearing thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, I think I know an explosion when i hear one" is more definitive.
The videos and other evidence back these statements up IMO.
In any case, people should stop denying the evidence and then saying "you have no evidence"


Belz:
jaydeehess asked me to speculate on the evidence. [what Daryl heard and saw]
That's altogether different than speculating when there is no evidence.
The 'clap' of thunder' was many explosions going off at once IMO.
I don't chastise jaydeehess for speculating on the evidence because he's really good at it. I challenge his speculating when there is no evidence.

By NO accounts did this hole, starting at the roof, go all the way to the ground. Do you really think that nobody noticed a 47 story hole on 9/11?

The 20 + story hole is west of center and far above the area of the initiating event.
There was a great deal of damage to the west half of the south side.
This damage might cause the west end to collapse but it not cause the east central core columns to fail. The stress from this damage was primarily to the surrounding columns and then the entire building.
The NIST hypothesis describes the initiating event as a critical column collapsing to the east. Any stress from the damage to the west half of the south side would be pulling to the south west.


Dave:
I do not agree that there was no loud noise at the time of the initiating event. See post #1646 on the "10 story hole" thread.

[Gravy]

The splices [the pieces welded to the sides of the vertical columns] all severed in the same place and mostly straight.
The columns are not bent.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9571/copy2of3pi1.jpg

Um, Chris, you said the same thing about the splice breaks on columns that are bent. And look at my "Photo 2" above. Bent columns with your "straight" splice breaks.

Please stop this.

Doesn't your brain hurt when you put it through these mental gymnastics to justify your absurd ideas? You have truly woven a tangled web. I hope you extricate yourself some day.

[Christopher7]

Um, Chris, you said the same thing about the splice breaks on columns that are bent. And look at my "Photo 2" above. Bent columns with your "straight" splice breaks.
Wrong

Please read post #242 again.

Your reading comprehension skills haven't gotten any better in the last few days.