10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

Argument from bare possibility. Speculation.

Quote:

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

And somehow that didn't stay secret.

Quote:

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

And we found out about that one.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Not so unique, considering past superpowers.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Christopher7]

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


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

References:

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

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

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


Debris damage:

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

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

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

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

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

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [NIST Apx. L pg 18]


Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...c7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9...alysiscyk0.jpg


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

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

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

There is NO evidence that this happened.

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

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

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

Fires:

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


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

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

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

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


Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

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

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/233...6474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...oid=1548030539


Other fires:

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

[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

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

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

[Belz...]

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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

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

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

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

[gumboot]

Christopher7,

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

-Gumboot

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Christopher7,

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

-Gumboot

I don't think they knew about the demolition.

Nice try at changing the subject.

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

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I don't think they knew about the demolition.

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

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

Firemen aren't stupid.

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

-Gumboot

[Christopher7]

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

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

Nice try at changing the subject.

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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

That's because you have nothing.

Quote:

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

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

[stateofgrace]

Questions for Chris and other WTC 7 demo experts.

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

[Miragememories]

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

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A96F948260

Quote:

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

That building was over-constructed if anything.

MM

[Pardalis]

You missed this part:

Quote:

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

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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by stateofgrace

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

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

Quote:

Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

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

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

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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A96F948260

That building was over-constructed if anything.

MM

Were you the press agent for the Titanic too?

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer my questions or remain silent.

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

[gumboot]

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

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

Yah beat me to it.

________________________

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

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

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

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

[Miragememories]

Excellent work Christopher7.

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

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

MM

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

MM

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

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

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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by The Almond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are not my facts, they are official government facts. They belong to all of us.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

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

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

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

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

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

As always, please include your calculations.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

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

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

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

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by The Almond

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

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

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

I think you are espousing illogical negativism The Almond.

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

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

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

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


MM

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

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

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

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

Originally Posted by Belz...

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

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

MM

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[Christopher7]

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

Originally Posted by The Almond

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

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

If you had actually read and verified the data using the references given, you would know that every statement is a direct quote from the FEMA and NIST reports, or is verified by the pages noted. This data is not going to change in the final report.
[note: in the Fires section, the reference pages for the location of the generator room and the supply pipe - FEMA pg 14 - 15]

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

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

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke

Inherent in this statement is:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on page counter]
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Fire seen on floor 14 (corrected to floor 12 in NIST Final 4-5-05) on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke

Inherent in this statement is:
There was NO smoke or fire below floor 12 to obscure the view.

There was NO damage reported to this area.

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

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR Appendix L, Section L.2.5, page 33

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

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

I might also like you to comment on L.3.2 where NIST notes:

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR 1, Appendix L, page 36

If interior columns had been severed or severely deformed, they may have failed immediately.

How does this statement conform to the controlled demolition hypothesis?

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Excellent work Christopher7.

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

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

MM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

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

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

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

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

–Mark

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by The Almond

And yet, your interpretation of the data is what is in question. Indeed, by looking at the same evidence NIST considered, a team of the country's best structural and materials engineers came up with a radically different conclusion.

Dude, they did not come to a conclusion!

They said that their hypothesis "appears possible".

Quote:

That would lead me to conclude one of two things:
1) You're cherry picking data which would seem to support your hypothesis
2) You're misrepresenting the evidence

Of course, to make a point one must list the facts that support that point.
Do you know of anything in those reports that conflicts with the statements i listed?

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

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

Quote:

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

I accept the data as factual but the analysis is a bit 'iffy'.
"appears possible" is not a statement of fact.

Quote:

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

This thread is about the debris damage and fire to WTC 7
It is not about CD.

Quote:

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

The entire report is awash with could have, may have, if, possibly, etc.
It is the most indecisive thing i have ever read.
You can't hang your hat on "appears possible".

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gravy

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

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

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

Thanks.

–Mark

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

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

Oh, I've read it, and I'm right with you!

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

I demand answers!


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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

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

True.

Quote:

of this over-engineered building.

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Without proof ? Really ?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

What a double standard.

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

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

Quote:

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

You mean, in general?

According to...whom?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

NIST was not at all sure.

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

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

Quote:

Horizontal collapse progression scenarios.

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

- H2.1 Collapse does not progress

- H2.3 Collapse progresses

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

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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

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

I second that question.

[Kent1]

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

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

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

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


So its likely the fuel burned.
Cheers.