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.

Christopher 7 did say that he believes that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition BUT in his thread about WTC7 and NIST appendix L he states;

Quote:

Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's on this thread

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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

Quote:

"WTC 7" 2006

One of the first ones is http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec06.htm

Quote:

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 28^th Kingdom. My explanation is here.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by 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 28^th Kingdom. My explanation is here.

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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

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.

Quote:

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'?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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, the FEMA WTC Performance Study, Chapter 7 (the link in that post has gone bad, but you can order a copy through here) 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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

And by doing that you hope to prove controlled demolition? That won't work.

Quote:

The government confiscated over 6.000 photographs and 6,000 video clips.

False. Those items were donated to the investigation.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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...]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

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



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

Brilliant!

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Sig worthy. I call dibs!

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]

Originally Posted by Coritani

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."

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Yes

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Gravy

And by doing that you hope to prove controlled demolition? That won't work.

No

Quote:

False. Those items were donated to the investigation.

If you say so

Quote:

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 ?

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by C7

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

Originally Posted by Gravy

No Americans know that, because it's false.

foolmewunz:
Got one for ya.

Quote:

You can easily obtain the photos and video. Why don't you?

$13,600

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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...]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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...]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Originally Posted by Gravy

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

God forbid he spends money on 9/11. Money making 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

profuction

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

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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

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]

Originally Posted by Belz...

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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?