Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[Belz...]

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

Ad hominem. You have been unable to defend your claim, so you dismiss other people's arguments based on their "side".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What a big pile of BS. How does your claim pull in the shell?

Where do you get silent explosives?

There were no silent explosives, all the truther Hand waving created sound shadows, that hid the sound of the Wile E Coyote super genius demolition company charges.

 

[DGM]

That is true Tony but I am willing to concede that Barry Jennings, after retreating from the 6th floor stairwell explosion, did experience significant smoke and heat, as well as frequent additional internal building explosions.

He did not mention seeing any visible fire activity though.

There is also reports of fire before the collapse of the North tower.

Tony needs to stick with what the NIST claims unless it conflicts with his claims.

Good to see you not just playing support.......

 

[Oystein]

Did Tony run away again? I had so hoped he would finally get around to answering some questions that he has since page 10:

Tony, do you accept my claim as true that the WTC7 south face had a HUGE GASH down many floors, as reported by fire fighters on the scene, and as descibed in the NIST report?

According to your engineering assessment, would you agree that ripping a HUGE GASH down the face of a building and damaging floors doing so might frustrate designs to prevent vertical spread of fire?

Are you saying that Jowenko's lack of detailed knowledge of circumstances is reason to reject his expert opinion?
(Hint: This is a Yes/No question. No need to write another full paragraph that avoids answering the actual question.)

What if the wall broke 8 floors above ground, and then the upper part fell on inside of the lower part wall? The 8 stories worth of standing columns would then not support anything.


Thank you.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Oh, actually it IS worth commenting on since shredding or torching paper has historically the more efficient and least suspicious ways to destroy documents.

To play devil's advocate: if they'd merely shredded the documents, then anyone who came looking for the documents would ask why they weren't there, and they'd have to admit they'd been shredded. Of course, it seems to me that it'd be a lot easier to shred them and then blame it on an intern/secretary who had shredded the wrong documents. They could even have two copies of each of the documents that were meant to be shredded, and use the existence of the surviving copies that the patsy had shredded the wrong ones.

Why did they need to destroy the whole building, especially given the chaos that was going on ?

Again, to play devil's advocate: if they used arson to destroy the papers, then that would leave evidence of arson. So, they used arson to destroy the papers, and then CD to destroy the evidence of arson.

 

[JSanderO]

That is true Tony but I am willing to concede that Barry Jennings, after retreating from the 6th floor stairwell explosion, did experience significant smoke and heat, as well as frequent additional internal building explosions.

He did not mention seeing any visible fire activity though.

Where there's smoke there should be fire.

 

[DGM]

I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.

.

Naturally you can show evidence of this?

So by "big players" you know who was behind the "CD of WTC 7"?

The list of perps that got off due to this can't be that long. Do share..........

 

[Ziggi]

...I have seen the Shyam Sunder video where he said freefall of Building 7 would be impossible, and he explains why as if he were you! When NIST's final report said that these 2.25 seconds of freefall were consistent with their prior explanations, I believe that was a mistake which explanations from JREF people were unconvincing. You're right about that, in my opinion. And BTW I asked NIST about this problem and never got a satisfactory reply..

Yes Chris, and this goes straight to the heart of the matter. Everyone agreed that a natural collapse could not happen in freefall, even NIST, because as Sunder himself so clearly explained, that would imply the complete disappearance of the structure below/inside the falling top structure.

But this complete removal of structure is possible with incendiaries and explosives, which is why freefall is prima facie evidence for controlled demolition, and it remains so because NISTs computer model confirms that a natural collapse cannot result in freefall.

That NIST tries to ignore its own finding and imply that freefall is consistent with its work is not an example of NIST making a mistake, it is an example of a supposedly scientific institution playing politics, like Clinton saying "I did not have s## with that woman". It is sad that 9/11 did not receive the same level of scrutiny.

...You say, "The problem is not the corners, but the 47 story high walls, which are way too tall and wide to remain rigid without support from the core." But we have the observed phenomena of the two penthouses collapsing (we don't know for sure how far down). I hypothesized that the corners would provide a few flimsy seconds of support to help keep the perimeter wall standing for a short time...

The corners cannot provide support to each other without a solid and stiff perimeter frame between them, and those perimeter frames depend on the support from the core. Without the core the 4 perimeter frames implode inwards. And here is the important bit Chris: As the core collapses down, it pulls on the floor structures which are outside it and in turn they pull on the exterior and drag it down with the core. You are trying to imagine an impossible scenario where interior collapses without pulling on the exterior.

...But if you believe in CD, how do you explain that it sure looks to me like a core collapse preceded the perimeter wall collapse? Seems like there is the same problem whether it's CD or natural collapse. In your CD scenario, how does the wall remain standing even after the core has at least a partial or maybe total collapse (we can't see and assert with certainty)?.

The collapses of the penthouses were only the top one or two floors, but that is only 1 or two top floors of 47. To risk the implosion of the exterior you need two things: 1. loss of core support over several floors and 2. much lower in the building. The 2.25 secs of freefall covered about 100feet which translates into about 8 stories of disappeared structure. The building did not collapse until a substantial portion of the core was dropped in unison, pulling down the exterior as it fell.

...BTW from the very beginning, when I debated Richard Gage in 2011, I said I was not a defender of the NIST Report, but an advocate for natural collapse of the buildings. As just one example, JSanderO has a very different collapse scenario based on his research. I won't say that his is better or worse than NIST's, because again I am no engineer..

Chris, NIST went over and debunked several alternative fire based explanations, including JSOs pet theory, before it arrived at the thermal expansion - girder walk off story. Some people will not listen to anyone and in the end no-one will listen to them either.

..And CTBUH had its suggestions for improvements on the NIST Report. The NIST Report doesn't have to be perfect. The bar for me for wanting a new investigation would be positive evidence of CD, such as tons of thermite in the dust, or CD devices in the debris, or melted ends of the columns, or any number of things for which no evidence has been found, in my opinion. Another bar would be even one of those investigations by Purdue, Hawaii, CTBUH, or any other major organization proclaiming that the NIST Report is fatally flawed. Not one major organization anywhere has said this! Everyone agrees with the basic collapse scenario and questions only some of the details.

Chris, first off this is not at all about NIST "being perfect". The first two criteria when evaluating whether or not a new investigation is needed are:

- Did NISTs work disprove the primafacie evidence for CD such as freefall?
- Are there any indications for misconduct?

We have already seen that NISTs work does not refute freefall as evidence for controlled demolition and that alone tells us a new investigation is needed to find out what could have caused freefall. This does not have to be any more complicated than that. We have also mentioned some of the examples of misconduct by NIST, such as the handwaving of the freefall as discussed above. Other examples of this were discussed a while back when we were going over the thermal expansion story, such as fudged numbers and missing structural elements. I don´t think you realize how serious these kinds of offenses are. A fraudulent report could not only lead to a new investigation but also people losing their licences, people going to jail, and even a new agency to replace NIST.

You talk about the CTBUH not finding any major faults but I think you are mistaking the soft language in those kind of reports. The CTBUH found flaws so fatal to NISTs story that it says straight out it does not believe it at all, not the thermal expansion story, not the girder walk off story, and not the single column story. It tore apart NISTs report, and tt did that without noticing that NISTs model does not show freefall!

It made its comments a couple of months after NIST released its report so it did not have time to really dig into NISTs work, and in particular how NIST came to its conclusions with rather dishonest methods. The CBTUH published its comments long before the revelations were made about fudged numbers, missing structural members etc. And it did not know that NIST would refuse to release input data to prevent scrutiny of its work by independent scientists!

I will let you answer this before going into your bar for a new investigation, that is evidence for CD.

 

[DGM]

- Did NISTs work disprove the primafacie evidence for CD such as freefall?

What evidence would that be? Why would this need to be "disproved" if there's no evidence of it in the first place. Be specific.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What evidence would that be? Why would this need to be "disproved" if there's no evidence of it in the first place. Be specific.

The evidence of a free standing wall falling after the welds fracture, because compression energy can travel though steel at 5900 meters per second.
Until Ziggi or Tony can prove rapid connection shear can not result in collapse they have only a hand waving strawman argument.

 

[000063]

But this complete removal of structure is possible with incendiaries and explosives, which is why freefall is prima facie evidence for controlled demolition, and it remains so because NISTs computer model confirms that a natural collapse cannot result in freefall.

I have yet to see a Truther provide a single publicly-known CD that resulted in freefall. Also, incendiaries are not used in CD.

 

[000063]

... Your hand waving on how the fires actually started in WTC 7 isn't far behind.

The ones you refuse to discuss beyond flatly declaring that it's "unlikely" based on no criteria but your own opinion?

There is no evidence either way but the arson situation is logically more likely as I have explained here on this thread in detail.

Except for the part where you ignore people pointing out, repeatedly, that it would be nigh-physically impossible for arsonists to sneak into the joint and set fires under the noses of the FDNY, and in fact the risk would be so high that no logical person would bother. Oh, and the people pointing out there were reports before that 2 hours you keep harping on.

There was a limited fire zone in WTC 1, WTC 7 was 350 feet away, gypsum dust would have been smothering the limited fires in WTC 1 when it collapsed, and the fires in WTC 7 don't show up for nearly two hours after WTC 1 collapsed, and no fires are started in the Verizon and Post Office buildings next to WTC 7.

Given all that the logic shows it was highly improbable and much more likely the fires in WTC 7 were started intentionally using the WTC 1 collapse for cover. The ruse seems to have worked as long as one doesn't think too hard about it.

Additionally, there were fires on ten floors in WTC 7 and they were not on consecutive floors in most cases, so one big chunk of debris would not have been the cause for these multiple fires and it would also not be likely to cause fires if it wasn't from the limited fire zone in WTC 1.

Oh look, Tony evaded the question.

I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.

Of course, a number of individuals here have speculated that they could have just used paper shredders. That notion isn't even worth commenting on.

Careful Tony, you're getting dangerously close to presenting an actual theory there.

Appeal to incredulity. People have also pointed out that they could've just set those records on fire directly and been more assured of the result.

So, was this just thrown onto the overall plan, or was it an object from the start?

This is a classic case of the blithering and incoherence that I was talking about being spouted by those who insist on defending/supporting the natural collapse theory here.

Who do you think you're talking to?

There is no photographic evidence of any fires in WTC 7 until 12:15 PM while the North Tower collapsed at 10:28 AM.

Hmmm. Earlier, you were on about reports from helicopters.

No photographic evidence of arsonists, either.

There's also no photographic (or audio) evidence of CD. Want to discount all eyewitness accounts?

I'm willing. How about you?

Stop that. Tony shouldn't have to apply consistent standards. /s

To play devil's advocate: if they'd merely shredded the documents, then anyone who came looking for the documents would ask why they weren't there, and they'd have to admit they'd been shredded. Of course, it seems to me that it'd be a lot easier to shred them and then blame it on an intern/secretary who had shredded the wrong documents. They could even have two copies of each of the documents that were meant to be shredded, and use the existence of the surviving copies that the patsy had shredded the wrong ones.



Again, to play devil's advocate: if they used arson to destroy the papers, then that would leave evidence of arson. So, they used arson to destroy the papers, and then CD to destroy the evidence of arson.

Strikes me as a very illogical devil.

 

[DGM]

Until Ziggi or Tony can prove rapid connection shear can not result in collapse they have only a hand waving strawman argument.

Why would they attempt this? It would be an attempt to progress the argument toward completion. This is the last thing they want.

 

[chrismohr]

Tony, when you said, "I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.
Of course, a number of individuals here have speculated that they could have just used paper shredders. That notion isn't even worth commenting on." did you notice that millions of sheets of paper were flying around late in the day of 9/11? Pretty shoddy way to destroy classified documents, don;t you think?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Why would they attempt this? It would be an attempt to progress the argument toward completion. This is the last thing they want.

The point is they will not because they are a fraud, no such thing as actually looking for truth,
In the truth movement.
Plus they can't disprove reality no matter how hard they try, Tony likes the materials science knowledge to even comment on the subject, and Ziggi just just makes me laugh.

 

[Matthew Cline]

did you notice that millions of sheets of paper
were flying around late in the day of 9/11? Pretty shoddy way to destroy classified documents, don;t you think?

Again, to play devil's advocate, there would have been plenty of papers in WTC 7 that weren't the target of the conspirators, and so they didn't bother making sure to burn those papers.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That is true Tony but I am willing to concede that Barry Jennings, after retreating from the 6th floor stairwell explosion, did experience significant smoke and heat, as well as frequent additional internal building explosions.

He did not mention seeing any visible fire activity though.

What time were Barry Jennings and Michael Hess gotten out of Building 7 by the fire dept.? I think it was between 11:00 and 11:30 and the firefighters went through the building to get to them and brought them back down through it. Jennings and Hess were on the 8th floor and there were no fires on it or the 7th floor at that time and none were observed anywhere in the building until 12:15.

Explosions will generate smoke and heat but not necessarily fire. However, the "fire did it" theory supporters here won't allow for the explosions Jennings said he experienced. They would try to say it was due to the North Tower collapse, even though Jennings said both towers were still standing when it first happened.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, when you said, "I would think you are aware that there was a large Securities and Exchange Commission office on the 12th and 13th floors of WTC 7 with a significant number of paper intensive case files against some big players. These cases were never resurrected.
Of course, a number of individuals here have speculated that they could have just used paper shredders. That notion isn't even worth commenting on." did you notice that millions of sheets of paper were flying around late in the day of 9/11? Pretty shoddy way to destroy classified documents, don;t you think?

There was no putting those cases back together with that SEC office completely destroyed as it was in the collapse. The notion about random loose papers in the streets after the collapses being a problem for the reasoning is silly on its face.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What time were Barry Jennings and Michael Hess gotten out of Building 7 by the fire dept.? I think it was between 11:00 and 11:30 and the firefighters went through the building to get to them and brought them back down through it. Jennings and Hess were on the 8th floor and there were no fires on it or the 7th floor at that time.

Explosions will generate smoke and heat but not necessarily fire. However, the "fire did it" theory supporters here won't allow for the explosions Jennings said he experienced. They would try to say it was due to the North Tower collapse, even though Jennings said both towers were still standing when it first happened.

Carbon fuel air blasts will ignite anything they contact.

High explosives do not generate smoke!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The only question i ask anymore is what concrete proof can be presented that wtc 7 was CD?