Some simple Tower 7 questions

[Christopher7]

xx

 

[Christopher7]

Please provide your proof for the highlighted statements. Some form of engineering report would suffice.

You ask for something you know doesnt exist

NIST provided the 'proof' that their 10 story hole would result in debris in the lobby.

If the damage extended thru the lobby and took out interior columns, then whatever did that damage would be in the lobby along with everything it took out on the way.

 

[Christopher7]

That'd do, too, and would probably be easier.

As Maccy pointed to NDBoston's post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2196679#post2196679
the street was full of debris.

NDBoston left yhe building before the Towers collapsed so his statement has nothing to do with the 10 story hole.

 

[Christopher7]

The two got outvoted by many others and photographic evidence. Your two statements are the odd men out.

Please list these 'many others'

What photographic evidence?

 

[jaydeehess]

Either you are not reading my posts or your reading comprehension skills are impared. I have quoted the "damage between the 3rd and 6th floors" several times.

Sorry, That should read that you are wedded to (committed to) no damage to the core part of the building. I have stated several times that the damage to the core is the relevent damage here. YOU ignore this.

Thats absurd.

Why, because you say so? You have been asked to back up your contention that the heavy debris YOU say must result, should have to land in the lobby. You have thus far ignored this and instead simply try to label any conflicying senario as "absurd".

One section gouges out exterior columns and then fall in the street while another is 'deflected' with enough force to take out interior columns and dislodge elevator cars.
Please

Please what?
In some aircraft crashes the two "black boxes" which in the aircraft lie within inches of each other, are found in the wreckage hundreds of feet apart. What would require that all pieces of the WTC 1 that hit WTC 7 follow the exact same trajectory and interact with what they hit in the exact same manner?
Damn, man, you are sure dogmatic in your belief that the debris from WTC 1 could not cause damage to WTC 7 in such a way as to contribute to the initial loss of function that led to WTC 7's collapse. That or you just wish to obfuscate matters with differences in eyewitness testimony that are basically minutia.

 

[jaydeehess]

You ask for something you know doesnt exist

NIST provided the 'proof' that their 10 story hole would result in debris in the lobby.

[qimg]http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg[/qimg]

If the damage extended thru the lobby and took out interior columns, then whatever did that damage would be in the lobby along with everything it took out on the way.

Really? What part of "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" in this one dimensional picture says that it absolutly is the region gouged out for 10 stories to the ground/lobby level?

1) you are very ready to jump to conclusions you want in the first place
2) you ignore modifiers such as 'approximate' and 'probable' in a preliminary report on WTC 7.

 

[jaydeehess]

deleted

 

[HeyLeroy]

You ask for something you know doesnt exist

No, I don't know it doesn't exist. Your repeated assertions lead me to believe that you have hard evidence that these statements are irrefutable, and I'm asking you to provide that proof.

NIST provided the 'proof' that their 10 story hole would result in debris in the lobby.

According to that image, it's showing the approximate area of damage to the "Roof and Upper Level", and the "Approximate Location of Kink in East Penthouse". It doesn't mention anything about the lobby.

If the damage extended thru the lobby and took out interior columns, then whatever did that damage would be in the lobby along with everything it took out on the way.

Again, I'm asking you to show your proof of this assertion.

NDBoston left yhe building before the Towers collapsed so his statement has nothing to do with the 10 story hole.

And according to his statement, the entrance was impassible even before the collapses of 1 & 2.

 

[DarkMagician]

What photographic evidence?

You mean you haven't seen building 7 with the south wall smoking like a chimney?

I smell troll.

 

[Mince]

I thought the bad guys brought it down just to leave more clues. Conspirators love to leave clues that are really obvious to conspiracy buffs--but invisible to everyone else in the world.

Exactly. That's why they waited seven hours after the collapse of the first two buildings and didn't blow WTC 7 up in the considerable veil of WTC 1 or 2's dust cloud. They knew at 5:20 pm that day so many cameras would have been focused on WTC 7 that there was no way possible of concealing the obvious controlled demolition.

 

[jaydeehess]

You mean you haven't seen building 7 with the south wall smoking like a chimney?

I smell troll.

To be fair, he is asking, at this time, for photographs of the damage to the center of the south face, not fires.

 

[jaydeehess]

Exactly. That's why they waited seven hours after the collapse of the first two buildings and didn't blow WTC 7 up in the considerable veil of WTC 1 or 2's dust cloud. They knew at 5:20 pm that day so many cameras would have been focused on WTC 7 that there was no way possible of concealing the obvious controlled demolition.

That point is of course part of the equation BUT in this case C7 is more concerned with the minutia fo the exact nature of the damage to the south face and the idea that the preliminary NIST report on WTC 7 is not absolute in its description of that damage.

In fact the damage to the south wall exterior columns were never part of the initiating cause of the collapse according to the computer sims that NIST ran so the exact nature of the damage to face of the building is no of the enormous consequence that C7 is trying to make it. It is the damage to the core of the building near the structural elements that the computer sims show that the loss of which would result in a collapse sequence that was observed.

 

[Christopher7]

Sorry, That should read that you are wedded to (committed to) no damage to the core part of the building.

Not quite right. Im saying that the 10 story hole did not exist and therefore did not damage columns 69, 72 and 75. [as suggested in the graphic on pg 31]

 

[Arus808]

^^ and you have proof of this?

 

[Christopher7]

Really? What part of "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" in this one dimensional picture says that it absolutly is the region gouged out for 10 stories to the ground/lobby level?

The part where the inner area is 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area is 1/3 the width.

1) you are very ready to jump to conclusions you want in the first place
2) you ignore modifiers such as 'approximate' and 'probable' in a preliminary report on WTC 7.

OT's ignore the qualifers 'possible' and 'approximate' when stating this damage is evidence for the collapse of WTC 7.

Im saying that the 10 story hole doesnt exist so the modlifiers 'possible' and 'approximate' are mute.

 

[Christopher7]

No, I don't know it doesn't exist. Your repeated assertions lead me to believe that you have hard evidence that these statements are irrefutable, and I'm asking you to provide that proof.

The same 'hard evidence' in the NIST report that says there is a 10 story hole. You cant have it both ways. If you accept the '10 story hole' statement you must also accept the conflicting statements.

According to that image, it's showing the approximate area of damage to the "Roof and Upper Level", and the "Approximate Location of Kink in East Penthouse". It doesn't mention anything about the lobby.

The "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" is consistant with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width gouged out from floor 10 to ground" statement.

 

[Christopher7]

You mean you haven't seen building 7 with the south wall smoking like a chimney?

I smell troll.

Take a shower

 

[Christopher7]

^^ and you have proof of this?

See post 728

 

[jaydeehess]

Not quite right. Im saying that the 10 story hole did not exist and therefore did not damage columns 69, 72 and 75. [as suggested in the graphic on pg 31]

Im saying that the 10 story hole doesnt exist so the modlifiers 'possible' and 'approximate' are mute.

That's "moot" you are attempting to use here, not mute(silenced, incapable of speech, expressed without speech)
Moot:
1)legal-of no legal significance(as having been previously decided)
2)arguable: open to argument or debate; "that is a moot question"

,,,and the point is that a 10 story hole does not matter. Only that there was damage done to the core portion of the building and this is illustrated well by the fact of the elevator cars having been ejected from the shafts.

Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core
framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

<<snip>>

The initiating event may have included a number of structural components, though the relative role of impact damage and fire need further investigation. Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81 include interior columns 69, 72, 75, 78, and 78A, the east transfer girder (which supports column 78A and frames into transfer truss #2), and adjacent framing and floor systems.

Seems to me that NIST is very careful to say that the exact extent and location of damage to the south face and floors is not known but that they are reporting what was stated in the eyewitness reports. It is very significant , above all else that there was damage to the core area reported in the very same region that the computer sims show would result in a collapse that was actually observed to have occured.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and the computer sims show that it is likely to be a duck then even with the lack of photos, it is most likely that it is a duck!

 

[Christopher7]

,,,and the point is that a 10 story hole does not matter.

You are probably the only one here that thinks the 10 story hole doesnt matter. [on either side]

The 10 story hole is the the source of much of the debris damage in the graphic in the NIST report and in debates about WTC 7.
The evidence [such as it is and what there is of it] consists of 1 statement about a 10 stoty hole and 4 statements that are in conflict with that statement.
Therefore:

The "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was GOUGED OUT from floor 10 to the ground"

Is Incorrect. This hole did not exist and damage atributed to it did not happen.

Only that there was damage done to the core portion of the building and this is illustrated well by the fact of the elevator cars having been ejected from the shafts.

The elevator cars being ejected only accounts for one damaged core column, more than that is pure speculation.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and the computer sims show that it is likely to be a duck then even with the lack of photos, it is most likely that it is a duck!

We couldent agree more, except perhaps on which evidence [computer sims or collapse vid] makes the point, and our definition of 'duck'