• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
I, too, am looking forward to seeing him/her provide his calculations to support his "cannon" hypothesis. I suspect it will take him quite a while (read: it's never going to happen)

In the meantime, I have to get some sleep so I just want to post this again so that he/she can respond in a meaningful fashion if and when he/she gets around to it:

Breaking news: After an event that spanned several hours, witness accounts from different vantage points, at different times, and by those with differing opportunities to observe... are NOT identical.

Stop the presses.
Click to expand...

Edit to add: Hmm, I meant to quote the posts of uk_dave and Skibum above whilst responding to this but it appears that the quotes did not show up and that I messed up the mutliquote function. (note to tinhatters - see? not every screwup in your lives is attributable to a vast 9/11 conspiracy. No, really.)
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
NIST had experts investigate and could only say that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"
Who are these experts who say it is a certainty ?
Click to expand...

It appears possible because they have a scenario where a huge tower collapsed in close proximity to a building which was then described by some eyewitnesses as having extensive structural damage, massive fires and was leaning and making sounds which stable undamaged buildings should not be making.

They consider it possible because on the day the FDNY took the decision to pull any attempt at containing the fires and also pulled the search and rescue operation in the vicinity in order to create a safety zone in the expectation that the building could collapse.

They consider it possible because they are experts in structural engineering, fire engineering and architecture and they used their expertise to assess the preliminary information and form a considered opinion.

They now have to produce a detailed description of how the wtc7 collapsed, not for you but for professionals around the world who have a vested interest in knowing what mechanism caused this collapse and if there was an inherent design feature which made wtc7 more liable to collapse in this situation than another, differently designed building.

If CD was an option then professionals around the world will be up in arms if the report points to design features which it considers to be flaws and which should be avoided via building codes.
 
Skibum said:
Certainly you have done the calculations to back this statement up, would you care to provide them, Please.
Click to expand...
Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?
 
uk_dave said:
And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?

Or are you just using 'common sense'?
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys despise common sense but

Do you think [see post 179] ?
Click to expand...

Spoken in true tinhatter copout fashion, Chris. It's silly to try to get out of providing facts and evidence by resorting to stupid and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Old, lame, tired, and pathetic, Chris.

Around here, we require facts and evidence. When you make a claim, you are required to provide evidence to support your claim. Then people here will assess your evidence and respond to it. But you still have to put up or shut up, as the saying goes. and you've provided nothing whatsoever so far.
 
Last edited:
C7 said:
Who are these experts who say it's a certatniy
Click to expand...

uk_dave said:
It appears possible because they have a scenario where a huge tower collapsed in close proximity to a building which was then described by some eyewitnesses as having extensive structural damage, massive fires and was leaning and making sounds which stable undamaged buildings should not be making.

They consider it possible because on the day the FDNY took the decision to pull any attempt at containing the fires and also pulled the search and rescue operation in the vicinity in order to create a safety zone in the expectation that the building could collapse.

They consider it possible because they are experts in structural engineering, fire engineering and architecture and they used their expertise to assess the preliminary information and form a considered opinion.

They now have to produce a detailed description of how the wtc7 collapsed, not for you but for professionals around the world who have a vested interest in knowing what mechanism caused this collapse and if there was an inherent design feature which made wtc7 more liable to collapse in this situation than another, differently designed building.

If CD was an option then professionals around the world will be up in arms if the report points to design features which it considers to be flaws and which should be avoided via building codes.
Click to expand...
You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b*******ing
 
Christopher7 said:
You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b*******ing
Click to expand...

Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D
 
uk_dave said:
Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D
Click to expand...

Hey, no fair! You used those fact-ey thingys again!
 
uk_dave said:
Shyam Sunder
William Grosshandler
H.S. Lew
Richard Bukowski
Fahim Sadek
Frank Gayle (MSEL)
Richard Gann
John Gross
Therese McAllister
Jason Averill
Randy Lawson
Harold E. Nelson
Stephen Cauffman

Valentine Junker
Vincent Dunn
John Hodgens
Kevin Malley

And your experts are..........?:D
Click to expand...
Do these experts say WTC 7 collapsed into a pile of rubble because of debris damage/fire with 'certainty' or just 'possibly' ?
 
uk_dave said:
And you have evidence for the cannon hypothesis?
Click to expand...

Skibum said:
Certainly you have done the calculation to back this statement up, would you care to provide them, please.
Click to expand...

C7 said:
Do you need calculations?
I know how much you guys hate common sense but
Do you think [see post 179] ?
Click to expand...


LashL said:
Spoken in true tinhatter copout fashion, Chris. It's silly to try to get out of providing facts and evidence by resorting to stupid and unsubstantiated rhetoric. Old, lame, tired, and pathetic, Chris.

Around here, we require facts and evidence. When you make a claim, you are required to provide evidence to support your claim. Then people here will assess your evidence and respond to it. But you still have to put up or shut up, as the saying goes. and you've provided nothing whatsoever so far.
Click to expand...
What we have here, is a failure to communicate.

C7 said:
....it would have to have been shot out of a cannon
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know the difference between sarcasm and hypothesis

Let me explain

'shot out of a cannon' is absurd, therefore:
it is sarcasm

'large piece of debris penatrates WTC 7 and ejects elevators into hallway north of the elevator shaft'
is a hypothesis

There is NO evidence that debris from WTC 1 ejected the elevator cars

There were no reports of large debris anywhere in WTC 7

The 'debris ejected elevator' hypothesis, is speculation.

"The extent of damage, both structural and to the fireproofing, of core framing is not known" [NIST Appendex L pg 51]
 
Last edited:
Lets assume that the final NIST report doesn't establish conclusively why WTC7 collapsed. How would that be evidence for demolition using explosives?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom