10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Lets assume that the final NIST report doesn't establish conclusively why WTC7 collapsed. How would that be evidence for demolition using explosives?

It will not be evidence for a CD.

The debris damage/fire hypothesis would remain a 'low probability'.

The lack of evidence for damage to the core columns means that this damage is speculation and should not be included in the collapse calculations or the summary.

That leaves the damage to the south face and fire to account for the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Oliver]

*YAWN* Can´t you wait until it´s published?
BTW: Any dates?

 

[Christopher7]

*YAWN* Can´t you wait until it´s published?
BTW: Any dates?

We are discussing the current report of June 2004 and the flaw there in

We can discuss the final report when it comes out

 

[Christopher7]

No one can justifiably claim WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty

And the experts disagree with you

Who are these experts who say it was a certainty?

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

I did a google search on the first 3 experts on your list.

I coulden't find any comments they have made about the collapse of WTC 7 being due to debris damage/fire.

Do you know of statements by any of these experts that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire ?

 

[beachnut]

I did a google search on the first 3 experts on your list.

I coulden't find any comments they have made about the collapse of WTC 7 being due to debris damage/fire.

Do you know of statements by any of these experts that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire ?

I did a google search! Wow; all your knowledge comes from the vast wasteland of the internet! With your ability to put things together no wonder you are lost.

 

[~enigma~]

I did a google search! Wow; all your knowledge comes from the vast wasteland of the internet! With your ability to put things together no wonder you are lost.

Should we tell him they are from the NIST?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Of course it could be a couple of kids joy-riding in the elevator and crashing it I suppose.((sarcasm))

 

[Belz...]

The few* people who thought the building was going to collapse had just seen the Trade Towers collapse. Their fear was well founded but it doesn't mean the building was going to collapse.

The damn building was tilting !

"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did."

Using your own strategy: it doesn't mean that falling the way it did wasn't to be expected.

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.

Ah. So all events will unfold in a predictable, simplistic manner. Closer = more damage, etc., etc.

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Really ?

Damage to core columns and the large debris that did the damage could have been reported by the firefighters who were clearing the last people out of the building. None was reported.

As you said: COULD have been reported. Weren't. COULD.

There are no pictures of the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to be [middle of the south side]

With good reason.

 

[jaydeehess]

Should we tell him they are from the NIST?

Nah, he's read the reports so obviously he already knows they each authored parts of the reports.

 

[Thunder]

Here it is...unless you have proof that NIST or the FDNY is lieing...or is flat out incorrect...then you have no right, no buisness, no justification to make such claims.

PROVE they are lieing....PROVE they are wrong.....otherwise shut up.

 

[Christopher7]

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7

No one can justifyably claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty

Nah, he's read the reports so obviously he already knows they each authored parts of the reports.

That's right. They are all part of NIST and they concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible"

UK_dave said they are the experts who say WTC 7 collapsed from debris damage/fire with 'certainty'.

Does anyone here understand the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

BTW: Someone said there was no evidence of the elevator cars were ejected by an explosion.
How about eyewitness testimony on 9/11 from someone who was in WTC 7.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage

Start at 6:20. At 6:45 he says "I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion!"

He didn't say "a crashing sound of metal being ripped out" he said "explosion"

This doesn't prove that the elevator cars were ejected by an expolsion but it makes it a possibility.

There is NO proof that the elevator cars were ejected by debris.

We now have 2 possible scenarios.

 

[Christopher7]

Here it is...unless you have proof that NIST or the FDNY is lieing...or is flat out incorrect...then you have no right, no buisness, no justification to make such claims.

PROVE they are lieing....PROVE they are wrong.....otherwise shut up.

I set out the evidence in post #108. Please read it.

 

[Coritani]

That's right. They are all part of NIST and they concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis [set of assumptions]
"appears possible"

Oh, so the final NIST report on WTC 7 is out? Please direct me towards it so I can read it. Thanks.

 

[JonnyFive]

Why is it so important to you, C7, that we establish it was a gouge of a particular size, anyway?

It is clear from the photographs that there was substantial damage to the WTC7 building from the debris from the tower collapse. So what if it was 8 stories or 12 stories or 10?

Could you please explain where exactly this is leading, or what the point is?

Do you have additional evidence for demolitions other than someone reporting hearing "explosions"? Could you please link to your expert (i.e. written by someone with relevant expertise such as a structural engineer) report that advances the theory of controlled demolition along with the supporting evidence for that theory?

 

[jaydeehess]

J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out on the basis that it cannot be proved that the gouge/hole/damage was as great as the greatest extent reported by witnesses and shown in the report, and indeed that eyewitness reports do not fully match each other. He is trying to say that the report requires it to be this great in order to support the preliminary probable collapse sequence set out in this report.

It is typical of his ilk to chafe at the idea of 'probable' and 'possible' and other non-definitives and require that definitive conclusions be made from definitive empirical evidence when reports are constructed by gov't agencies. This does not apply to other 'researchers though and thus it is perfectly fine to state that explosives were used because this is a definitive statement even if it is backed up by no more evidence than "it looked like..." statements from the very same people who have drawn the conclusion of CD.

When backed into a corner with the fact that although they have a definitive conclusion of explosive demolition with no corroborating evidence at all they will claim they are 'just asking questions'. These 'questions' though have only one answer that will satisfy them, that explosive demolition was used rather than impact damage and fire.

 

[einsteen]

Within two days after 9/11 a report appeared why the WTC collapsed. plane in -> fire damage -> collapse. This causal relation is very strong because it works on all levels and once a human being sees a causal relation it is the truth, we are Pavlov dog's!

For #7 there is nothing yet, even not after 5 years, how could that be ?

 

[jaydeehess]

BTW: Someone said there was no evidence of the elevator cars were ejected by an explosion.
How about eyewitness testimony on 9/11 from someone who was in WTC 7.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage

I see five videos listed.

Do we have to watch all of them or can you be more specific?

Of course we go back to that old bugaboo in which only actual explosions can be characterized as explosions rather than loud booms or bangs.

 

[JonnyFive]

J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out on the basis that it cannot be proved that the gouge/hole/damage was as great as the greatest extent reported by witnesses and shown in the report, and indeed that eyewitness reports do not fully match each other. He is trying to say that the report requires it to be this great in order to support the preliminary probable collapse sequence set out in this report.

So he's basically arguing that if the gouge isn't quite as large as the NIST report's reported witness estimate, the whole report is invalid?

That's kind of what I thought, but I couldn't quite believe he was really saying that.

That is an utterly moronic idea. C7, could you please tell me how one factor in the report being marginally inaccurate makes the whole report total hogwash?

And please correct me if that's not what you're saying, because it's a ridiculous argument.

 

[JonnyFive]

Within two days after 9/11 a report appeared why the WTC collapsed. plane in -> fire damage -> collapse. This causal relation is very strong because it works on all levels and once a human being sees a causal relation it is the truth, we are Pavlov dog's!

Maybe you work like that, but I don't think you have any right to speak for the rest of us.

By the way, I would assume the "two days" refers to this? Allow me to quote the abstract from that paper:

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

That wasn't exactly a complete official investigation, it was a speculative paper released to explain a preliminary theory of the collapse.

For #7 there is nothing yet, even not after 5 years, how could that be ?

There is less material on WTC7 than one WTC1 & 2, most likely because it is not seen as being nearly as important. However, your claim that there is "nothing" is patently absurd. For one thing, there are reports on the WTC7.​

FEMA report, released in 2002.​

Preliminary NIST report.​

Just an educated guess, but I would imagine the collapse that occurred suddenly and killed nearly two thousand people is considered a little more significant than the collapse that happened after a whole day of being exposed to fire damage, and killed nobody.​

Also, bear in mind that the final report on the WTC collapse didn't appear until 2005. Real investigations take time, they don't crop up over night.​

 

[Cuddles]

To save everyone the trouble of further argument I will sum up the complete evidence of both sides.

Hypothesis : Collapse due to debris damage and fire.
Evidence : 1) It was hit be debris.
2) It was on fire.
3) It fell down.

Hypothesis : Controlled demolition.
Evidence : 1) It fell down.

Hey, I'm just answering questions.