• 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.
einsteen said:
well, at least admit his credentials, his opinion on wtc1,2 are also important for a semi-twoofer as me :)
Click to expand...

Hrmm. What is your stance on 9/11? What do you think happened that day?
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
well, at least admit his credentials, his opinion on wtc1,2 are also important for a semi-twoofer as me :)
Click to expand...

Ok...I admit he's a demolitions expert. Expert are wrong all the time...especially in situations like this where he, himself, probably hasn't studied every aspect of collapse of WTC7. So, YES, I admit he's a demolitions expert...but perhaps a poor researcher.
 
Coritani said:
Hrmm. What is your stance on 9/11? What do you think happened that day?
Click to expand...

who am I :D , just a software guy who started twoofing after a friend asked me repeatedly to watch his DVD. I laughed at him and made him look like a fool on my work. I went a little bit to deep into it, learned also wrong things, it's good that forums like this keep me sharp.

What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.
 
What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
Click to expand...

State your evidence for this. All of it.

- shanksville ===> no plane
Click to expand...

Many people here can prove to you that this is false. I'm not one of them.

- pentagon 50%
Click to expand...

interesting. What casts doubt in your mind about the offiial theory?

- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.
Click to expand...

Les Robertson, Lead Structural Engineer on the construction of the Twin Towers, only calculated for one 707 flying at landing speed (about 180MPH). Also, considering it would be landing (i.e, finishing it's flight) it would probably be a bit lighter. What happened on 9/11 was that a fully-fueled 767 slammed into the towers at 500+MPH. A very different situation.

Also, he said that fuel and fire was not taken into account in the calculations. If you want a source on all this information, all you have to do is ask.

Romero supports the official theory.
 
So what happened to the people on the Shanksville plane? Apologies if you've stated your opinion on this elsewhere, these threads grow so fast.
 
I do, however, work for an insurance company. I suppose that somehow makes me a kind of peripheral shill. I feel so second class now
Click to expand...

Well yes, of course! The insurance co.'s wrote all those really big cheques to Larry Silverstein so that means that the insurance co.'s made a $hite-can load of money by writing all those che............. Hmmmm?????
 
einsteen said:
What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.
Click to expand...

In regard to Shanksville, are you suggesting the coroner who identified all 40 passengers is lying?
http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=16809193&postID=116647578174933982
 
einsteen said:
What I personally think now ?

- wtc7 ===> CD
- shanksville ===> no plane
- pentagon 50%
- wtc1,2, an architectural freak although one of the architects says it could withstand the impact of mutiple planes, you know that guy, DeMartine ? Romero ? All NIST stuff is of course valid but I'm worried that we don't see simulation etc.
Click to expand...

Well that is a strange mix of beliefs since you just stated;

Involved, involved ? I'm no InsideJobber.
Click to expand...

So you do not accept that any of this was an inside job BUT you believe that someone inside WTC 7, or from the NYFD, or at the very least, someone with the authority to convince the NYFD to evacuate the building, knew that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosive demolitions.

You are no insidejobber BUT you believe that somehow flt 93's crash in Shanesville was faked somehow by someone who managed to spread enough debris and body parts about that it took hundreds of volunteers days to gather it all up, that someone, somehow managed to dig that crater only a few hundred feet away from people's homes without them noticing.

You are no insidejobber BUT you are not quite sure that flt 77 hit the Pentagon which would mean that something else managed to carry out the damage seen to the building, a missile, a truck bomb or another type of fast aircraft.

What do you mean we don't 'see' the simulation? Do you expect that there is a mpeg animation of the tower's impact and fire damage? That is not what an FEA simulation does. Try googling "finite element analysis" and seeing if there is a primer on it that you can follow.
 
einsteen said:
here is a peer-reviewed article (whatever that means)
Click to expand...

In the case of the "journal for 911 studies" peer reviews means: We gave it to some fellow kooks who said it was OK.

In the real world that's not peer-review, and your attempt to pass it off as such speaks to the desperation of your argument.
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
If we throw Ben Wa...I mean billiard balls at his house we can frame Judy Wood thus killing 2 birds with one stone. Ain't being in the NWO grand :D
Click to expand...

The new order of the world is on the back of every dollar bill.
 
Last edited:
Coritani: I'm discussing the report that has been released. We can discuss the 'final' report when it comes out.

JonnyFive said:
Why is it so important to you, C7, that we establish it was a gouge of a particular size, anyway?
Click to expand...
The gouge as depicted on pg 31 & 32 [NIST Appendex L] is the reason that columns 69, 72 & 75 are mentioned in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of coliumns 79, 80 and/or 81"

The evidence [see post #94] shows that the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground" is in conflict with 4 other statements [2 on the same page]

The report ignores these other statements and uses the incorrect statement to bolster it's hypothesis that debris from WTC 1 damaged these core columns, leading to the initiating event.

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?
Click to expand...
It's the debth and the damage [or lack of it] to the core columns is the key issue here.

Could you please explain where exactly this is leading, or what the point is?
Click to expand...
The '10 story gouge' is the most serious damage to the south face.
Since this gouge cannot co-exist with the other 4 statements, it should not be used as evidence in further reports or in discussions here.

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?
Click to expand...
This thread is not about CD's.
It's about the '10 story gouge' and damage to the core columns.
 
jaydeehess said:
J5, he is attempting to throw the entire NIST report out
Click to expand...
No. Just the part about the damage to the core columns and the extent of the damage to the south side of WTC 7.

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.
Click to expand...
They are in conflict.

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.
Click to expand...
No. The sequence is not in question.
 
jaydeehess said:
I see five videos listed.
Click to expand...
It's the first one [new footage]
[tryed to post direct link, didn't work]

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.
Click to expand...
Every time you are presented with someone saying explosion or describing an explosion you drag out your 'it could have been something else' bugaboo.
Can you acknowledge that it may have actually been an explosion ?
 
I've no idea why you cling to this one quote like Linus to his blanket, but as I said a long time ago, and as I say repeatedly in real live courts in real cases where it actually matters, it's all about location, perspective and opportunity to observe. When there are multiple eyewitnesses to traumatic events, their accounts will always differ with each other - if they didn't, well thatwould be suspicious indeed.

But you seem hung up on this one account without recognizing the basic, fundamental realities as set out above. Each witness account is dependent upon each witness' location, perspective and opportunity to observe. You cannot simply take one account and claim that it is inconsistent with other accounts unless you can pinpoint each witness' location, perspective and opportunity to observe. Even then, the accounts will most likely differ. probably 99 times out of 100.

I'm sure I asked you several pages ago to set out these accounts that you continue to cite on a time line with their positions and locations pinpointed and cross referenced with the times of their observations. That would go a long way to trying to determine whether they are consistent, inconsistent or somewhere in between. I haven't seen you try to compare them in that manner yet. It means nothing to say, Witness A said W; Witness B said X, Witness C said Y, Witness D said Z" unless you can put those statements into context - i.e. when, where, position, perspective, and opportunity to observe, since we're talking about events that occurred over several hours.

What Witness A saw from vantage point A at 1400 may very well - and should - differ from what Witness B saw from vantage point D at 1400, and from what Witness B saw from vantage point D at 1500, and from what Witness C saw from vantage point B at 1430, and from what Witness D saw from vantage point J at 1530, and from what Witness D saw from vantage point G at 1300, and from what Witness E saw from vantage point C at 1100, etc etc etc. Get the idea?
 
chris, you can't have us commenting on something that isn't even out yet.
NIST released a premilinary report, with a statement SAYING tha there were conflicting testimony to DAMAGE.

So, why sHOULD WE Continue to commento n something THAT IS probably going to change in the near future?
 
Coritani: I'm discussing the report that has been released. We can discuss the 'final' report when it comes out.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The final report isn't out yet.

And, can you also explain to me:

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

Why you thought NIST concluded that it 'appears possible', considering that they haven't finished their investigation yet. I thought conclusions come at the end of an investigation?
 
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

CurtC said:
But you've already seen numerous examples of people using the word "explosion" to mean a loud scary noise, whether or not there were explosives involved.
No, it doesn't make it a possibility - it is no evidence one way or another. To make it a possibility, you would need at least some evidence for it. Since we could reasonably expect there to be some evidence if it were true, and there is zero evidence, it's pretty safe to rule out that possibility for now. If you get any actual evidence, we'll listen.
Click to expand...
The physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed before it could be inspected to see what caused the collapse of WTC 7. None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected.

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on the actual material from the structure"

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

[pg 5]

The only evidence NIST or anybody else has is eyewitness testimony,
pics and vids.

Are you saying that all eyewitness statements are 'no evidence one way or the other' or just this one ?

Why can't you take the man at his word ?

Why do you always have to find an alternate explanation ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom