10 story hole in WTC 7

[Arus808]

Again, Christopher7 as has been stated ad nauseum
THIS IS A PRELIMNARY REPORT> meaning at any time between this report and the final one, FINDINGS, EVIDENCE, FACTS AND TESTIMONY can change.

So please why do you want us to comment on something that is bound to change in the near future? WE can freaking speuclate till the cows come home, but it doesn't mean one IOTA if the findings end up proving something entirely different.

 

[Christopher7]

Exactly. The final report isn't out yet.

And, can you also explain to me:

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?

"appears possible" was the conclusion of the report they released.

[Summary of Working Collapse Hypothesis - NIST Appendex L pg 50]

It is this report that we are discussing.

Until they release the final report, this is currently the 'official' statement.

Are you basing your opinion [in part] on this report or the one that hasen't been released yet ?

 

[c6gunner]

The physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed before it could be inspected to see what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

This seems to be one of the favourite deflections of people like you. What exactly did you expect them to do with the steel? Spread it all over the streets of downtown NY and leave it there for a couple years?

By your statement you attempt to suggest that the investigators did not have adequate access to the evidence. This is simply not the case. I challenge you to find one 9/11 investigator who is unsatisfied with the access they had to evidence. If your claims are correct, there should have been dozens of them complaining to the media.

None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected.

This is an outright lie. The first reports of steel corrosion were in regard to steel taken from WTC7. There was a lot of worry at the time over whether other steel-frame buildings might be suffering from similar corrosive effects, and whether this could result in future collapses elsewhere. I'd give you a link to back this up, however, as a new member I can't post links. Google "wtc7 steel corrosion" and try out some of the links.

 

[The Doc]

- 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.

Think about this.

WTC7 is rigged up for demolitions without any demolitions in WTC1 of WTC2? That is placing a lot of hope on those two towers collapsing. If WTC1 had not collapsed - WTC7 would have been left untouched and a random collapse would pretty much confirm a conspiracy.

So relying on an "architectural freak" to bring WTC1 down onto WTC7 is not something I can see planners of such an event doing.

The guy you're talking about is Frank Albert Demartini. He stated that he believed that the towers could withstand multiple impacts before 9/11 happened. He hasn't been able to offer an opinion after the fact because he was sadly killed in his office on 9/11.

So saying that WTC7 was a controlled demolition but WTC1 and WTC2 weren't is rather odd. I personally don't believe any of the buildings were demolitions, but seeing as the collapse of WTC7 has been blamed on the collapse of WTC1, I can't see why "the planners" would even consider a CD at WTC7 without knowing for a fact that part of WTC1 would fall onto WTC7. There's no way they could have predicted whether that would actually happen or not.

Just think about your conclusion.

 

[uk_dave]

see post #204

What part of 'certainty' don't you understand ?

See post 190

 

[Christopher7]

Again, Christopher7 as has been stated ad nauseum
THIS IS A PRELIMNARY REPORT> meaning at any time between this report and the final one, FINDINGS, EVIDENCE, FACTS AND TESTIMONY can change.

So please why do you want us to comment on something that is bound to change in the near future? WE can freaking speuclate till the cows come home, but it doesn't mean one IOTA if the findings end up proving something entirely different.

Gravy insisted that i read this report. He even gave me the URL.
At the time [Sept '06] he thought it was evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis.

Prelimnary or whatever, it is an official document and is part of the permanent public record.

Why do you keep saying "it's just a prelimnary report" are you disavowing it now?

Why can't you bring yourself to accknowledge that there is serious flaw in it instead of constantly saying it doesn't matter?

 

[Christopher7]

post #190

Who are these experts that say it was a certainty

It appears possible because......bla bla bla

You didn't name any experts.
That's because when you said "And the experts dissagree with you"
You were b*******ing

Do you know the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

 

[uk_dave]

post #190



Do you know the difference between 'appears possible' and 'certainty' ?

Did I ever say it was a 'certainty'?

Methinks you're getting me confursed with someone else.

 

[Arus808]

Gravy insisted that i read this report. He even gave me the URL.
At the time [Sept '06] he thought it was evidence for the debris damage/fire hypothesis.

Yes, and what's your point? YOu asked about WTC 7, he gave you a link to the report that has been released...its a preliminary report, however, its based on evidence they have thus far collected and analyzed, thereby whatever is in that report may end up being in the final version.

He wanted you to get familiar with the tactics and the evidence that were found about WTC 7, because much of what you are asking has already been answered.

However, just like Christophera and 28thdumbdon and KillClown you persist on taking one aspect of the report (one that has been admittedly prone to inconsistecny because its based on eyewitness testimony) and think that one little thing means the whole report is "trash".

 

[einsteen]

That's of course the point TheDoc. If the TT's where 100% gravity driven and that became the standard then one needs to find a workaround for wtc7, because if the answer will be CD one might make a connection between the twin towers.

But there is a workaround for this problem, simply by admitting wtc7 has been imploded very quickly and dirty, as Jowenko explained, the reason then could be because it became instable and it was a high risk to let an unstable building stay there as it is.

If you look at the Naudet wtc7 video for example, you clearly see all structures on several levels are broken at the same time, this is a discontinuous process, there is no scientist who will ever be able to explain this. After this shockwave it fell with an acceleration of about 9.1 N/kg and the collapse was very complete.

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined. For wtc7 the impossible became possible, there is no chance at all this can happen, this chance is even lower than the chance that a group of people lie.

You have a safe with $10,000, nobody knows the code of the save. 100 people swear they don't know it. Now the safe is empty. The theory is that due to the fact that the safe fell in such an improbable way the code has been typed because of mechanical collisions between the buttons and the environment. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. If some ******** between those 100 know the code and lie that chance is a couple of 1000 times higher than 'the best hypothesis'.

In a court of course it should be proved but if it can never be proved one needs to accept the improbable hypothesis. That’s how it is. It’s the perfect crime.

 

[The Doc]

But there is a workaround for this problem, simply by admitting wtc7 has been imploded very quickly and dirty, as Jowenko explained, the reason then could be because it became instable and it was a high risk to let an unstable building stay there as it is.

Fires burned in WTC7 from the moment WTC1 collapsed to the moment WTC7 collapsed. I think it was roughly 6 hours. How do you suppose people set up an implosion during large scale fires and during a building collapse right next door?

There was 102 minutes from when WTC1 was hit to when WTC1 collapsed. 102 minutes is no where near enough time to set up ANY kind of implosion. Especially one that goes unnoticed by seismographs. In an implosion, thousands of small explosives (shaped charges) are placed on the majority of the columns. A "quick and dirty" job would need large explosives to get more building cleared out using less charges. The larger the explosives, the more they get picked up by seismographs. That rules out large explosives.

If you look at the Naudet wtc7 video for example, you clearly see all structures on several levels are broken at the same time, this is a discontinuous process

This is a contradiction by yours truly. First you tell me that is was a quick and dirty implosion... and now you're telling me that it explosives were placed so "all structures on several levels [broke] at the same time"? Do you have any idea how many explosives you would need to do that?

You would have needed to place explosives undetected, WELL in advance of 9/11. And then you would be relying on the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. See what I'm saying?

there is no scientist who will ever be able to explain this.

What about the scientists at the NIST? You forget about them? Or are you just going to ignore the final report if it doesn't conclude demolitions...?

I would like to see the math of wtc7. For the twin towers you can write a momentum transfer program, of course under some bizarre assumptions, but it has a basis that needs to be refined. For wtc7 the impossible became possible, there is no chance at all this can happen, this chance is even lower than the chance that a group of people lie.

Have you got statistics and solid numbers to back that up?

No. You're just speculating.

You have a safe with $10,000, nobody knows the code of the save. 100 people swear they don't know it. Now the safe is empty. The theory is that due to the fact that the safe fell in such an improbable way the code has been typed because of mechanical collisions between the buttons and the environment. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. If some ******** between those 100 know the code and lie that chance is a couple of 1000 times higher than 'the best hypothesis'.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with WTC7.

In a court of course it should be proved but if it can never be proved one needs to accept the improbable hypothesis. That’s how it is. It’s the perfect crime.

That is known as speculation my friend. Innocent until proven guilty is the rules most people play by - you are playing the opposite. Based on an assumption and some speculation you have determined that WTC7 was a controlled demo.

Do you see how wrong that is?

 

[Andúril]

Here we can see part of the damage to the south side of WTC 7:



And if that's not enough, here are two more vids that clearly show that WTC 7's fires were not "relatively small", as CTists hallucinate, but quite the opposite:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi


Of course, it is not entirely impossible that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives. Tearing down heavily damaged buildings is not unusual at all among firefighters. The collapse of WTC 7 was only a matter of time anyway, so it may be possible that the rescue workers thought it to be better if they decide when the building comes down than to allow it to remain there as a time bomb, ready to collapse at any time.

 

[einsteen]

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a few man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

Whatever what happened with the goddamned building the end result is what counts.

 

[twinstead]

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

How on Earth could that have been accomplished in an occupied building pre 911?

 

[einsteen]

I'm no criminal, I don't know what happened, I just want the answer...

Occupied building ? My brother who works through the whole country always says if you wear a orange/yellow jacker and a helmet nobody asks you what you do. I remember that there are some guys here wearing mililtair uniforms, they went to important events, nobody asked them who they were, even one made it on a photo with a foremer German minister (Honecker). You look to difficult, people can do so much, is not impossible.

 

[Belz...]

- 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.

That doesn't seem to make sense to me. How can you hold all these beliefs simultaneously ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

So, by your logic, any conclusion that contradicts even ONE eyewitness statement cannot be reached ?

Well, that does it for me. NO conclusion can EVER be reached.

 

[The Doc]

I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has. The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar.

Firefighters reported huge fires engulfing the whole building.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html


There are only limited images of WTC7 because of what had just happened at WTC1 and WTC2. "Oh look at that. Two 110 story buildings have just come down and there is smoke and dust absolutely everywhere... think I might just hang out over by that piece of steel"...

You see, for the "No WTC7 images" to be bizarre, that would imply that somehow these images were "covered up" by the government. How do you suppose that there would have been enough 'government agents' around GZ right after the collapse to confiscate all photographs of WTC7? There's nothing "Bizarre" about it unless you're world view is based on seeing everything as one big conspiracy, one big cover up.

Where do you suppose all that smoke came from? Water? Ok you're probably not following so I'll answer it. It came from burning materials as a result of fire. FIRE.

You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement. Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

So what you're suggesting is not only that there were no fires in WTC7, but that men were cutting columns inside the building with torches... They weren't blinded or suffocated by all that smoke? They haven't come out? They managed to get out before the collapse?Your Scenario:

WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.
WTC7 was a controlled demolition using explosives planted after the plane impacts and also using people cutting the columns with torches.

All who were presumably in WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1 where "the planners" thought... "Hey! WTC1 came down and f*cked WTC7 up... LET'S BLOW WTC7 UP TOO! WTC1 HITTING IT WILL BE A GREAT COVER STORY! QUICK! ORGANIZE THE MEN!"

Whatever what happened with the goddamned building the end result is what counts.

Oh so you're basing this whole argument on... "It looked like a demolition, therefore it is a demolition".

Jesus H...

 

[Belz...]

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?

I'd like to see Chris' response to this.

 

[Andúril]

Maybe I trust too much on physics then...

Ok, wtc7 (forget about the TT), I've seen only a few pictures with some localized fires, do you now want to tell me that there are no pictures of the huge raging fires ? I've never seen them and nobody has.

Check those vids I posted above.

The crime of the century and there are no images of it, bizar. You only will need to place some charges at for example the first two levels, where there are no
fires or somewhere in the basement.

By the way, I've heard that there was a diesel generator and lots of fuel for it in the 5th floor of WTC 7. That burns quite merrily.

Further on higher level you even don't need charges, if you only cut the columns with a cutting torch in a V-shape (cones), a few man-minutes per column Jowenko said.

Who would go to cut the supporting columns? It's not exactly the brightest idea to cut the columns of any building while being still inside. It's like sawing the tree branch which you are sitting on.