• 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.
Sorry Doc, missed that part about the scattered fires.

We have a building that is hit by the twin towers, it got a hole in it, there is fire, yes where smoke is is fire, but a small fire can cause a lot of smoke. now let's go to the situation of raging fires, whatever caused it is not relevant, a burning part from the WTC or an exploded tank.

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole) and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment. Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving with 9.1 m/s^2. if this really is caused by fire and a few columns that are gone then the whole science of CDs need to be revisited.

A cd is really a high-skilled job in which you
- exactly study the building
- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
- cut also some columns on higher levels or place charges there
- connect a computer system to time it very precisely, a random timing will lead to a failed CD.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ? We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.
 
You have two options here:

a) The amount of explosives needed to bring down WTC7 were much larger than could be planted in the time frame of the attacks. Therefore they would have needed to have been placed before the attacks with people in the buildings. Why did no one report demolitions activity?

b) A minimal amount of explosives are needed - so little they could be placed and rigged to go within hours. This would be far less than are used in normal CD's. This does, however, go against standard controlled demolitions:

In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120
Click to expand...

That's for 9 floors. I fail to see how such a small amount would be needed.

In this "minor demolitions" case you are admitting that minor damage in certain areas of the building could have brought the building down. Couldn't fire have done this?
 
einsteen said:
Sorry Doc, missed that part about the scattered fires.

We have a building that is hit by the twin towers, it got a hole in it, there is fire, yes where smoke is is fire, but a small fire can cause a lot of smoke. now let's go to the situation of raging fires, whatever caused it is not relevant, a burning part from the WTC or an exploded tank.

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole) and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment. Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving with 9.1 m/s^2. if this really is caused by fire and a few columns that are gone then the whole science of CDs need to be revisited.

A cd is really a high-skilled job in which you
- exactly study the building
- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
- cut also some columns on higher levels or place charges there
- connect a computer system to time it very precisely, a random timing will lead to a failed CD.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ? We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.
Click to expand...

Gosh, you should go out straight away and offer your services to the insurance companies. Boy, will their face be red when they find they've paid out billions of dollars to someone who deliberately blew up his own extremely lucrative building in order to...

um...

Now, why did he do it, again?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Gosh, you should go out straight away and offer your services to the insurance companies. Boy, will their face be red when they find they've paid out billions of dollars to someone who deliberately blew up his own extremely lucrative building in order to...

um...

Now, why did he do it, again?
Click to expand...

Excellent point.

Einsteen - What are your proposed motives for the destruction of WTC7?
 
einsteen said:
it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment.
Click to expand...

Another lie. They knew it was coming down, but nobody knew when. I'd love to see you try and prove this assertion.

einsteen said:
Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving
Click to expand...

Really? A shockwave eh? And ofcourse, your super-dooper x-ray goggles allowed you to see this shockwave, while everyone else missed it.

Man, where can I buy a pair of those?

einsteen said:
If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ?
Click to expand...

A infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters.....

Anyway, if you look at the way the building collapsed, it actually fell over to one side. In the CD business, that would be considered a failure. Someone would get their butt kicked for screwing it up.
 
Christopher7 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

No offense, but your argument for CD has a ten-story hole in it.
 
einsteen said:
Sorry Doc, missed that part about the scattered fires.

We have a building that is hit by the twin towers, it got a hole in it, there is fire, yes where smoke is is fire, but a small fire can cause a lot of smoke. now let's go to the situation of raging fires, whatever caused it is not relevant, a burning part from the WTC or an exploded tank.

Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole) and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment. Now as a discontinous function a shockwave goes through the whole building even before it starts moving with 9.1 m/s^2. if this really is caused by fire and a few columns that are gone then the whole science of CDs need to be revisited.

A cd is really a high-skilled job in which you
- exactly study the building
- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
- cut also some columns on higher levels or place charges there
- connect a computer system to time it very precisely, a random timing will lead to a failed CD.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ? We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.
Click to expand...
My arm is getting tired from swinging the ole Clue by four:

All of the WTC buildings made a freaking mess when they collapsed. That's how WTC7 was damaged in the first place - debris from the towers smashed into it and took aout a big chunk as well as starting fires. So much for controlled.

Have you ever seen a CD being prepared? They don't connect things to a computer. They may use one before hand to do calculations, but the delays are all done using detonation cord and non-electrical delay devices.

There was nothing controlled about the collapse of any of the WTC buildings.
 
Last edited:
Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?

Doc, I admit of course that I cannot explain everything, it would be very easy to repeat the fire story, it's very easy to lay down and be one of the debunkers. But also the debunkers cannot explain it, they only refer to some preliminarily reports.
 
The Doc said:
Excellent point.

Einsteen - What are your proposed motives for the destruction of WTC7?
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to find a motive or a mechanism. He's a CT and "just asking questions."

He also ignores answers and willfully ignores reality.
 
einsteen said:
Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction ?
Click to expand...

Again, two options:
a) People saw the state of the building and all the smoke coming out of it, the tilt, the hole, the fires etc. And thought "That doesn't look good".

b) Everyone knew demolition charges were in the building. They haven't come out. They didn't report it on the day.

Seriously, think about what you're saying.

Doc, I admit of course that I cannot explain everything, it would be very easy to repeat the fire story, it's very easy to lay down and be one of the debunkers. But also the debunkers cannot explain it, they only refer to some preliminarily reports.
Click to expand...

Well I have yet to see any undisputed research at all that proves a controlled demolition.

No one's "laying down and [being] one of the debunkers". You've provided nothing. The official account is far more convincing and is backed up by qualified eyewitnesses who were given the job of surveying the building, structural engineers, NIST, FEMA, Architects and common sense. The idea that charges could have been planted undetected in itself is utterly absurd.

So I think if anyone is "lying down", it is you. It is much easier to speculate than prove anything. Questions are not evidence buddy.
 
Oops, sorry wrong words, no I don't mean lying but in fact (how do you say it) just relaxing and repeating the official story.
 
einsteen said:
Belz, it won't topple if you blow up it symmetrically.
Click to expand...

And you know this how ?

It would not take 7 months, you think it happend 'naturally' why would it then take 7 months ? You contradict yourself with that.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about ?

When did I ever say it happened "naturally" ? A 110-storey building fell unto it. I don't call that natural.

Major smoke with minor fire, ever heard about smoke bombs ?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Unless you can prove that "smoke bombs" of a size never before seen were used, this is just speculation.

Also, a motive would be a good thing to add to your theory.
 
einsteen said:
Now 7 hours later it is evacuated, all structures are still intact (of course there is that gaping hole)
Click to expand...

Yes the building was still intact EXCEPT FOR THAT HUGE FREAKING HOLE IN IT.

and when people say "did you hear that, building is coming down, it is about to blow up" etc. it does come down, they were able to determine exactly the moment.
Click to expand...

The damn thing was tilting. What part of that didn't you understand ?

- need to determine where to place a minimal amount of charges
Click to expand...

I would've thought they needed to determine where to place the EXACT amount of charges.

If the requirements for a CD are met then it will be a good and complete collapse. How could fire lead to the required conditions ?
Click to expand...

So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.

We will seen soon, but I'm afraid it will again be a half baked farce.
Click to expand...

And if that isn't a pre-determined conclusion, I don't know what is.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So your point now is that the larger estimate was used by NIST in explaining the collapse, but if they had used the smaller estimates (still a huge gouge), that the collapse couldn't have been explained? Sorry, I don't believe you - can you show your work?

einsteen said:
Because there is a movie in which people say 'it is about to blow up', there are other movies in which 100s of people are watching in that direction before it collapsed, do you think they were standing 7 hours with their face in that direction?
Click to expand...
Possibly. You're saying that you saw the video of them clearing people out of the area, then only assumed that it must have collapsed immediately afterwards? Do you not see a problem with this thought process?

einsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I see guys wearing orange jackets working in my building, I often will not ask them what they're doing (but I actually often do, not because I'm suspicious of them, just that I'm always curious). But if I saw guys with orange jackets getting access to the structural elements of the building, then a week or two later the building collapsed, even if I hadn't asked them at the time, don't you think that I, and every other building occupant, would be telling all to the authorities? Nothing you say can stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
 
einsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you use the 'greening model' for WTC7 you will find the following if you assume that the building collapsed at the 7th floor:

Code: 
Floor	Falling	Vi	Vf	Vavg	Time	Cuml. Time
7	40	0.00	 8.52	 4.26	0.87	0.87
6	41	8.31	11.90	10.11	0.37	1.24
5	42	11.62	14.41	13.02	0.28	1.52
4	43	14.08	16.46	15.27	0.24	1.76
3	44	16.09	18.21	17.15	0.22	1.98
2	45	17.81	19.74	18.78	0.20	2.17
1	46	19.32	21.11	20.22	0.18	2.36

And absolute freefall from 25.9m (7x3.7m) would be 2.30 seconds. A massive resistance of 0.06 seconds.


*Note that some of these floors are mechanical and may differ from a 3.7m floor height (174m/47), but I can't find the figures anywhere.
 
Belz... said:
So this whole thing is due to the fact that you think only a controlled demolition can lead to a building collapsing ? That's kinda funny, considering your (alledged) stance on WTC1 and 2.
Click to expand...

Do you say that wtc1,2 were controlled demolitions ? they were demolitions but uncontrolled although methodical. But assume the top block fails we have for wtc1 an initial kinetic energy of 2.4GJ and per storey that amount will be released, mass accumulation will even give more. This energy picture is valid (although it is a requirement) but for wtc7 you have no initial momentum. Isn't it "show your math" what you guys always scream.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom