10 story hole in WTC 7

[LashL]

How many times do you have to be told that the final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, Christopher? What part of that do you not understand?

You do know, don't you, that they are currently working on said final report and that they hope to publish it this spring, right? You can tilt at windmills all you like in the interim but if your posts here to date are any indication of your (lack of) rational, logical and critical thinking skills, well, let's just say that I won't be holding my breath waiting to hear anything intelligent from you in the future.

 

[Christopher7]

Why?

Dumber

You obviously didn't read his question:

note: I know it's technically not a question. You know what I mean...

He asked if any 9/11 investigators were unsatisfied with the access they had to the evidence. Do you have any or do you not?

You are avoiding the point which is:

NIST didn't have any steel from WTC 7 and therefore it did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 to see what caused the collapse.

Since the physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed, all NIST or anyone else has in the way of evidence is eyewitness testimony, pictures and videos.

 

[Coritani]

Dumber

Stop dodging the question.

You are avoiding the point which is:

NIST didn't have any steel from WTC 7 and therefore it did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 to see what caused the collapse.

Since the physical evidence was quickly removed and destroyed, all NIST or anyone else has in the way of evidence is eyewitness testimony, pictures and videos.

You are avoiding his question: Were any 9/11 investigators unsatisfied with their access to the evidence?

Also, NIST may have steel to examine for their final report. They did say that "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7". It's certainly within the realm of possibility - even probability - that further investigation could remove the ambiguity and/or turn upn more steel.

Like all CTs, you know your stuff when it comes to dodging questions. You also seem to be drawing your conclusions from the preliminary report.

 

[uk_dave]

C7,

This is getting silly.

You commented that NIST could only say that collapse due to fire and structural damage was a 'possibility'. You then asked for the names of experts who said this was a 'certainty'

I never claimed any experts who said it was a certainty, because no experts would until the investigation is completed. It's only in woowooland that experts in humanities, social studies and the ancient mayan conclude with any certainty about things they have no evidence for.

Talking of which, where are the experts who claim with a certainty that WTC7 was brought down by CD? Are we going to hear from Jowenko again?

Jowenko is held up as a champion of the 'truth' movement, despite the fact that he categorically stated that the WTC towers did not appear to be CD, but that he has studied footage of the WTC7 collapse and appears to state with certainty that the collapse of that building was CD.

Well thank god NIST doesn't claim such certainties until they have investigated properly.

Now, as for certainty as opposed to probability, we could also argue that it's possible WTC7 was brought down by an invisible foot belonging to the mysterious vegetarian pugsplatter beast of artemis 12 as it was grazing on category Delta 5F planets in the oooompah system. And since NIST did not go looking for evidence of pugsplatter toenail clippings then woowoos could argue that NIST cannot rule this scenario out.

Likewise, a building which has sustained damage (to a variable degree depending on the eyewitness accounts) and is on fire (to a variable degree based upon eyewitness accounts) is no longer a pristine, stable structure. To look for another reason for collapse is quite frankly rather silly. It's like the car which skids on a patch of ice, crashes and kills the driver, and then you asking for a full reconstruction of the car to rule out the possibility that someone tampered with the brakes.

WTC7, which sustained damage and was on fire, collapses.

Normal, rational people see it and say "Oh well, there goes another one" given the events of that day. Only desperate CTers who have seen their cherished theories about the WTC towers debunked over and over again, cling on to the last vague hope that WTC7 might provide them with the smoking gun which will validate their lives and justify all the time they have wasted since 2001.

Let's just wait for the final NIST report. We know you wont accept it, but until it comes out we're just going around in circles.

 

[Christopher7]

How many times do you have to be told that the final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, Christopher? What part of that do you not understand?

You do know, don't you, that they are currently working on said final report and that they hope to publish it this spring, right?

How many times have i answered:

I KNOW THAT!

Will you please STFU about that GD final report

We can discuss it when it is released

I'm pointing out a serious flaw in NIST progress report June 2004 Appendex L

OTers used to be so proud of this report. They would refer to it all the time. Gravy insisted that i read it. Now, you don't want to talk about it because you just can't bring yourself to admit that there is a serious flaw in it. You pretend that it doesn't matter any more so we should just wait for the final report and let bygones be bygones.

That may work for you but not for me.
Refrences to this non existant 100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep gouge and the damage atributed to it should be removed from the hypothesis and the debate, here and elseware on weather or not WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire.

And it answer is very much still in question.

It is NOT, as many here believe, a 'certainty'.

NIST concluded that the debris damage/fire hypothesis "appears possible"

That's a long way from certainty.

Without any physical evidence or the 10 story gouge [and the damage to the core columns that it may have done] it is highly unlikely that they will be able to say anything difinative.

But you keep your hopes up.

 

[uk_dave]

But you keep your hopes up.

As do you.

Tell me, if NIST produces a report as detailed as that for the WTC towers, describing the mechanism for collapse along with pretty diagrams etc, will you accept their conclusions?

If so, will you then accept the official account of 9/11?

 

[LashL]

blah blah blah - see above

Can you really be as obtuse as your post suggests? The interim NIST report is the best evidence to date. It remains the best evidence to date. Your claims to the contrary do not change that, and never have. I suspect that the final report will be more finetuned than the interim report but will not be fundamentally different.

I'm certainly not backing off of the interim report and I don't think anyone else is, other than you, who thinks it's all a whitewash in the first place, so unless you're hellbent on debunking yourself, your comment is silly. Unlike you, we recognize that it is an interim report and we recognize that the final version will be different - but not likely fundamentally different - that's what real investigations are about, after all.

The fact that you cannot seem to wrap your mind around reality is not a big issue to anyone but yourself and your immediate family. But it's probably something that you should deal with.

We've been round and round the quote you keep harping back to, and again, I'll say that you are tilting at windmills for the reasons I've set out in detail in prior posts. The fact that you have ignored them and chosen not to repond to them doesn't negate their existence, and shows that you haven't been able to refute them.

And since you brought it up, speaking of "STFU", to use *your* vernacular (because I personally never resort to that particular childish tactic but since it appears that you got your tutoring on your knees bowing to the demigods of tinhat lunacy and therefore resort to such a lame tactic) yeah, maybe you should STFU, at least until you learn how to carry on a rational conversation with rational and critical thinking adults.

 

[uk_dave]

I wanna know, is the collapse of WTC7 the cornerstone of the 9/11 CT?

I mean, we've had the crap about steel having to melt before it fails and freefall time which are faster or slower or maybe a bit of both, and we've had the raging infernos which couldn't bring down the towers but a small amount of explosives could etc etc. All this crap is history. Only a few galapagos woowoos still cling on to it.

Now they all focus on WTC7 (apart from the ones who focus on eyewitness testimony gathered five years after the event at the pentagon)....so, if NIST can produce an explanation which satisfies the worlds architects, engineers etc etc....will the woowoos give it up?

 

[Firestone]

I wanna know, is the collapse of WTC7 the cornerstone of the 9/11 CT?

I mean, we've had the crap about steel having to melt before it fails and freefall time which are faster or slower or maybe a bit of both, and we've had the raging infernos which couldn't bring down the towers but a small amount of explosives could etc etc. All this crap is history. Only a few galapagos woowoos still cling on to it.

Now they all focus on WTC7 (apart from the ones who focus on eyewitness testimony gathered five years after the event at the pentagon)....so, if NIST can produce an explanation which satisfies the worlds architects, engineers etc etc....will the woowoos give it up?

No.

My guess is that most of them will retreat to generic NWO/Jews/Illuminati/Masons/Jesuits/Feminists theories.

 

[Christopher7]

Were any 9/11 investigators unsatisfied with their access to the evidence?

I don't know. It does not matter if they say they are happy as pigs in space.

They did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 as so many OTers have cliamed.

Also, NIST may have steel to examine for their final report. They did say that "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7". It's certainly within the realm of possibility - even probability - that further investigation could remove the ambiguity and/or turn upn more steel.

Even if they could identify a few pieces as belonging to WTC 7, it would not help much. To determine the cause they would need steel from many key places.

A proper investigation should have been done at the time but it was not done.

 

[Christopher7]

Can you really be as obtuse as your post suggests?

Yes [my friends call me Ob for short]

The interim NIST report is the best evidence to date. It remains the best evidence to date.

We agree

Your claims to the contrary do not change that, and never have.

We disagree

I suspect that the final report will be more finetuned than the interim report but will not be fundamentally different.

We agree

I'm certainly not backing off of the interim report and I don't think anyone else is, other than you, who thinks it's all a whitewash in the first place, so unless you're hellbent on debunking yourself, your comment is silly. Unlike you, we recognize that it is an interim report and we recognize that the final version will be different - but not likely fundamentally different - that's what real investigations are about, after all.

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

The fact that you cannot seem to wrap your mind around reality is not a big issue to anyone but yourself and your immediate family. But it's probably something that you should deal with.

Right. It's just lil' ol' Ob all by his lil' ol' lonesome.
Pay no attention to the thousands of people view this and other CT vs OT forums.

 

[Christopher7]

As do you.

Tell me, if NIST produces a report as detailed as that for the WTC towers, describing the mechanism for collapse along with pretty diagrams etc, will you accept their conclusions?

If so, will you then accept the official account of 9/11?

No

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

 

[MortFurd]

Yes [my friends call me Ob for short]

Snip...

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

Right. It's just lil' ol' Ob all by his lil' ol' lonesome.
Pay no attention to the thousands of people view this and other CT vs OT forums.

I begin to see why your friends call you "Ob."

Two of the biggest buildings in the world collapsed next to WTC7. There are photos showing massive damage to the building. There are witness reports of massive damage ("The building was leaning.") There are witness reports of extensive fires in WTC7. The NYFD called all of their people out of the building because it was too dangerous to be in.

No one else in the world thought it necessary to do an atom-by-atom forensic examination of WTC7 because WTC1 and WTC2 farking COLLAPSED right next to it. People knew it was damaged by the collapse of the other two buildings. No one heard demolotions charges going off. No one saw armies of suicidal cutting torch armed demolitions crews rushing in to finish off WTC7.

You have yet to present a single coherent suggestion as to why WTC7 would have been brought down by controlled demolition.





BTW:
OB is a brand of tampons here in Germany. I couldn't help chuckling when Christopher said his friends call him that.

 

[MortFurd]

No

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

Are you just begging for someone to whip out the Google-Fu and prove to you how ignorant that claim is?

 

[twinstead]

C7 it is obvious that unless it proves an inside job, you will never accept the findings of ANY investigation of 911, government or not.

You are anathema to real investigators.

Oh, and your little comment about the government investigating itself was silly. American history is FULL of the government investigating itself and finding evil doings, and full of discovered conspiracies.

Iran Contra... Watergate... The list is pretty long.

 

[Belz...]

You also seem to be drawing your conclusions from the preliminary report.

No, I think his conclusions were drawn well in advance.

 

[Belz...]

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

No proof ? That's funny. We have plenty of visual evidence, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence, that it happened as the "official" story says. What does "proof" mean to you, then ?

Do you think the government has ever or will ever investigate itself and find itself guilty of anything ?

That's why we have courts.

 

[twinstead]

No proof ? That's funny. We have plenty of visual evidence, expert opinions, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence, that it happened as the "official" story says. What does "proof" mean to you, then ?

I fear, like most CTs, that the definition of 'proof' is any evidence, even if it is uncorroborated, and any conjecture no matter how unlikely, as long as it fits with his predisposed opinion.

I wonder why that is?

Just asking questions.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I don't know. It does not matter if they say they are happy as pigs in space.

They did not inspect any steel from WTC 7 as so many OTers have cliamed.

Even if they could identify a few pieces as belonging to WTC 7, it would not help much. To determine the cause they would need steel from many key places.

A proper investigation should have been done at the time but it was not done.

When you say "cause", you mean something different from what the experts mean. They mean "the reason the building fell, given that it was hit by debris from a collapsing 110-story building."

The ultimate cause, the 110-story building falling on it, is not in doubt by any sane person.

While troofers find it suspicious that not ALL buildings hit by debris collapsed, NIST sees this as an opportunity to learn why some buildings are better able to withstand heavy damage than others. (The obvious answer, in the case of the Verizon building, is that older buildings were over-engineered in comparison to newer buildings like WTC7.)


Maybe this isn't as exciting as your fantasy (you know it as THE TROOF), but it's real life and it's how things work in the real world.

 

[jaydeehess]

So you think it's reasonible for OTers to say "WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fires" even though there's no proof of that.

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support this opinion. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Do you argue as vociferously on CT forums against the opinion that CD brouight down the building? If not , why not?