10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

No one has ever disputed the locations of the fuel tanks and louvers and pipes. Your continued harping that these things will not change is a moot point. No one is argueing them.

Jennie C is denying it.

Instead we are argueing things such as your rideiculous contention that smoke should, ,, check that,, , must be coming from the louvers if there is a fuel fire on the 5th floor. That certainly need not be the case unless the fire is actually in the generator room! No one has stated(other than you, by your insistence that smoke emanate from the louvers) that this is where the fire should be.

We agree that there was no fire in the generator room.
There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe to the east generator room was damaged. It was 90 feet inside the building.

As for the elevator cars being ejected, you seem to be of the impression that something had to hit the cars themselves in order for them to be ejected. Again this need not be the case. Something lodged in the shaft, haveing cut the cables upon entering them, would eject the cars as they fell and ran into the debris. There are probably other modes by which the cars could be ejected as well that do not require falling debris actually hitting the cars. Yes this requires some imagination based upon the actual make up of the building and its systems and the conditions existing in the building. Instead, you simply dismiss this evidence of damage to the central core of the building that does indeed occur 90 feet (or so) into the structure.

You are ignoring the fact that smoke from a diesel fire would be pouring out of the very large hole made by 2 elevator cars.

You dismiss this because there is no direct evidence of exactly what caused the cars to be ejected, no direct evidence of the amount of damage that resulted as they were ejected from the shafts.

All that and i don't 'believe' that falling debris could penetrate 90' into a building.
Do you know of a qualified person who will go on record and say this is possible?

However on the other hand you are quite convinced that explsoives were used to demolish this building despite absolutly no direct evidence that such a thing took place and extremly thin circumstantial evidence of it. A non-expert claims he "knows" and explosion when he hears one and you accept it without any question and the building fails internally and since that 'looks like' explosive demoltions that you have seen before you buy into that theory.

Yes. I don't believe that WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single key column could lead to a global collapse.

Given that there is vastly more circumstantial evidence including some direct evidence that debris damage and/or fire brought down this structure

There is NO evidence, circumstantial or direct, that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

And then we actually got to see the hole.

You mean here?

How can you see a gouge in the middle [column 8] of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground.
Perhaps your x-ray vision is better than mine.

And no evidence to the contrary, so far ? We do know the building collapsed, we do know it was damaged by nearby collapses, we do know it was on fire, and

we do know it was impossible to rig it with explosives prior to its collapse.

Really?

Did you know about this.

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

 

[DavidJames]

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

I wish for you what I wish for others like yourself.

I hope someday, a district attorney accuses you of a heinous crime based on the level of evidence you are willing to convict others.

But you know what, tin hatter. If I were on the jury and I was presented the type evidence you present, I would not vote you guilty.

I'm embarrased for you.

 

[Arus808]

Did you know about this.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6039/teleblasteriivc4.jpg

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

with all the radio interference and problems that day, would you truly trust something that relies on radio signals to work properly, in the center of mobile/wireless/communication signals city?

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

did you know that he was off the board on or before the year 2000?

 

[jaydeehess]

Jennie C is denying it.

Ok, make that "very few people". For the greater part, no one denies the location or existance of those items. It is still a moot point.

We agree that there was no fire in the generator room.
There is NO evidence that the fuel supply pipe to the east generator room was damaged. It was 90 feet inside the building.

There is NO evidence of the the explosives you believe in. there is however evidence of significant damage to the core of the structure as illustrated by the two elevator cars that were forced out of their shafts. It has been shown to you that it is not necessary to have debris actually puncture throughto the 5th floor to cause a rupture of the fuel piping system.

You are ignoring the fact that smoke from a diesel fire would be pouring out of the very large hole made by 2 elevator cars.

On the contrary. I have a wood stove and if I punch a hole in the steel stove pipe smoke does not enter the room out that hole. Instead air is drawn into the stovepipe via that hole. The proper way to install stove pipe is to have the crimped ends facing down which means that the upper pipe fits into the one below it. This seems counterintuitive since it would seem that smoke would move through the crimps and into the room in this arrangement But the whole idea of doing it this way is to have any creosote deposits drain down inside the pipe towards the firebox rather than (if the crimped end was installed facing up) flow out onto the outside of the pipe. The reason the smoke stays inside is the draft created by the heat.

The elevator shaft could easily work as a much larger version of a chimney.

All that and i don't 'believe' that falling debris could penetrate 90' into a building.
Do you know of a qualified person who will go on record and say this is possible?

First give me a reason to believe that you are qualified to say it isn't possible.
I would venture that most engineers would state that it is not completely out of the realm of possibility. I already pointed out that an engine of the B-25 that hit the Empire State building found its way into an elevator shaft. that engine had hit a brick and steel building at 120 MPH , perpendicular to the face of the building while the plane was actually attempting to pull up and over the building.

I already pointed out that it need not be a perimeter column tree that entered WTC 7.

Yes. I don't believe that WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single key column could lead to a global collapse.

False arguement since a pristine building that was suffering damage in only one location is not the condition that WTC 7 was in that day. No ONE thing brought this building down, it was a combination of insults to the structural integrity of the building that brought it down.

There is NO evidence, circumstantial or direct, that there was debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

Now define , "in the area of" because that refrain is getting old. Once you have done that please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be within that area in order to cause the collapse. Please include in your description how the loss of perimeter columns would affect the stresses on the core columns in question.

 

[jaydeehess]

You mean here?

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Or this?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.
Formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesc.

It doesn't eliminate the need to load the explosives. Now please give evidence of the installation of such explosives. Rather than state that Bush's kin was the head of a security co. how about something a little more solid such as actual testimony from someone who saw work being performed on the columns in question sometime prior to Sept11/01


Fact is that any theory that involves the use of explosives MUST then establish a bona fide reason to do so. There is none that makes sense at all.
Was it to make Silverstein rich? No, contrary to the above poster's statements insurance co.'s pay out for loss. If a loss is covered by other means they don't allow you to be paid twice. You get what it takes to rebuild and they can decide to pay out in installments as construction proceeds. Silverstein may be getting loss of business money but that requires he show that he is still involved in rebuilding and suffering loss due to that.

Now was the destruction of WTC 7 part of a conspiracy to allow a neo-con agenda of military build up and war to proceed? Let's examine that. Slamming two jets into the towers and bringing them down on top of the nearest buildings would certainly suffice so what possible reason would there be to demilish #7? Certainly not to cover up the det cord running to the explosives in #1 & #2 since you have already shown that this was not necessary. certainly not to cover up anything else since a shredder would suffice for any paper trail and simply carting out a file cabinet containing any equipment used sometime after Sept 11 (my choice would be on Sept 12) would suffice. It could be part of a large scale operation to remove important files from the building(nothing suspicious about that). It is simply not required to completely demolish WTC 7 as part of any such operation. It is ridiculous overkill that would serve only to make secrecy of this plot more difficult.

 

[Christopher7]

I wish for you what I wish for others like yourself.

I hope someday, a district attorney accuses you of a heinous crime based on the level of evidence you are willing to convict others.

But you know what, tin hatter. If I were on the jury and I was presented the type evidence you present, I would not vote you guilty.

I'm embarrased for you.

Oh master of misinterpretation and overstatement.

I offered that information to dispel the contention that it would be 'impossible' to rig WTC 7 prior to 9/11.

 

[Christopher7]

with all the radio interference and problems that day, would you truly trust something that relies on radio signals to work properly, in the center of mobile/wireless/communication signals city?

That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

did you know that he was off the board on or before the year 2000?

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.

 

[CHF]

Chris, why are you still insisting that WTC7 was demolished?

Show me one WTC7 video that sounds anything like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

No series of loud charges = no demolition.

 

[JimBenArm]

That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.

Let's see. He was off the board in 2000. Control of security would be essential. When did 9/11 happen? Oh, yeah, 2001!
Yeah, I think I'll disregard that.

 

[Arus808]

That's what it designed to do. Do you think they would be in business if it didn't work in cities?

you are also aware of the problems in communication that day aren't you?

Yes. It was during 2000. So what?
Control of security would be essential to rig WTC 7.

so you're claiming they rigged WTC 7 with explosives more than year prior to 9/11/2001...even though people who worked there didn't notice this work? Despite that Bush was not on the board for most of 2000; and being on the board doesn't mean they have any control over contracted security work in that building.

 

[Christopher7]

Ok, make that "very few people". For the greater part, no one denies the location or existance of those items. It is still a moot point.

On the contrary, it is a very important point.
Most people did not know that the fuel supply pipe was 90' from the south side of WTC 7.

There is NO evidence of the the explosives you believe in.

From Mark's list:
"you hear smaller, secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes"

Of course, when people say explosions, it's never really an explosion, it's always just something that sounds like an explosion. If it was an explosion then it was something outer than a demolition charge because nobody heard and demolition charges.

there is however evidence of significant damage to the core of the structure as illustrated by the two elevator cars that were forced out of their shafts.

Whatever ejected the elevator cars may have damaged or severed a core column but given the location of the hole the piece of debris [supposedly] came thru [around floor 14, just west of center] it is unlikely that it would be a column east of center.

It has been shown to you that it is not necessary to have debris actually puncture throughto the 5th floor to cause a rupture of the fuel piping system.

It has been suggested that the pipe might possibly have broken at the valve.
This is pure speculation.
As i posted earlier, NIST says that there is NO evidence that this happened.

On the contrary. I have a wood stove and if I punch a hole in the steel stove pipe smoke does not enter the room out that hole. Instead air is drawn into the stovepipe via that hole.

Right.
You just try that and see what happens.

The elevator shaft could easily work as a much larger version of a chimney.

Right.
No smoke will come out of a hole as big as 2 elevator cars, even though part of the south wall is gone.

First give me a reason to believe that you are qualified to say it isn't possible.

Given your distaste for common sense, i have no particular 'qualifications'.
However, I find it impossible to believe that gravity could eject large sections of framework 350' to 400' horizontally, much less penetrate 90' into a building, but that's a subject for another thread.

I would venture that most engineers would state that it is not completely out of the realm of possibility.

I will make you a gentleman's bet on that one.

I already pointed out that an engine of the B-25 that hit the Empire State building found its way into an elevator shaft. that engine had hit a brick and steel building at 120 MPH , perpendicular to the face of the building while the plane was actually attempting to pull up and over the building.

An F14 can climb vertically. A B25 couldn't even come close to vertical.

I already pointed out that it need not be a perimeter column tree that entered WTC 7.

Right.
Concrete floors falling straight down can throw an object weighing a ton or more than 440' horizontally [the last 90' thru steel I beams and concrete floors]

False arguement since a pristine building that was suffering damage in only one location is not the condition that WTC 7 was in that day. No ONE thing brought this building down, it was a combination of insults to the structural integrity of the building that brought it down.

The only 'insults' to the area of the initiating event that NIST says caused the global collapse, were office fires.

Now define , "in the area of" because that refrain is getting old.

Columns 73 - 81 inclusive.

Rhetorical questions deleted.

 

[gumboot]

Christopher7...

I've got a question for you... you keep demanding to know if it's realistic that a piece of debris can penetrate 90 feet into a building...

What if the piece of debris was 100 feet long?

-Gumboot

 

[CHF]

From Mark's list:
"you hear smaller, secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes"

You think a controlled demolition has explosives going off every 15-20 minutes well before the collapse? And no rapid-fire sequence just prior to the collapse itself?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7...

I've got a question for you... you keep demanding to know if it's realistic that a piece of debris can penetrate 90 feet into a building...

What if the piece of debris was 100 feet long?

-Gumboot

That's a dam good question.

 

[Christopher7]

You think a controlled demolition has explosives going off every 15-20 minutes well before the collapse?

And no rapid-fire sequence just prior to the collapse itself?

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

 

[JimBenArm]

That's a dam good question.

I'm glad you recognize that. Seriously. Good for you!

 

[Christopher7]

you are also aware of the problems in communication that day aren't you?

The first responders had antiquated equipment, The HiEx is state of the art.

so you're claiming they rigged WTC 7 with explosives more than year prior to 9/11/2001...even though people who worked there didn't notice this work? Despite that Bush was not on the board for most of 2000; and being on the board doesn't mean they have any control over contracted security work in that building.

No

 

[Unfit4Command]

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Do you think that the "clap of thunder" could have possibly been the east mechanical penthouse collapsing into the building?

 

[CHF]

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Or perhaps a steel beam ripping loose from its anchor?

I reckon that would make a rather loud bang.

Listen to the...ummm..."explosions" as this crane collapses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZOSosy-o4