10 story hole in WTC 7

[stateofgrace]

Demolition charges being set off by the fires ?

Clap of thunder ?

Wait a minute,are you saying that the fires set off some of the demolition charges?

By design or by accident?

 

[Christopher7]

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

No.
The penthouse collapse took 5 -7 seconds

"clap of thunder.....shock wave ripping thru the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...."

He could be describing a CD.

Note: No 2 buildings are the exactly same. The demolition sequence is tailored to the task at hand.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

The number of people who didn't know it is irrellvent. Those who are informed will not dispute the location of these items. Should I list everyone(including myself) who you have stated it to?

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

"secondary" to what?

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.

Precisely, given that for an explosion to be 'secondary' there has to be a larger 'primary' explosion this witness is not being accurate. He likely means he is characterizing the sounds he heard as 'small explosions'.

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.

Well then , you admit the possibility. That's a change from "it couldn't".

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.

Yep, a possibility. I for one have never argued more than that. You on the other hand have stated it did not happen.

Right.
You just try that and see what happens.

Actually I have. When I installed the stove pipe I did not have enough screws to connect all the sections. Code requires at least three per connection. I only had enough for two per. A few days later I bought more screws and while the fire was going I drilled another hole in each of the three connection then installed the screws. NO smoke came out that holes. I haven't tried seeing just how big a hole I can make though it would make an interesting, albeit dirty, time consuming, and expensive experiment ( not to mention having to explain myself to my wife )

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

Actually I did not say there would be no smoke, just that there would not necessarily be large amounts of it.

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

That's moving at 34 MPH if it fell for 8 seconds and went 400 feet.

I'm all for common sense. Common sense dictates that one use the data one has, that one use basic physics and engineering to postulate theories where large structures are concerned.

The bet's on, now all we have to do is poll "most" engineers.

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

What's that got to do with anything at all? I said he was pulling up and attempting to get over the building. He tried that as soon as he saw the building. Its all on record, he was climbing when he impacted. I did not state he was going vertical. I said he was perpendicular to the face of the building, that means he hit it at 90^o to the face. He T-boned the building while climbing.

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]

As I said all it need be doing is 34 MPH when it left the building. After falling for about 8 seconds it would be doing well over 100 MPH vertically and still have most of that 34 MPH horizontal velocity as well.

The only 'insults' to the area of the initiating event that NIST says caused the global collapse, were office fires.
<<snip>>
Columns 73 - 81 inclusive

That's all that can be relatively certainly established. Once again we have evidence of damage to the central core, the elevators, and that illustrates the distinct possibility of damage to core columns such as 73-81 or those just west of 73-81 and fires around 73-81.
Again you seem to keep saying it just isn't possible.

Rhetorical questions deleted.

Rhetorical questions are those that the speaker does not actually want answered such as; "What's the matter with you?", "Don't you know any better?", "Have you no shame?", "How many times do I have to tell you"?

I want my question answered, please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be confined to columns 73-81.

The penthouse collapse took 5 -7 seconds

"clap of thunder.....shock wave ripping thru the building.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...."

So they were not in a position to see the penthouse structure falling in and are reporting on the failure at the bottom floor. Can I assume they were north of the building too? So the sound they heard and the shockwave they saw came AFTER the penthouse started its collapse. Hmmm........

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

Still waiting on any evidence that anyone saw explosives and remote controlled detonators being loaded or even men working on the columns in the year 2000.

 

[Arus808]

No

well you're the one that thinks Marvin Bush had anything to do with the wTC and your assumption that security would be "laxed" for someone to wire the building for demo.

So, what is it Chris?

he was only on the board till the year 2000. MOre than a year before 9/11/2001 happened. IT took 6 months to wire the tallest building to be demoed, and requied A LOT OF WORK by a LOT of people, to prep the building for that demo to happen.

Please tell us exactly when did "marvin bush" have enough power to "conveniently" make security lax to have 100 men and women wire 1000's of pounds explosives without anyone noticing who worked there on a daily if not 24/7 basis; all of this before 9/11/2001.

 

[Unfit4Command]

well you're the one that thinks Marvin Bush had anything to do with the wTC and your assumption that security would be "laxed" for someone to wire the building for demo.

So, what is it Chris?

he was only on the board till the year 2000. MOre than a year before 9/11/2001 happened. IT took 6 months to wire the tallest building to be demoed, and requied A LOT OF WORK by a LOT of people, to prep the building for that demo to happen.

Please tell us exactly when did "marvin bush" have enough power to "conveniently" make security lax to have 100 men and women wire 1000's of pounds explosives without anyone noticing who worked there on a daily if not 24/7 basis; all of this before 9/11/2001.

Also don't forget about the bomb sniffing dogs inside of the WTC complex.

Sirius, and the extra dogs due to heightened security two weeks prior to 9/11 would have found some of the demolition charges. But then again, they're government dogs so they're probably in on the conspiracy too.

 

[jaydeehess]

I believe we also would have to show that Marvin Bush's successor was either incompetant or also in-on-it , or that the work done could be done in such a fashion as to go completly undetected for the better part of a year and that the perpetrators could be completely satisfied that the planted explosives would indeed not be discovered prior to 9/11/01.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I wonder how the explosives could have even made it into the building without at least one of the bomb sniffing dogs discovering at least one of the loads. It's impossible, the most incompetant secuirty force ever would have been required at the WTC's for this to have occured.

Maybe the bomb sniffing dogs were in-on-it as well.

 

[Christopher7]

Could you give me a link to the post that contains the proof please? I've seen Steve Spak's photo and it looks pretty clear to me.

Post #94 and #1222

Have you any evidence that such photographs were taken, or is this a belief on your part?

Dave

Elementary, my dear Dave and Mortimer

The photographer that took this photograph did not think the pedestrian bridge would collapse.
They had to walk in front of WTC 7 to get to where they took this photograph.
Are you with me so far?
A photographer, while in transit to and from this location, would take a picture of WTC 7, perhaps several.

 

[Christopher7]

Yep, a possibility. I for one have never argued more than that. You on the other hand have stated it did not happen.

I have stated that the there was no fire in the generator room and that there is NO EVIDENCE the supply pipe was damaged or broken.

Actually I have. When I installed the stove pipe I did not have enough screws to connect all the sections. Code requires at least three per connection. I only had enough for two per. A few days later I bought more screws and while the fire was going I drilled another hole in each of the three connection then installed the screws. NO smoke came out that holes. I haven't tried seeing just how big a hole I can make though it would make an interesting, albeit dirty, time consuming, and expensive experiment ( not to mention having to explain myself to my wife )

Good point.
BTW, you've got your stove pipe in upside down. I suggest you rectify this when she's out of town.

Actually I did not say there would be no smoke, just that there would not necessarily be large amounts of it.

Diesel fuel makes a lot of smoke. With part of the south wall gone, smoke would be pouring out of the missing wall in the hallway. IMO
In your scenario, the fire would need a great deal of air flow to pull all the smoke 'up the chimney' [elevator shaft]
If there was no ventilation in that area of floor 5, then the only source of air intake is the debris hole.

That's all that can be relatively certainly established. Once again we have evidence of damage to the central core, the elevators, and that illustrates the distinct possibility of damage to core columns such as 73-81 or those just west of 73-81 and fires around 73-81.
Again you seem to keep saying it just isn't possible.

No
It is not possible that the debris [if that is what ejected the elevator cars] damaged columns 76 - 81.
It is unlikely that the debris damaged columns 73 - 75.

I want my question answered, please explain why it is absolutly required that all stresses due to debris and fire must be confined to columns 73-81.

I don't have time to respond to every question in every post.
Choise mine.

Ans:
It is not.

 

[westprog]

Eject large sections of framework 350' to 400'

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

Have you calculated the energy released when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed? It's an easy calculation, and doesn't require extensive qualifications. Just use Google and Wikipaedia (or whatever source you wish) to find the formula for potential energy and the statistics relating to the weight of the WTC.

 

[GlennB]

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

And yet your photo of the walkway to WTC7 clearly shows large pieces of exterior wall which fell there.

Then there's this :

And this :

So, your "belief" doesn't really enter the equation. It happened.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The photographer that took this photograph did not think the pedestrian bridge would collapse.
They had to walk in front of WTC 7 to get to where they took this photograph.
Are you with me so far?
A photographer, while in transit to and from this location, would take a picture of WTC 7, perhaps several.

Thank you for being so clear. Translation: You have no evidence, only supposition. Suppose the photographer ran to this location because they thought the pedestrian bridge would protect them from falling debris from the fires in WTC7 and other buildings?

What's your evidence that these photos, which you haven't seen but only guessed the existence of, show that there was no damage to the eastern part of the south face?

Now I'll take a look at your proof of the absence of the massive hole in the south face that I can see clearly in Steve Spak's photo.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Post #94 and #1222

OK, looking at that, I can see three major areas of structural damage to the south face. There's the corner damage that's seen in other photos; there's a large gouge from about floor 12 to the ground, which has certainly taken out column 5, appears to extend to column 4 but it's hard to tell because of the smoke, and may go further across to the west; and there's what looks like a huge entry hole around columns 6-8, with its base at floor 11 and extending upwards at least to floor 15 where it's lost in smoke. If anything, that's worse damage than NIST suggests. There is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a big chunk missing from at least columns 1, 5, 7 and 8, and the height of the upper impact hole suggests that for any reasonable impact vector the mass causing the hole must have penetrated a considerable distance into the building.

Overall, it looks like there was a 10+ storey gouge, and there was a gouge in the vicinity of column 8, but they were two separate pieces of damage. I see WTC7 was even worse damaged than I thought. It's really not possible to make out anything beyond column 11 above floor 15 or below floor 11, so there may or may not be more damage there.

Dave

 

[Jennie C.]

Jennie C is denying it.

Sigh... No, I'm not arguing the locations of the fuel tanks, etc. I quoted two posts, perhaps a bit sloppily. This was the first one (from you, Chris):

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

There is NO evidence to support the 'belief' that the damage went 'deep' into WTC 7.

The east part of the south side, below floor 12, was not obscured by smoke between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m.

There was no debris damage reported to this area.

There were, no doubt, photographs of this area taken during this time.

There is a photograph taken from under the pedestrian bridge so there was access to this area.

The government has withheld the photographs of the east part of the south side WTC 7 for over 5 1/2 years.

They are available now only thru the Freedom of Information Act.

I have applied for the photographs of WTC 7 but as yet have not received a reply.

and THEN I quoted your saying that the facts couldn't be disputed.

All this stuff about photos that don't seem to exist being *proof* of the lack of damage where you say there is none can most certainly be disputed.

To quote myself, not that it's original: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[Belz...]

Actually Larry Silverstien made a fortune in the collapse. He his rebuilding the Freedom Tower with 2.87 Billion of the Port Authorties money. http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070222/FREE/70222010/1058/STATIC
and not out of the $3 billion insurance claim.

Before you get out your CT whipin sticks I am not agreeing with CTer's. But that point is moot. He got more crazy rich then he already was.

Patently false.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Aren't you forgetting something ?

Perhaps your x-ray vision is better than mine.

X-ray doesn't work with pictures.

What do you make of the hole we do see ?

The HiEx Teleblaster eleminates the need for detonation cords.

Does it eliminate the need for explosives placed on the support columns as well ?

George W. Bush's brother Marvin was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center.

I don't see how that changes the laws of physics.

 

[Belz...]

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

And can they rig it in silence and in secret ? No one in the building noticed the year-long process ? No one ?

You can disregard the coincidence if you like.

Coincidence ? What's the coincidence ? The coincidence is based on your own conclusion. You THINK Bush had something to do with it, therefore Marvin's presence there is a "coincidence". What a cute circular logic you have.

Of course, when people say explosions, it's never really an explosion, it's always just something that sounds like an explosion.

What noise does a steel column snapping make, chris ?

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

Argument from personal incredulity.

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

What the hell does this have to do with anything ?

He could be describing a CD.

He could be describing a rabbit, too.

 

[Christopher7]

Thank you for being so clear. Translation: You have no evidence, only supposition. Suppose the photographer ran to this location because they thought the pedestrian bridge would protect them from falling debris from the fires in WTC7 and other buildings?

What's your evidence that these photos, which you haven't seen but only guessed the existence of, show that there was no damage to the eastern part of the south face?

Dave

Your question was rhetorical, my answer, satirical, your response ridiculous.

No worries

BTW, what part of 'photographer' don't you understand?


The evidence that there was no damage below floor 12 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7 is as follows:

NIST Apx. L pg 24
Looking from the south east corner of the south face:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Fire...floor 14 (corrected to 12, NIST Final 4-5-05)
face above fire covered with smoke
Fire moved toward east face
[no fire or smoke below floor 12 as observed over a 3 hour period]

Pedestrian bridge and the wall holding it up intact.

No damage reported to east 1/3 south face of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

And yet your photo of the walkway to WTC7 clearly shows large pieces of exterior wall which fell there.

Nothing big enough to knock the pedestrian bridge down.

Can you possibly believe that the photographer who took this picture, didn't turn to their right and take a picture of WTC 7 ?

 

[PhantomWolf]

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

Except that there was so much damage the Lobby no longer existed!

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

The Loading dock was blocked in by debris.

The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF