10 story hole in WTC 7
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc
- Status
and this is interesting, appears to show fires before tower collapse, or am I missing something? - any thoughts?
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
That's the north tower burning. WTC7 angles back--two thirds or so of what looks like the east wall of WTC7 is actually the north tower. 7 is reddish, the north tower is grayer.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So the building began coming apart 5 - 7 seconds before the west side roof and then the rest of the building began to fall and 4 - 6 seconds before the lone 'clap of thunder'.
So what do you deduce this 'clap of thunder' was exactly?
It certainly was NOT a series of closely spaced explosions taking out the core since the core had already been coming apart(you hate referring to the core as part of the collapse so we'll stick to 'coming apart'). We know that core columns had failed because the east penthouse goes first and the screenwall/west penthouse also starts falling in before the exterior walls.
With the upper part of the core moving down this would, as I have pointed out, cause the cantilever trusses to tilt down on their interior side pushing out on the lower part of the north wall. Thus you have the upper part of the north wall moving inward due to the core column failures and the lower part on the north wall being kicked out by the cantilever trusses.
I suppose that the 'clap of thunder' could be explosives going off and severing the columns supporting the south end of the cantilever trusses all at once but this still does not explain the sequence that was seen to occur. That is , the east penthouse starts to sink, it is gone from the roof completely for a few seconds and then the screenwall and west penthouse also begin to drop and before they can completely fall through the roof the entire north wall also begins to drop down and tilt southward(on the western portion at least)
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
A lot of explosions going off at once or in very rapid sequence.
By very close i mean 100ths of a second, sounding like a single explosion.
My guess is, the columns under the penthouse were taken out one at a time to clear an area so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Daryl didn't have to run from the dust cloud so he was probably back around the 600' safety perimeter. He didn't hear the single devices going off one at a time but he did hear the big bang of the rest of the core columns and anything else they needed to blow.
Demolitions companies have a variety of demolition devices, some louder than others.
We are not experts on what they have, when they use different devices, or why.
We can only speculate, endlessly.
You are looking for a reason to deny that what Daryl heard and saw could have been a CD.
*
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,170
You make statements like this using the word 'could', then you turn around a post a definitive statement that it 'was' a CD. Do you believe 100% that it was CD or do you believe it 'might' have been, and are undecided?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I believe it was.
What Darly heard and saw could have been a CD.
This is just one piece of evidence, not conclusive by itself.
The clap of thunder occurred about 1/2 second before the screen wall and west penthouse fell, and about 1 second before bottom floor caved out.
This is consistent with blowing the other 18 core columns [6 under east penthouse]
As GlennB noted that a building in the process of collapse makes a deep rumbling sound.
I would add, no very loud clap in the middle of the collapse.
ETA: this belongs on the Christopher7 C7 & C4" thread. please respond there.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
I'm skeptical about the symmetry, but this could be the 20 story hole that Boyle described.
In any case, it is west of center and far above the area of the initiating event.
Last edited:
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,170
It's about one of two, both circumstantial. Nothing scientific backs this up. Nothing.
Belz...
Fiend God
And you accuse OTHERS of speculating without evidence ?
Someone hears a single "clap" and you think it means several explosions went off.
Yes, of course. Because otherwise it doesn't make sense. The problem with your current hypothesis is that it cannot be tested, and is actually contrary to evidence.
I'll remember that one the next time you chastise someone for speculating.
Belz...
Fiend God
Whatever do you mean ?
20 ? By all accounts this went right to the ground, which means you're looking at a 47-floor hole.
Again, you fail to see the point.
The fact that a large hole was cut into the building over dozens of floors doesn't tell you anything about the building's structural integrity following 1 WTC's collapse ?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In other words, about 4-6 seconds after the initiating event. Do you agree that there was no loud noise heard at the time of the initiating event?
Dave
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
The JREF defence has been reduced to "who heard a loud noise"..how pathetic.
Who ever heard of an initiating event that was capabable of collapsing a 47-storey highrise that didn't make some noise?
Shall we start analyzing noises to qualify structural failure from controlled demolition induced structural failure?
What's the point?
You won't open your eyes regardless.
I can isolate visuals that indicate controlled demolition and which must have made explosive noises, but you will ignore them. It's what knee jerk JREFers do.
The often viewed video of the squibs moving up the side of WTC7 for instance obviously made explosive noises but I haven't heard an actual recording of them.
The fact is, there was so much noise happening prior and during the collapse, there aren't many good recordings that aren't so over modulated that they can be entered as evidence.
MM
Miragememories
Banned
nice antagonistic post MM...have a bad day at work?
TAM
Antagonistic?
I had a busy day at work since you ask.
Feel free to pm me T.A.M. if you ever want to really speak your mind without fear of violating JREF protocal.
Back to my post though. I thought my comments about 'sound' evidence were quite valid.
Okay, maybe I got a bit judgemental about my characterization of the JREF response. It's difficult to be nice when few respond in similar fashion.
MM
I dont like to PM, it makes things too personal, and to be honest, I dont like it to get that way.
That said, I am calling you on behaviour, so you can feel free to call me on it when you see me "at it".
I do not tow the JREF line, or protocol. That is insinuating that I do so, knowing I do not believe it, but simply to "get along". I believe in everything I say here, and If it meshes with the "JREF" line, than so be it.
I think I speak my mind here. Do you think I am holding back some secret belief that I am afraid to post here...not so.
Sorry for the hard day at work. I get those to. They're a biotch.
TAM
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
cloudshipsrule:
Belz:
Dave Rogers:
I responded on the 'Christopher7 - C7 & C4' Thread
ETA: No one responded to post #1602
You [all] cannot dispute the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports and you cannot deal with the fact that your hypothesis depends on office fires alone to account for the initiating event. So rather than acknowledge this, you choose to ignore it.
Belz:
Dave Rogers:
I responded on the 'Christopher7 - C7 & C4' Thread
ETA: No one responded to post #1602
You [all] cannot dispute the facts from the FEMA and NIST reports and you cannot deal with the fact that your hypothesis depends on office fires alone to account for the initiating event. So rather than acknowledge this, you choose to ignore it.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
C7 was presenting a loud noise as evidence of CD. The loud noise was after the initiating event. I highlighted that in exactly the same way C7 has been highlighting his comments about damage and fires. So how come suddenly turnabout isn't fair play? [1]
"Must have" isn't evidence. You can isolate visuals that, in combination with audio evidence, would indicate CD, but on their own are easily explained as window breakages.
Wrong - if they were explosives they must have made explosive noises, if they were windows blowing out they would have made breaking glass noises. The way to tell is to check for explosive noises, and they aren't there, so we can't really resolve this one.
I have no argument with the conclusion that there is no audio evidence for CD. Try looking somewhere else.
Dave
[1] Personally I'd have said something about sauce for the goose not being sauce for the gander, but I suspect most of the readers of this forum are American so I translated.
Belz...
Fiend God
Interesting. So debating questionable evidence is "pathetic" ? What a good lawyer you'd make.
- "Your honour. The defense is attempting to call the sincerity of the witness into question. That's just pathetic."
- "Overruled."
It did. It just didn't make hundreds of noises that were too close to one another to be distinguished, as Chris is claiming.
Understanding reality.
Fallacy.
Fallacy. You're trying to avoid having to present evidence because you claim your opponents will not accept it. You are tacitly admitting that your evidence is unconvincing.
"Squibs" is not a demolitions term. Please give it up.
Who the hell blows up structural elements while the building is falling ?
- Status