10 story hole in WTC 7

[Miragememories]

"Squibs" is not a demolitions term. Please give it up.

Really?

Your knowledge of demolition work is phenomenal Belz.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

False.

There was a hell of a lot about 9/11 that was unprecedented. Precedence is irrelevant.

My my aren't we the omnipotent expert. Excuse me for implying that some thing that had never before occured throughout history was relevant oh wise one. I love how you can dismiss unique events in such a ho hum manner.

The debris damage likely had no direct involvement in the initiating event, but I would expect some indirect involvement in the form of stresses introduced by shifting loads.

I'm sure every beer bottle ever thrown against the building had some 'indirect' effect on it's condition at the time of collapse as well. And yes why not toss in some buzz words like 'stresses' and 'shifting loads' just to make it sound all that more credible.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So, you don't know and you refuse to find out. Why don't you research and ask questions of experts instead of trying to act like you know what you are talking about concerning CDs. Find a demolition where the sequence is so close together that separate blasts are indistinguishable. Also, answer the other questions I put to you instead of cherry picking.

Well aren't you the little prince! If Christopher is wrong, and believe me he's done a helluva lot more work than your sorry azz has, prove him wrong. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say "prove it..prove it..prove it".
I suggest you prove you have a point before you demand others cater to your whims!

Because something looks like a CD doesn't mean it is. Because something sounds like a bomb, doesn't mean it is. Here is an example. I work in manufacturing and we use resistance welding to put together steel. These weld guns are cooled, some by water and some by air depending on various conditions. To change the weld caps (the part that contacts the metal) on the guns that are water cooled, the water needs to be turned off. Now, if the water is not turned back on, steam builds up in the cable. When enough pressure builds up, the cable explodes and it sounds like a shotgun going off. If I only hear it, I do not immediatley think that a gun went off, even though that is what it sounds like.

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

I suppose you don't think that we could come up with any number of well-respected demolitions experts, more than just the ONE you have, that disagree with Jowenko, right?

What that means is you tend to believe anybody who agrees with you even if they are in the minority.

Unless you don't think Jowenko is in the minority. Do you?

 

[Miragememories]

I suppose you don't think that we could come up with any number of well-respected demolitions experts, more than just the ONE you have, that disagree with Jowenko, right?

What that means is you tend to believe anybody who agrees with you even if they are in the minority.

Unless you don't think Jowenko is in the minority. Do you?

And you don't?

MM

 

[Disbelief]

Well aren't you the little prince! If Christopher is wrong, and believe me he's done a helluva lot more work than your sorry azz has, prove him wrong. Anyone can sit on the sidelines and say "prove it..prove it..prove it".
I suggest you prove you have a point before you demand others cater to your whims!

Nice personal attacks. Why do I need to prove him wrong when he is making a claim that has already been proven wrong? I asked him for specific information, hoping he could enlighten me. If he has done so much work on trying to find out what happened and not just how to make things fit his theory, it should be easy for him.

Well when something clearly sounds like a bomb and when a well respected demolitions expert (Jowenko) declares the observed collapse was a controlled demolition, I think it's safe to believe the building wasn't full of people doing resistance welding and exploding cables.

MM

Obviously the analogy went over your head - no big surprise. So, if there is only one expert, who was only shown a video and given no information, says it was a CD yet EVERY OTHER CD expert in the world says that it was not a CD, you believe the one? What's the term they use... newb. You would be a newb.

 

[A W Smith]

perhaps you missed my post on the previous page

MerryMelodies please explain why the corner of building seven where your so called "squibs" were seen was the slowest to collapse?

 

[Miragememories]

Nice personal attacks. Why do I need to prove him wrong when he is making a claim that has already been proven wrong? I asked him for specific information, hoping he could enlighten me. If he has done so much work on trying to find out what happened and not just how to make things fit his theory, it should be easy for him.

And if you weren't so lazy, you'd read the whole thread and realize it was far more than theory.

Obviously the analogy went over your head - no big surprise. So, if there is only one expert, who was only shown a video and given no information, says it was a CD yet EVERY OTHER CD expert in the world says that it was not a CD, you believe the one? What's the term they use... newb. You would be a newb.

Again if you weren't the lazy newbie you'd do your own research before you put your foot in your mouth. Jowenko has carefully reviewed all the information available regarding WTC7's collapse since the original video interview in which he declared unequivocably that it was a controlled demolition.

I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.

MM

 

[Disbelief]

And if you weren't so lazy, you'd read the whole thread and realize it was far more than theory.

I have read it. It is theory and not a very good one.

Again if you weren't the lazy newbie you'd do your own research before you put your foot in your mouth. Jowenko has carefully reviewed all the information available regarding WTC7's collapse since the original video interview in which he declared unequivocably that it was a controlled demolition.

I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.

MM

Point still stands, one of many. I would like to see more of Jowenko than just his original comments.

Silence from the majority? How about the experts who were involved in the studies? They are in on some great conspiracy I suppose? How many CD experts would need to write analyses for you to believe?

 

[chipmunk stew]

[bolding mine]
Fact?

Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?

There is NO evidence diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7. [FEMA pg 28 & 29]

It doesn't say there's no evidence of diesel fires in the building. But let's not get off track. I agree that diesel fires, if present at all, had no direct influence on the initiating event.

The stress was pulling to the south and west. According to NIST the initiating event was a core column buckling to the east.

Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?

 

[twinstead]

And you don't?

Jowenko is an anomaly. You know that. All that does is makes us not able to say that NO demolition experts question the official story. Sadly, it still makes you have to come up with the your usual mental gymnastics about why all the OTHER thousands of experts every bit as capable as he are not coming forward to denounce the official story. Silence of the majority my ass.

You can spin this all you want. It is a horrible kink in your theory.

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote Chris:
The stress was pulling to the south and west. According to NIST the initiating event was a core column buckling to the east.

Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?

Yes, why? I'd like to know where in Appendix L it states the initiating event had columns fail to by moving east.

Chris, to complete the sentence from NIST that you keep repeating I offer;(bolding mine)

The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

So damage to the core is very much suggested at just to the west of the column row of 79,80,81. If that area of the core is damaged the result would be a pulling to the west of 79,80,81. Add to that the south side loss of perimeter columns pulling the core to the south and then add an increasing weakening of some core columns on fire floors and something is going to give.

(I was incorrect in placing the elevators in a post just above)

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.

It doesn't say there's no evidence of diesel fires in the building. But let's not get off track. I agree that diesel fires, if present at all, had no direct influence on the initiating event.

Thank you

Right. And according to NIST, why did it buckle in that direction?

Debris from the vertical collapse possibly causing floors 5 and 7 to fail leading to the failure of Truss 1 or 2.

In any case, the damage to the west half of the south face played no part in the initiating event.

NIST pg 36:
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.

What a ridiculously ignorant statement. There are fire rating standards that every new building must meet. Even with intact, state-of-the-art fireproofing, a rating of 4 hours is considered excellent. This means that, even in modern high-rise steel-framed buildings, a structure that survives an unchecked fire for more than four hours is considered a great success.

Read, and educate thyself.

Debris from the vertical collapse possibly causing floors 5 and 7 to fail leading to the failure of Truss 1 or 2.

In any case, the damage to the west half of the south face played no part in the initiating event.

That's not what the following quote from NIST says.

NIST pg 36:
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas.

It says that the initiating event was not due to the damage, not that the damage played no part in the initiating event. To dismiss the redistribution of loads as a possible factor in the initiating event is naive.

Again, though, this is arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The current working hypothesis has the fire as the primary factor contributing to the initiating event. The fire doomed the building, regardless of the prior damage. The damage probably had some role in accelerating the building's weakening up to the initiating event.

 

[jaydeehess]

The damage probably had some role in accelerating the building's weakening up to the initiating event.

,, and I would conjecture that it also played a role in the direction of the debris feild in that the western portion went south while the eastern section went almost in the opposite direction.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, why? I'd like to know where in Appendix L it states the initiating event had columns fail to by moving east.

Page 49 & 50 have graphics of columns 76 & 77 buckling to the east.
The columns must buckle to the east to cause the horizontal collapse.

Chris, to complete the sentence from NIST that you keep repeating I offer;(bolding mine)

"damage to elevators cars and shafts were reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at floors 8 or 9"

The NIST statement is incorrect.
It should read: columns 66 to 75

 

[Gravy]

If NIST doesn't investigate this "building 7," I'm going to be very angry.

Someone should write them a strongly-worded letter.

Better yet, Christopher 7, why don't you start an online petition? Those have the force of law in most mental states where conspiracists live.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP! Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward. Ponder that challenging thought for a while Dave Rogers!

You obviously didn't read my post where I answered that point. How about comparing notes - I'll explain why air pressure blowouts should move upwards, then you can explain why they'd move downwards? Because at the moment you've advanced no evidence or argument to support tht assertion.

My argument is this. Air inside the building is compressed in the collapse zone, which in WTC7 was low down in the building. The air pressure would initially, therefore, be highest on the lower floors. Internal walls and floors would impede the movement of air into the higher parts of the structure, so the higher floors would initially be unpressurised. The resistance to airflow would be limited, however, so as the collapse progresses the higher floors would be pressurised. The high pressure zone, and therefore the zone in which windows were being blown out, would be expected to propagate upwards, exactly as seen in the WTC7 collapse. In general, air pressure blowouts would be expected to move away from the collapse zone i.e. upwards in WTC7, downwards in WTC1 and 2.

OK, that's my argument as to why air pressure blowouts would be expected to move upwards. Can I see yours as to why they would be expected to move downwards?

Dave

 

[Gravy]

And yes why not toss in some buzz words like 'stresses' and 'shifting loads' just to make it sound all that more credible.

Another intellectual masterpiece from another utterly incompetent truther.

The building had severe, uncontrolled fires on many floors.

The building was visibly bulging over three stories.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

The building had a huge gouge in its south face.

The 47-story building was groaning and creaking.

Talk to some high-rise engineers and see what they think about all that. But be warned: they may introduce difficult concepts such as "stress" and "shifting loads."

If you won't talk to them and learn about these things, what does that say about your interest in the truth?

You have your assignment. Get to it, or stop whining.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You obviously didn't read my post where I answered that point. How about comparing notes - I'll explain why air pressure blowouts should move upwards, then you can explain why they'd move downwards? Because at the moment you've advanced no evidence or argument to support tht assertion.

My argument is this. Air inside the building is compressed in the collapse zone, which in WTC7 was low down in the building. The air pressure would initially, therefore, be highest on the lower floors. Internal walls and floors would impede the movement of air into the higher parts of the structure, so the higher floors would initially be unpressurised. The resistance to airflow would be limited, however, so as the collapse progresses the higher floors would be pressurised. The high pressure zone, and therefore the zone in which windows were being blown out, would be expected to propagate upwards, exactly as seen in the WTC7 collapse. In general, air pressure blowouts would be expected to move away from the collapse zone i.e. upwards in WTC7, downwards in WTC1 and 2.

OK, that's my argument as to why air pressure blowouts would be expected to move upwards. Can I see yours as to why they would be expected to move downwards?

Dave

Dave, you're confusing him with buzzwords.