10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Office fires have never caused a global collapse nor could they IMO.
Click to expand...

Do I smeel an argument from incredulity ?

There are several cases of large fires in modern steel frame high rise buildings and there was no collapse.
Click to expand...

There were also firefighters in most of those cases, no ?

The blunt force damage was far from the initiating event. It might cause a collapse in the area of the damage but not in the other end of the building.
Click to expand...

And how do you know this ?
 
Miragememories said:
Can we now?

Of course squibs reveal windows blowing out. Sigh..why do I waste my time replying to such drivel.

I'll mention again but I know it won't be understood. The squibs were moving UP!
Click to expand...

After the building had begun to collapse.

Really?

Your knowledge of demolition work is phenomenal Belz.
Click to expand...

Yours is abysmal.

But please, do provide a link to the term "squib" related to demolitions.

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.
Click to expand...

Following your logic, nothing can ever happen.

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.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't understand those big words doesn't mean they don't count.

Well aren't you the little prince!
Click to expand...

Are you going to present evidence at one point, or is this a flame contest for you ?

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".
Click to expand...

Irony of the day.

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.
Click to expand...

And that ONE expert, opposed to all these OTHER experts, is somehow right ?
 
Miragememories said:
I love how JREF skeptics use silence from the majority of the experts to claim as a source of unaminous support for their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Your mode of thinking is incompatible with reality, Memories. You seem to think that the ONE expert who speaks out is right because the others don't speak out. I don't know what kind of fallacy that is, but it's psychologically interesting, I'm sure. That is, of course, assuming you're right about the whole "silence" thing, which you're not.

And here's from chris, whom you claim has done a lot of research on the subject:

Chris said:
Chipmunk said:
Yes, it is a fact that unmitigated office fires are perfectly capable of initiating the collapse of steel structures. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Not in a modern high rise steel frame building.
Click to expand...

You call this well-versed ? The man doesn't even know that fires destroy buildings.
 
Gravy said:
Another intellectual masterpiece from another utterly incompetent truther.
Click to expand...

New found confidence comes with the removal of your old embarassing avatar apparently.

Gravy said:
The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.
Click to expand...

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p95/dukeeeey/fake.jpg
Oh this missing corner? Maybe your missing a few bricks as well Binglybert Slaptyback?

Gravy said:
You have your assignment. Get to it, or stop whining.
Click to expand...

You have your assignment Binglybert Slaptyback, I suggest you stop blowing hot air and get to it!

MM
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hi there, MM. Care to explain why you'd expect the sequence of windows blown out by air pressure to go downwards in a bottom-up collapse yet?

Dave
Click to expand...

Sure Dave but there's a problem.

You are talking about windows blown out by air pressure.

I'm talking about explosive squibs moving up the side of the building.

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?

Of course I'm assuming you are really interest is in the collapse of WTC7?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Sure Dave but there's a problem.

You are talking about windows blown out by air pressure.

I'm talking about explosive squibs moving up the side of the building.
Click to expand...

So when you said
Windows being blown out by air pressure from a collapsing building would have created squibs moving downward.
Click to expand...

you weren't talking about windows being blown out by air pressure? It certainly looked like you were.

Why don't you tackle a real issue like the faked photo of the missing corner from WTC7?
Click to expand...
Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would have liked NIST to have a convention of showing views either from the south or north, instead they choose one or the other for every instance. Yes they show the columns failing to the east in the horizontal progression of collapse, opposite of what I had expected. However I also see their reasoning. In those diagrams it supposes that the damage to the trusses occured at columns 79 and 81 which indeed would pull those trusses down on their east end.

This has to do with the horizontal collapse though and not the initiating event which was the direct cause of the original vertical progression. That initiating event need not have occured on the 7th floor or lower. It is the original vertical collapse that is supposed would damage the truss(es) 1&2. That would have heavy debris plunging from the roof top through to the 7th floor(at least) and failing the truss(es).

Another possibility is that the column splices just above floor 7 fail when a large debris load is dropped onto floor 7(but floor 7 buckles downward but does not immediatly fail).

I am not an engineer but I still wonder at the lateral stress that would be imposed on floors 5 and 7 due to the loss of south perimeter columns. IMHO it would be pulling those floors to the south at the position of the lost columns which would have the lateral load at columns 79,80,81 due to that damage being towards the south and west, if the floors 5 and 7 had some ability to twist and strictly to the south if they acted more rigidly.

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

At any rate the fact that the elevators were ejected greatly suggests that there was core damage that had pulled the core columns out of vertical. Whether the column was being pulled south, east or west would not be known. If it was the result of perimeter column damage then it would be to the south, if debris had entered the core (ie. into the elevator shaft itself)then it would depend on which side of the elevator that the damage occured, east or west.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.
Click to expand...

This is so obvious, too. A textbook example of the technique. In fact, claiming the pictures of the damage are 'fake' was specifically designed to make us immediately turn the debate towards that asinine statement instead of noting his inability to deal with things that are contrary to his position.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So when you said


you weren't talking about windows being blown out by air pressure? It certainly looked like you were.



Someone comes up with a counter-argument and you can't come up with an explanation, so you change the subject - standard conspiracy theorist tactic to muddy the waters. I'll assume you've conceded the point.

Dave
Click to expand...


Are you interested in the truth about WTC7 Dave Rogers or are you just into "pissing contests"?

Someone comes up with a real 'smoking gun' issue like a faked photograph of the corner damage to WTC7 (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9316/b1bz1.jpg), and you show absolutely no interest?

Here's the full thread; http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6685


MM
 
twinstead said:
This is so obvious, too. A textbook example of the technique. In fact, claiming the pictures of the damage are 'fake' was specifically designed to make us immediately turn the debate towards that asinine statement instead of noting his inability to deal with things that are contrary to his position.
Click to expand...

And ignoring 'hard evidence' in favour of soft inconsequential issues, is obviously the JREF way of avoiding unpleasant realities.

I think a faked photograph, the only photo NIST distributed as proof of that WTC7 corner damage is more important.

You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Are you interested in the truth about WTC7 Dave Rogers or are you just into "pissing contests"?

Someone comes up with a real 'smoking gun' issue like a faked photograph of the corner damage to WTC7 (http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/9316/b1bz1.jpg), and you show absolutely no interest?

Here's the full thread; http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6685
Click to expand...
Against my better judgment, I followed that Loose Change thread.

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

This isn't proof of anything.
 
the images provided are not photoshopped. anyone experienced in the program can easily verify if it was.
 
Miragememories said:
You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.
Click to expand...

And yet it was debate worthy when you thought you had a point. Every piece of evidence your movement has produced collapses on close inspection, which is why you keep changing the subject to avoid close inspection. If someone comes up with a counter-argument to your "faked" photograph, you'll ignore it and start complaining that they're not addressing the next fantasy you've dreamed up. As a result, your arguments have no credibility.

By your refusal to discuss a point which doesn't support your case, you've shown yourself to be uninterested in determining the truth; you're just pushing a pre-determined agenda, as usual.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom