10 story hole in WTC 7

[FactCheck]

If you want to describe this building as fully involved, no problem.
Just remember that Chiefs Nigro, Fellini and Hayden did not say WTC 7 was fully involved.

[qimg]http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/2015/wtc79ks1.jpg[/qimg]

So now that we have wasted a page on fully involved, perhaps we could discuss how office fires caused the initiating event.

From post #1804
It is OK to compare the collapse of WTC 7 to other buildings that did not have debris damage because the debris damage played no part in the initiating event.

It caused the fires on multiple floors and took out a whole row of columns in the south side. How in the WORLD do you remove that from the equation?

You're also playing games with words...

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members" - Daniel Nigro

No, he didn't say "Fully Involved" but he did say "It had very heavy fire on many floors"

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse" - Chief Cruthers

You only need ONE floor to be on fire and weaken the steel in that floor to cause this building to collapse the way it did. We saw fires coming from that floor. What part of this is hard for CT's to understand?

What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

[Vincent Vega]

Did the whole building need to be fully involved in order to collapse? Of course not. A couple of key floors would suffice, say the transfer brace over the Con-Edision substation?

 

[Christopher7]

It caused the fires on multiple floors and took out a whole row of columns in the south side. How in the WORLD do you remove that from the equation?

Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

You're also playing games with words...

No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members" - Daniel Nigro

No, he didn't say "Fully Involved" but he did say "It had very heavy fire on many floors"

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse" - Chief Cruthers

NIST Apx. L pg 51
"Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13."
PG 26
"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

You only need ONE floor to be on fire and weaken the steel in that floor to cause this building to collapse the way it did. We saw fires coming from that floor. What part of this is hard for CT's to understand?

How can you be so sure when NIST isn't?

pg 38
[bolding mine]
"The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components"

 

[chipmunk stew]

Once more, with gusto:

Chris, "fully involved" does not mean "completely engulfed in flame."

It's a technical term. It means:

Fully involved: Term of size-up meaning fire, heat and smoke in a structure are so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied.

http://www.eastglenvillefd.com/_mgxroot/page_10845.html

WTC7 was fully involved, and they did not have access to fire streams, so it just burned uncontrollably.

 

[LashL]

I notice that you have not responded to my post #1839 a mere six posts above, Chris, despite the fact that you responded to a subsequent post made some 9 hours later by another member, so clearly you have been reading this thread since my post to you. For ease of reference, since you appear to have "missed" my post, it is here. Please respond.

Have you sent properly representative photos and live videos to any firefighters yet, Chris, to obtain their professional opinions about the extent of the fires at WTC7?

If not, what are you waiting for?

 

[Hamradioguy]

One of the reasons the fire service is trying to get away from the term "fully involved" is that it is not particularly descriptive. A "room and contents" fire in a dwelling may be a fully involved room but the BUILDING is not fully involved. No, WTC 7 wasn't "fully involved", but fellow firefighters at WTC 7 described major fires on multiple floors. What part of "major fires on multiple floors" does Christopher7 not understand?

I keep asking CTers to bring their questions and concerns to fire protection engineers and members of the FDNY, and have even offered names and phone numbers. None of them seem to want to do this for some reason. perhaps Christopher7 will be the exception and surprise us all.

 

[jaydeehess]

I used no photoshop treatment other than preserving in .tif format to avoid digital loss.

You see what you wish to see and there is nothing I can do about that.

The truth is inescapable regardless of how much you wish to deny it.

MM

I was refering to the side-by-side in which the NIST photo had been deskewed. I believe that you posted it here.

You can see waht you want to see but the fact remains that the damage visible in each photo are consistent with each other.

Do you honestly believe you are not a dogmatist in holding that 9/11 was a MIHOP operation?

 

[FactCheck]

Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

I don't care what quote mining you did. The NIST hasn't finished it's report and say so. You are deliberately leaving out this little ditty...

NIST Apx L Pg L-8 (22 on the PDF)

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

Now we have evidence the NIST may not have had. Unless you're blind and/or synaptically challenged you KNOW there was a rip going from the top of building 7 to the bottom which was obscured by smoke...

It matches this almost column for column...

To suggest there is no column damage because of an INTERM report which is over 2 years old now is deceitful.

No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

No, you are trying to say fully involved means something it doesn't. That was pointed out to you. [See post #1833] The building was both fully involved and on fire on multiple floors. At some point the fires produced "heat and smoke in a structure so widespread that internal access must wait until fire streams can be applied." That means everyone was correct and you are quote mining.

NIST Apx. L pg 51
"Fires were observed after 2 pm on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13."
PG 26
"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

I don't know how many times this has to be told to conspiracy theorists before they understand... In a typical fire, steel exposed to fires expands in all directions. That means a steel truss or beam will also expand toward the perimeter columns and core. That's what causes the steel to sag. It can't go out so it bends down with the help of gravity. It's not only the expanding which causes a collapse but the contraction after the steel cools. So if the 12th floor cooled from fires moving to other areas IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE COLLASE BY FIRE HYPOTHESIS.

How can you be so sure when NIST isn't?

But we are ALL sure there was fires on the 12th floor because the firemen on the scene said so. I also never said I knew exactly how the building fell. In fact on my site I made this clear. Had you bothered to read the link instead of quote mining you would have found this under the drawing I posted...

"One possible collapse hypothesis. The investigation is still ongoing and this may not be the way the building collapsed. I show this only to show a global collapse by fires on lower floors are not the impossibility conspiracy theorists lead you to believe."

I only say, and have said, there is no evidence of explosives and all the evidence in the world of fires which could have caused the collapse the way we see.

pg 38
[bolding mine]
"The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components"

Yes, expanding then contracting would be due to fire. It didn't expand and contract on it's own. Without the fire, like the towers, the building would have survived. That doesn't mean the damage didn't contribute to the collapse.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

 

[Christopher7]

Again, with the self-serving photos that do not even come close to showing the extent of the fires and smoke. Why am I not surprised, Chris?

The photographs show the progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 as described in the
NIST Apx. L report. [area of the initiating event]
The fires to the south west part of WTC 7 did not play a roll in the initiating event so i did not list them.

Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.
You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.

You can call it as you see it
ICCL

And no, you're wrong about the comparison factors as well. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges. You cannot legitimately separate one element from the entirety of the events just because it suits your purposes. Moreover, you are not qualified to make the determinations that you claim to make.

Dude, I'm quoting the NIST report.

Please read the first part of post #1804

Then read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34.

According to NIST, the damage and fires in the west half of the south side of WTC 7,

played no part in the initiating event.

Edit to add: And I notice you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. Why is that, Chris?

Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.

 

[LashL]

The photographs show the progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7 as described in the
NIST Apx. L report. [area of the initiating event]
The fires to the south west part of WTC 7 did not play a roll in the initiating event so i did not list them.

That's BS, Chris. We are talking about a single photograph that you posted which you know full well is not even remotely indicative of the extent of the fires at WTC7 and you presented it in an entirely dishonest manner. This is typical of troofers, and completely anathema to critical thinkers, logical thinkers, and rational people everywhere. You cannot possibly believe that the photo you posted in your post above, to which my post referred and to which you are purporting to respond, is in any way illustrative of the fires at WTC7 and, yet, you refuse to acknowledge that obvious fact.

You can call it as you see it
ICCL

ICCL? Does that mean "I couldn't care less"?

That was in response to:

Oh, it's not wasted at all, Chris. I've sent photos and video clips to a fire station to obtain professional opinions on whether WTC7 was fully involved or not. I'll post the results when I receive them, hopefully tomorrow.
You should do the same, actually, Chris, and we can compare results. Of course, to do so, you will have to be honest with the firefighters and send representative photos and live videos and not just the self-serving photos that you have chosen to date.

Am I reading you correctly here, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the fires; and that you "couldn't care less" about whether the premise upon which you have been relying through hundreds of posts here is entirely baseless or not in the eyes of those who have expertise on the subject? You "couldn't care less" about what people who actually have the knowledge and experience to comment upon these very important issues have to say?

It appears that you are saying that you are not willing to make the slightest bit of effort to obtain the opinions of professional firefighters on the very subject matter that they are particularly well placed to provide valuable insight.

I can only take from this that you are afraid that these educated and knowledgeable professionals will disagree with your uneducated, unprofessional, unsubstantiated posts about the subject matter of their expertise - namely, fires - about which you have been pontificating.

If you are not willing to substantiate your posts above about fires and firefighting, and if you are not willing to put those posts to the test, then you should retract them. Personally, I would rather that you send representative photographs and videos to professional firefighters as I suggested, and post the results here. I have zero confidence that you will do so, for obvious reasons.

Dude, I'm quoting the NIST report.

No, the part of my post that you were supposedly responding to had nothing to do with the NIST report at all. Nice try.

Please read the first part of post #1804 Then read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34. According to NIST, the damage and fires in the west half of the south side of WTC 7,played no part in the initiating event.

You keep citing that post as though it is somehow meaningful to every post on this thread. It is not. It has nothing to do with my post to which you are purporting to respond (and I say "purporting" on purpose, obviously, because you are deliberately not responding in a meaningful fashion. You are merely trying to obfuscate, once again).

Why will you not respond in a meaningful fashion to the post at hand?

Frankly my dear, i don't give a damn.

This was your answer in response to the fact that you had no comment on the daytime 5 alarm fire that I provided evidence of above. You know, the one that required 130 firefighters to fight it and that caused $2.5 million dollars in damage to a 2 storey structure and yet the fire appears to be pretty minor from the photographs. The purpose, of course, was to show that the photos you posted earlier, all taken at night when fires look much, much more dramatic, were not properly representative of large, serious fires.

Once again, when confronted with evidence of the falsity of your representations, you seem to run away from the evidence and pretend that it doesn't matter how badly you have misrepresented events.

Your "duck and weave, move the goalposts, change the subject, provide grossly misrepresentative photos, hope nobody notices, try to distance yourself from it when you get caught out, go back to some other subject and hope nobody notices, ignore the evidence, and whatever you do, never never never actually contact anyone with expertise on the subject matter, and when asked to do so, pretend that it is completely unnecessary and change the subject yet again" style of posting probably works to fool twoofers on the sites that you frequent, but you are not fooling anyone here, Chris.

 

[Christopher7]

I don't care what quote mining you did. The NIST hasn't finished it's report and say so. You are deliberately leaving out this little ditty...

NIST Apx L Pg L-8 (22 on the PDF)

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

Now we have evidence the NIST may not have had. Unless you're blind and/or synaptically challenged you KNOW there was a rip going from the top of building 7 to the bottom which was obscured by smoke...

There are no photos of the bottom 10 floors.
There are no photos of the floors between 14 and 27 [that i know of]

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop"

Do you think that nobody noticed a 47 story hole?

This is most likely the 20 story hole that Boyle described.


NIST said: [pg L-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."

To suggest there is no column damage because of an INTERM report which is over 2 years old now is deceitful.

I laid out the case for

no core column damage in the area of the initiating event

in post #1804

I don't know how many times this has to be told to conspiracy theorists before they understand... In a typical fire, steel exposed to fires expands in all directions. That means a steel truss or beam will also expand toward the perimeter columns and core. That's what causes the steel to sag. It can't go out so it bends down with the help of gravity. It's not only the expanding which causes a collapse but the contraction after the steel cools. So if the 12th floor cooled from fires moving to other areas IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE COLLASE BY FIRE HYPOTHESIS.

I knew that. It's is part of the hypothesis that 'appears possible'.

pg L-38
I1.2 Initiating Components fail due to fire effects:
"...... The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components."
I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...

"One possible collapse hypothesis. The investigation is still ongoing and this may not be the way the building collapsed. I show this only to show a global collapse by fires on lower floors are not the impossibility conspiracy theorists lead you to believe."

It has not shown that it is possible, it's just a hypothesis [set of assumptions] which 'appears possible'.

Yes, expanding then contracting would be due to fire. It didn't expand and contract on it's own. Without the fire, like the towers, the building would have survived. That doesn't mean the damage didn't contribute to the collapse.

NIST did not include the damage to the perimeter columns in its collapse hypothesis because they know that it had nothing to do with the initiating event.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

Where did that come from? No structural damage to the south side?
Please read post #1804 again, i think you missed something.

 

[Christopher7]

That's BS, Chris. We are talking about a single photograph that you posted .....

My bad. I was referring to post #1804
The single photo i posted was of the north side to make the point that although the south west corner was fully involved, the rest of WTC 7 was not fully involved.

ICCL? Does that mean "I couldn't care less"?

Yes

That was in response to:
Am I reading you correctly here, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the fires

This is petty semantics, not evidence.

and that you "couldn't care less" about whether the premise upon which you have been relying through hundreds of posts here is entirely baseless

My premise is based on data in the FEMA and NIST reports. The term 'fully involved' was never used.

or not in the eyes of those who have expertise on the subject? You "couldn't care less" about what people who actually have the knowledge and experience to comment upon these very important issues have to say?

This is NOT an important issue, it is a diversion.

The important issue here is:

The debris damage to the west half of the south side had nothing to do with the initiating event.

*

 

[Belz...]

Obviously you haven't read post #1804 or you would know that NIST removed the debris damage to the west half of the south side from the equation.

It's interesting how you jump in and out of the NIST report, picking up the things you like and discarding the rest.

No, I just pointed out that the 'fully involved' claim is based on the statements of just 3 firefighters and one of those statements was in conflict with itself. [see post #1817]

So you just made it up ?

"Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 had burned out by this time.

What part of "many floors" didn't you understand ?

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

AH!! So NOW the firefighters' comments on 7 WTC's situation can be trusted ?

It was said that a 10-20 storey hole existed on the south face, from the ground up. As Factcheck, and many more of us, showed, we have pictures showing a large, vertical opening in the south face of 7 WTC from the top of the building to the lowest point we can observe. Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that, if this is indeed the same hole that they had reported, the smoke could have obscured the higher stories from the firefighters view and made the hole seem only 10-20 stories tall ?

I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...

Oh NO! The NIST is not completely sure of everything they've been saying. What ever shall we do ?

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

You're either very poor at analysing complex events, or you are beign purposely obtuse. Though the INITIATING event was most probably fire, in one section of the building, and please pay attention: it does not follow that the damage to the other section of the building had nothing to do with it.

 

[FactCheck]

There are no photos of the bottom 10 floors.

You're being dishonest, there are, as the NIST said, interviews with people on the scene who said there was a large hole and multiple fires.

The other dishonesty is your implied suggestion that because you have no photos or videos of the last 10 floors that NO ONE has photos. If anything should be clear to you by now is that there may still exist photos and videos not available on the net. It's a massive failure of critical thinking skills to suggest, if it's not on the then it doesn't exist. Since you can type words in a string which create sentences, I suspect you have a minimum level of intelligence and know this. I can only conclude you are engaged in deception. (Though very poor quality deception.)

There are no photos of the floors between 14 and 27 [that i know of]

Now your being somewhat honest. But leaving out the people on the ground who saw it is still giving only a part of the full story.

None of the firefighters said anything about a 47 story hole.

The smoke was covering the building but as you can see with your own eyes there was one. Unless you think the rip stopped for a few floors then started again.

We draw conclusions from evidence. I can look at a photo of a man with the eyes cut out and conclude the man had eyes. You have NO evidence to suggest the hole stopped and started again. We can safely conclude the rip continued to the 10th floor which IS damage that contributed to the collapse. How? Because of the fires which started when the damage to the building happened is part of the impact damage.

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop"

Yeah, that's what fires do...

Do you think that nobody noticed a 47 story hole?

Maybe not "nobody" by we have video evidence there was a hole MUCH larger than 20 stories and not even in the middle of the building. So there was more damage than at least some firemen could see through the smoke.

If this is what most of them were looking at most of the afternoon, it wouldn't surprise me if nobody saw the full extent of the damage.

This is most likely the 20 story hole that Boyle described.

We KNOW the hole is larger than what Boyle thought. We KNOW this from video evidence. Boyle was NOT in a helicopter and was next to a massive 47 story building which was on fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U

It's not unreasonable to conclude they COULDN'T see the extent of the damage.

NIST said: [pg L-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."

I laid out the case for

no core column damage in the area of the initiating event

in post #1804

I knew that. It's is part of the hypothesis that 'appears possible'.

You CAN'T know the damage to the core columns in question because they were damaged by the fires started by the impact. The core columns may have been in PERFECT shape after the impact. As you point out, it "took a while for that fire to develop" and move to the east side of the building and under the east side penthouse. The evidence it was damaged is the east penthouse which had a fire under it for hours and fell first.

pg L-38
I1.2 Initiating Components fail due to fire effects:
"...... The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components."
I2.3 ..... if .... could possibly ...
I3.4 ..... may have ....
I4.2 .... if .... may have ....
I2.4 .... if .... more likely ...
I3.5 .... could have ...
I4.3 .... if .... may have ...
I3.6 .... could have ...


It has not shown that it is possible, it's just a hypothesis [set of assumptions] which 'appears possible'.

That's all any scientist will EVER have because the collapse wasn't a controlled experiment. Science doesn't work the way you imply. That's something anyone with science 101 would know. It also comes from an "INTERM REPORT" which means they haven't agreed on a leading hypothesis yet. In fact it would be a LIE to say anything other than 'could have' and 'appears possible'. This is a very serious lack of education on your part. There is an almost child like ignorance exposed on this fundamental point. After reading this I must seriously suggest you stop debating on this site and take at least ONE science course to refresh yourself. Not even Steven Jones says he KNOWS what caused the collapse. The difference is the NIST has a hypothesis which is based on evidence.

NIST did not include the damage to the perimeter columns in its collapse hypothesis because they know that it had nothing to do with the initiating event.

They don't KNOW anything yet because it's not done yet. I haven't concluded anything either other than the conspiracy theorists lie about the evidence. To that there is much evidence.

http://www.jod911.com

Where did that come from? No structural damage to the south side?
Please read post #1804 again, i think you missed something.

There is photographic evidence that the collapse of the north tower caused the damage. The evidence is on my site...

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

I think you missed something...

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

 

[Christopher7]

It's interesting how you jump in and out of the NIST report, picking up the things you like and discarding the rest.

I am quoting the relevant points to the question at hand.
I have not 'disregarded' anything.

So you just made it up ?

No, i read Gravy's list and that's what i found.

AH!! So NOW the firefighters' comments on 7 WTC's situation can be trusted ?

The difference is in describing what they saw and what three of them thought was going to happen.

It was said that a 10-20 storey hole existed on the south face, from the ground up.

Really? Where?

As Factcheck, and many more of us, showed, we have pictures showing a large, vertical opening in the south face of 7 WTC from the top of the building to the lowest point we can observe.

Not so. The videos show a hole from the roof to about the 27th floor.
The Spak photo shows a hole from floor 10 to floor 12 with steel ripped out indicating that the hole extended to floor 14.

Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that, if this is indeed the same hole that they had reported, the smoke could have obscured the higher stories from the firefighters view and made the hole seem only 10-20 stories tall ?

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop."

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

You're either very poor at analysing complex events, or you are beign purposely obtuse. Though the INITIATING event was most probably fire, in one section of the building, and please pay attention: it does not follow that the damage to the other section of the building had nothing to do with it.

NIST said:

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

The rest of the scenario is about unknown damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario because they know that it was too far away to have any effect on the core columns in the east end of the building.
This is a no brainer.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

 

[FactCheck]

I find it interesting that he's willing to "fill in the blank" and suggest foul play without a shred of physical evidence. Yet when presented with video evidence of a hole, he needs every floor on the video to conclude it went to the ground. As if the floors on the missing section were pristine and mean the building was somehow sound as the day it first opened. Pure absurdity... I 'm not 100 percent sure but I bet the NIST will say there was most likely SOME effect from the impact in their final report.

Oh no! I said I'm not sure!!!

What we know for sure:

- The north tower impact caused fires
- The fire spread to the east side
- Fires were seen on the cantilevered core levels
- The east penthouse fell first
- Followed by the west penthouse
- The north face was the last to collapse

 

[Christopher7]

I find it interesting that he's willing to "fill in the blank" and suggest foul play without a shred of physical evidence.

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.


I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Yet when presented with video evidence of a hole, he needs every floor on the video to conclude it went to the ground.

Yes [vid and/or pic]

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

In any case, the loads were transferred to surrounding columns.

As if the floors on the missing section were pristine and mean the building was somehow sound as the day it first opened. Pure absurdity...

I love the way you make absurd statements and note how absurd they are.

I 'm not 100 percent sure but I bet the NIST will say there was most likely SOME effect from the impact in their final report.

Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.
This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.

 

[jaydeehess]

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

There was smoke from multiple fires that started when WTC 1 debris hit WTC 7, or are you trying to state that the fires started only sometime later? Huge amounts of dust however were also in that area as those fires developed.
Dust then settled as fires got larger.

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Barely, first you have to show that evidence of foul play was what was being destroyed. So far you only assume it to be so.

 

[Rrramon]

I wonder what the conspiracy theorists think would have happened if the collapse of the North Tower hadn't created a hole in WTC7?

Would the conspirators have gone ahead and blown up the building anyway, thus drawing the suspicions of the entire structural engineering community?

Or would they have canceled the detonation, thus living with the risk of having someone later discover the explosives in the building and triggering a federal investigation?

Either way, these sure are some bold conspirators we are dealing with here!

 

[FactCheck]

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

You don't even have evidence the physical evidence of explosives was destroyed. All it takes is chemical analysis of ground zero to determine if chemicals used in the production of explosives were found. In any given explosion there are trace elements which can be found. They would be all over GZ and IMPOSSIBLE to remove 100%. The evidence wouldn't only be on the columns.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Again, you haven't proven a single shred of evidence that the evidence was there to be carted away.

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Given that we already see more than was mentioned, the probability has now increased to 'Most likely'. That is the evidence.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

You have no clue what Hayden saw or when he saw it. The smoke could have obscured the hole BEFORE the fire 'developed' fully. My evidence is that YOU can't find a one photo of the building without the hole to the ground.

you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

While you will hope to twist some quote to your insane ends. I have no doubt your vivid imagination will cut around the truth like a puzzle piece. Just as you've doing to me. Heh!

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.
This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.

What education do you have of framing? You seem to have none. To suggest the columns didn't suffer ANY effect from the original impact armed only with quote mining shows your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!