10 story hole in WTC 7

[FactCheck]

Judging from that picture, which I've never seen before, it seems as though we can't see our vaunted 47-floor hole.

Or am I suddenly blind ?

That depends on the definition of blind...

That's the NORTH side so the hole is on the other side. The side the building is LEANING ON.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In your opinion.

So what? The principles of framing are the same for wood or steel.
Who are you to say that they are not?

I worked on a house that used telephone poles for columns, 4 x 16 beams and 2 x 12 floor joists.
The principles and the framing are the basically same as in WTC 7.

So why is there so much concrete in the Empire State Building, if the knowledge to build structures like WTC7 has been around for centuries?

Could it be that the problems of load distribution become more complicated as you scale up, such that an uneducated manual laborer wouldn't necessarily understand all the issues involved?

 

[JimBenArm]

So why is there so much concrete in the Empire State Building, if the knowledge to build structures like WTC7 has been around for centuries?

Could it be that the problems of load distribution become more complicated as you scale up, such that an uneducated manual laborer wouldn't necessarily understand all the issues involved?

Now, come on. Chris told you framing is framing, so this is obviously not the case!

 

[Belz...]

That depends on the definition of blind...

That's the NORTH side so the hole is on the other side. The side the building is LEANING ON.

Oh! Silly me. Thanks for the correction.

I was wondering how someone managed to be on the south side while the thing was falling down.

Why hasn't this picture been seen before ?

 

[Newtons Bit]

In your opinion.

So what? The principles of framing are the same for wood or steel.
Who are you to say that they are not?

I worked on a house that used telephone poles for columns, 4 x 16 beams and 2 x 12 floor joists.
The principles and the framing are the basically same as in WTC 7.

They're not the same. They're really, really, not the same. I think a couple more realy's are needed there too. As a structural engineer, I feel I'm qualified to say that. You INSTALL things. How the hell do you know WHY it was designed a specific way? You do not understand why certain sizes are needed, nor the math behind it. I have contractors and architects and old friends from highschool who work construction tell me how they would do things. My response is typically I had to go out to the jobsite and argue with a thickheaded hungover contractor who say "Well, I've never installed tie-downs on huge propane tanks that are next to schools before, so why should I start", while he's sitting in a seismic zone (that he doesn't even know is a seismic zone). These are the same people who piss in curing concrete and doesn't understand why we might get pissed off.

The same applies here.

Good, I'm glad I got that out of my system.

 

[Christopher7]

Precisely my point.

No, no, ...... precisely my point.

Oh, so you think I DIDN'T mean it when I said "contra" ? Sorry to dissapoint.

No, i think you don't know what "contra" means.

No, it's not. You said it had NOTHING to do with the initiating event. If that's not what you said, what do you mean by "contribute" ?

Fair question, point taken.

How about; "the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 played no significant roll in the initiating event."

Do you or do you not agree with debris->fire->collapse ?

I'm down with the "debris->fire" part but

I have a problem with the "fire->collapse" part.

 

[Christopher7]

THIS photo shows the building wasn't leaning on [this] side of the building and at [this] time during the event therefore the building NEVER leaned on ANY side and at ANY time...

You just said that, i never have.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7f1.jpg

What about during the collapse? It's OBVIOUSLY leaning to the south. More than one firemen said the building was leaning.

There was a guy who worked nearby who said he thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The guy in the video who says WTC 7 was leaning, may or may not be a fireman.

So where do you get "more than one fireman" ?

NIST did not say anything about the building leaning.

That would have been a major factor and it would have been mentioned [at length], if it had existed.

NIST interviewed over 100 people.

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

They put a transit on the building and knew it was leaning. Does the fire department put transits on ALL buildings just for the hell of it? Or did they put a transit on the building because they saw it leaning? Do they put transits on buildings without knowing how to use them?

Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

He did not say the building was leaning!

 

[Christopher7]

They're not the same. As a structural engineer, I feel I'm qualified to say that.

Are you more qualified than the structural engineers at NIST?

They ruled out the debris damage to the SE face of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.

They did NOT say the damage to the SW face contributed to the initiating event.

Do you think the damage to the SW face of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event?

If so, why?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Are you more qualified than the structural engineers at NIST?

They ruled out the debris damage to the SE face of WTC 7 as the cause of the initiating event.

They did NOT say the damage to the SW face contributed to the initiating event.

Do you think the damage to the SW face of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event?

If so, why?

Changing the subject 101. You said the principles in framing are the same in WTC as they are in a wood house. I say, as an engineer, they're not, you try to change the subject back to damage.

You can argue all you want about what NIST does and doesn't say. That's fine. But some of us draw the line when someone says something like,"wood hosues and steel skyscrapers are framed the same".

They're not the same. And you'll never understand why until you get a degree in engineering or at least take a few classes in engineering and learn how the MATH works.

 

[FactCheck]

You just said that, i never have.

There was a guy who worked nearby who said he thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The guy in the video who says WTC 7 was leaning, may or may not be a fireman.

So where do you get "more than one fireman" ?

NIST did not say anything about the building leaning.

That would have been a major factor and it would have been mentioned [at length], if it had existed.

NIST interviewed over 100 people.

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

He did not say the building was leaning!

WHY would ANYONE put a transit on a building if it wasn't visibly leaning??? Do you think they put a transit ALL calls?

What would a transit tell firemen the building is doing if it wasn't leaning to suggest it was going to collapse???

How could they get the transit past the lower floor fires to put it on the buldge??? Wouldn't that be absurdly dangerous???

Who do you think that person is in the video??? Why would he say "You know we can handle just about anything"??? Who is the "WE" he includes himself with?

USE YOUR HEAD, this isn't rocket science.

 

[FactCheck]

Changing the subject 101. You said the principles in framing are the same in WTC as they are in a wood house. I say, as an engineer, they're not, you try to change the subject back to damage.

You can argue all you want about what NIST does and doesn't say. That's fine. But some of us draw the line when someone says something like,"wood hosues and steel skyscrapers are framed the same".

They're not the same. And you'll never understand why until you get a degree in engineering or at least take a few classes in engineering and learn how the MATH works.

I respectfully disagree, I don't have an engineering degree yet I understand the buildings are VERY different. I think he is being purposefully difficult.

He knows there were perimeter columns and core columns with long span floors holding them in place just like the towers.

He continues to hold up an interim report as it it were the final word from the NIST. I have absolutely NO doubt he is purposefully trying to mislead.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not referring to the differences between WTC1&2 and 7. Those are vastly different to start with. He's saying that because he knows how to frame wood buildings, he knows how steel skyscrapers work.

I don't work on skyscrapers at my job. I do at the most mid-rise buildings (less than 15 stories). Even the difference between a skyscraper and a mid-rise is vast but they at least comprise of the same structural systems. The principles in the framing, between steel skyscrapers and wood buildings, ARE NOT THE SAME.

 

[FactCheck]

Oh! Silly me. Thanks for the correction.

I was wondering how someone managed to be on the south side while the thing was falling down.

Why hasn't this picture been seen before ?

OK, nice and slow...

I took this screen shot and put it on my site LOOONG ago. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it wasn't around. The video has been around even longer. I suspect you haven't seen it because all you have been going to are conspiracy theory sites. You obviously haven't gone to my site. I suggest you look over my site for other evidence conspiracy theorists haven't shown you.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear. You need to explain why it is so straight.

 

[Corsair 115]

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear.

So you are in fact saying that apparent gouge is some kind of damage to the building? Let's turn this around: if that gouge wasn't caused by falling debris, what do you think caused it?

 

[Unfit4Command]

Honestly, what do you all suppose caused this damage? I'm dying to hear. You need to explain why it is so straight.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7damagecomposite.jpg

Laser beams from outer space obviously caused it. There's no way any very fast moving debris from the North Tower could have caused that. Laser beams is the most logical explaination for everything.
For example, the bulge? Laser beams. The leaning of WTC 7? Laser beams, the SW corner damage? Laser beams. Any damage dealt to any of the buildings on 9/11? Laser beams.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

im not entirely convinced thats even damage to the building, it could be some weird reflection or video artifact

are there any other images of it? or just from that one camera?

 

[jaydeehess]

No one said anything about the building leaning, because IT WAS NOT LEANING!

Quote:
They put a transit on the building and knew it was leaning. Does the fire department put transits on ALL buildings just for the hell of it? Or did they put a transit on the building because they saw it leaning? Do they put transits on buildings without knowing how to use them?
Hayden: "You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors."

He did not say the building was leaning!

Simple geometry Chris.

Imagine a line of fixed length and fixed at one end. Now imagine a curve in one part of that line while the total length following that , now partly curved, line remains the same as before. What is the straight line distance from the fixed end to the other end?
a)longer than it originally was?
b)shorter?
c)the same?

If there was a bulge then unless the perimeter columns suddenly gained more steel, the top of the building above that bulge was closer to the ground than it originally was. there would be a slope to all floors above the bulge. Is that not a 'lean'.
something like this;

 

[Gravy]

OK, nice and slow...

I took this screen shot and put it on my site LOOONG ago. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it wasn't around. The video has been around even longer. I suspect you haven't seen it because all you have been going to are conspiracy theory sites. You obviously haven't gone to my site. I suggest you look over my site for other evidence conspiracy theorists haven't shown you.

(psst: Belz is a debunker.)

 

[Gravy]

im not entirely convinced thats even damage to the building, it could be some weird reflection or video artifact

are there any other images of it? or just from that one camera?

Several videos make it clear that it is damage. The straight section is a window bay between columns. You can see the damage around it where the granite facing has been knocked off. The building got hammered.