10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

Columns, girders and beams do the same job weather wood or steel.
The principles are the same.

The subject is weather or not the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event.

Your claim of superior knowledge carries no weight on a forum.

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.

What part of principles [the basic way in which something works] don't you understand?

 

[Gravy]

Gosh, if only some organization of engineers and scientists would study these things! Why won't they, Chris?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

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?

Even NIST marks the damage there, remember? They just forgot to tell us that it was a surgical cut.

Weird reflection? Of what? Video artifact? Yeah right. Remember this is from a video, there are many frames.

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

 

[Unfit4Command]

Even NIST marks the damage there, remember? They just forgot to tell us that it was a surgical cut.

Weird reflection? Of what? Video artifact? Yeah right. Remember this is from a video, there are many frames.

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.

I already told you, laser beams caused that damage.

 

[Christopher7]

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

If it was visibly leaning, they would not have to put a transit on it to say for sure.

USE YOUR HEAD, this isn't rocket science.

Indeed

 

[Christopher7]

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.

X-ray buda and the lizard people no doubt.

 

[Christopher7]

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;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/12959462c2fc4a30e1.jpg

We agree.

The corner was sagging.

The building was NOT leaning

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, this is your thread. It's not 10 stories of damage, it's at least 25 stories that I can see, and it may be 47. What say you? Thermite? Cutter charges?

The use of thermite or cutter charges doesn't make any sense.
The hole is nowhere near the initiating event.

The upper [jagged part] is debris damage. IMO

The straight part could be debris damage but i'm leaning toward X-B & the LP
[i'm not sure]

No wonder NIST won't show us the pictures. Remember when the Popular Mechanics guys said they were shown pictures of the damage? Funny, i don't recall them saying anything about a perfectly straight gash.

I find it odd that they released a some photos of WTC 7 in the FEMA and NIST reports, and withheld others.

 

[Belz...]

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

Actually, no. You have a short memory.

You said: "How could he not notice and mention a 47 story hole?"

I said that there was a thick column of smoke. I implied that this smoke could have prevented him from seeing the whole thing. It was speculation, but reasonable speculation.

Then you retort "he couldn't see through the smoke, and neither can you". Of course! That's MY whole point, and then you say:

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

Humm...

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

con·tra1 /ˈkɒntrə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kon-truh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–preposition 1. against; in opposition or contrast to: Consider the problems of the teenager contra those of the adult.
–adverb 2. contrariwise; on or to the contrary.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contra

How is that different from how I used it ?

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

I assume you mean "role".

I'm still a little confused. Are you saying that the initiating event wasn't caused by fire and structural damage ? Are you saying that said fires and damages were NOT caused by debris from 1 WTC ? But here, I see you answer this:

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

You've never seen a building collapse due to fire ? I have.

 

[Belz...]

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.

I think you've got the wrong guy, here, Factcheck. What the hell made you this antagonistic ?

It's a good thing I'm not a CTer. I'd be squirming back to the LC forum and whining about how badly I'm beign treated at the JREF.

 

[Belz...]

Are you more qualified than the structural engineers at NIST?

noted.

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.

Boy, you really are dancing around that report, aren't you ?

Columns, girders and beams do the same job weather wood or steel.
The principles are the same.

Well, I'm no engineer, nor am I a carpenter, but somehow I'd think wood and steel would be completely different.

Your claim of superior knowledge carries no weight on a forum.

Actually, it carries no weight anywhere. Unless you HAVE superior knowledge, of course, in which case it carries weight EVERYWHERE.

 

[Belz...]

Even NIST marks the damage there, remember? They just forgot to tell us that it was a surgical cut.

Surgical ? Don't you see the rip in the upper section ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Columns, girders and beams do the same job weather wood or steel.
The principles are the same.

The subject is weather or not the debris damage to the south west part of WTC 7 contributed to the initiating event.

Your claim of superior knowledge carries no weight on a forum.

What part of principles [the basic way in which something works] don't you understand?

I'm not a structural engineer, or even a carpenter. However, I do know that it's common for someone with limited knowledge to overestimate their own expertise. Generally, the more a person learns about a particular discipline, the more humbled they are by it, as they begin to realize that a lifetime is not sufficient to learn everything there is to know about it. For this reason, it's sometimes difficult to tell how much expertise someone has just by talking to them.

However, if they make sweeping statements about how simple and easy to understand the construction of a high-rise building is, I tend to group them into the "limited knowledge" batch.

 

[FactCheck]

(psst: Belz is a debunker.)

OOPS, Sorry, I have dealt with truthers that dense and have a hard time telling sarcasm from actual truthers. I mean, just look at the truthers here! HEHEHE!

 

[Belz...]

10 lashes.

 

[FactCheck]

Chris, are you going to troll or are you going to answer direct questions directly...

Why did they put a transit on the building?

Why did the FIREMAN (Note the man in the videos red suspender connection on his pants) point to the building and say it was leaning if it wasn't.

Note the firemen here with red suspender connections. Show me a photo of someone else other than firemen who would were such a uniform by GZ.

If it was leaning they would put a transit on it to monitor it. To see by how much and if it got worse. Now answer the question.

TS1234: Are we supposed to believe a 50 ton perimeter column falling at high speed CAN'T create that gash?

 

[Belz...]

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 ?

That wasn't sarcasm, by the way, Factcheck. I was simply wrong about what side of the building that was on, and I didn't spot it on your website before.

Sorry for being "dense".

 

[FactCheck]

That wasn't sarcasm, by the way, Factcheck. I was simply wrong about what side of the building that was on, and I didn't spot it on your website before.

Sorry for being "dense".

Now I'm being dense. Sorry again for how I put that. I hope you know what I mean. "Dense" is not the right word. I guess I expected everyone to know what I know. That's dumb on my part.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

http://www.debunking911.com/3100.jpg
TS1234: Are we supposed to believe a 50 ton perimeter column falling at high speed CAN'T create that gash?

If it was just that damage at the top 5-6 floors, I might agree. It looks to me like two distinct cylindrical gouges, but it is irregular enough to perhaps be impact damage. Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower. The damage appears to be parallel to the wall. WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down. No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.