10 story hole in WTC 7

[Disbelief]

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.

Can you prove it is impossible?

What is the distance between the WTCs and WTC7? Too far for a column to still be attached yet fall outward like it is hinged?

 

[FactCheck]

First, the composite isn't perfect and I can't say the different angles and zooms isn't causing the difference. But why wouldn't the columns of WTC 1 and upper level WTC 7 debris from the impact not funnel between the stronger columns and on the weaker floors??? Why in the world would that be odd?

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

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

The gash is exactly between two building 7 perimeter columns (suggesting that the debris shower initiated a localized progressive collapse between those two columns.) Why didn't your space beam flash-fry those columns? Your evil space men have remarkably precise aim.



<--evil space man

 

[jaydeehess]

We agree.

The corner was sagging.

The building was NOT leaning

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?

 

[rwguinn]

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?

Whoa, Podner:
You are all tangled up in a straw-man Chris has tossed in front of you.
It is my understanding that FDNY put a transit on the corner of WTC 7 because of a visible bulge. The "lean" of the building (rotation off of verticality) under such circumstances, would indeed exist--and FDNY, engineers, and other persons in a position of authority knew that. They were also aware that that situation was pretty well hidden by the exterior walls and smoke.
The bulge, however, was highly discernable, and was a visible, measurable effect of the likelyhood of collapse. That is why the transit was put on it, and how they could determine that the building was going to come down- by extrapolation the movement of the bulge to the tilt of internal, non-visible floors and walls.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Indeed, especially the top part, where you can see some of the facaed appearing ripped.

I don't know how you can see cylinders everywhere you look.

Not so with the gash below. It is straight down. It doesn't get wider or narrower.

Should it ?

The damage appears to be parallel to the wall.

Gravity tends to pull things down; buildings tend to stand straight up.

WTC7 was showered with random debris, arriving at an angle, not striaght down.

A north-south angle, yes, but not particularily at an east-west angle.

No, it is impossible that perimeter columns caused this.

Why ?

 

[Disbelief]

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.

So, are you theorizing it was a space beam that fired from the top down to make the gash? If so, how do they have such pinpoint control that it can vaporize steel from top to bottom of a 47 story building yet does not damage the ground in front. I would think that something that powerful would continue for some distance into the earth and leave a big hole that would be impossible to explain away.

 

[FactCheck]

The gash is exactly between two building 7 perimeter columns (suggesting that the debris shower initiated a localized progressive collapse between those two columns.) Why didn't your space beam flash-fry those columns? Your evil space men have remarkably precise aim.



<--evil space man

Actually, the evil space man have either poor aim or has a weird sense of humor. He hit the towers perfectly but also fried some cars on the ground just for the hell of it. Let me guess, it was for an insurance scam by the fire department... Heh!

 

[Mangoose]

Look at all the photographs of WTC 7.

Can you see the building leaning in any of them ?

Yes, if you look at the Steve Spak DVD, there is a part in which he pans down giving a very detailed look of the SW corner of the building, and it looks like either the building is leaning away from it or there is a big bulge down there going the other way. I'm not sure if it is really leaning or not, but it does look funny. In fact, this quote really does seem to describe how it looks:

"Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way."

It looks weird because it isn't leaning towards the weakened corner (which is what you'd expect) but AWAY from it. Again, I'm not sure if it is really leaning or if the damaged bottom part of the building is making it look like that. I overlapped several frames of this view into a single image, and I'll post it once I have enough posts on the board to post links.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

You left out:
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."

There was not a thick column of smoke right away IMO.

Speculation yes, reasonable, not so much.

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

Dishonest misquote.

Post #1950 - C7
"I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
neither can you.

I was referring to the smoke in the video taken in the afternoon that obscured floors 15 thru 26.

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 ?

Post #1927 - Belz
"How can you possibly claim, without expertise and contra other peoples expertise, that the physical damage and the fire [dishonest misquote] and the collapse are NOT related ?

My statement

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.
It is not "in opposition or contrast to".

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 ?

You are easily confused.

My statement [above, in bold] does not mention fires nor does it say the damage was not caused by debris.

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

Please
Get serious.
We are talking about the total collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.
The Windsor Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete frame.
The only similar comparisons are the Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective and were abandoned in both buildings.
There was concern that the Meridian Plaza would collapse.
There was NO partial, much total collapse in either building.
Just because knowledgeable people think a building is going to collapse due to fire, it does not mean the building will collapse or that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to fire.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

This doesn't require any expertise, just the ability to use a dictionary.

Column [in wood - post], girder and beam, are terms used in the construction of wood and steel framed buildings because they perform the same function in both.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Why did they put a transit on the building?

Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, we put a transit on it and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.

FEMA did NOT say the building was leaning.

NIST did NOT say the building was leaning.

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.

He was two blocks away and he was looking at WTC 7 thru a lot of smoke.

None of the firefighters who were around or near WTC 7, said that it was leaning.

Why do you cling to this one observation when something as serious as the building leaning would surely have been mentioned by those at the scene?

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.

http://www.debunking911.com/3100.jpg

Excellent find. Well done.

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

Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.

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

No

 

[Christopher7]

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

I don't know.

What would be the effect of this perimeter sag on the core columns Chris?

The weight would be redistributed to the surrounding columns, including core columns 60 and 63.

 

[Gravy]

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Tell us, O engineering guru, what does it mean when there's a 3-story bulge in a skyscraper?

Eh?

Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.

Skyscrapers often bulge when they eat too much of other skyscrapers.

 

[Rrramon]

Christopher, when you say "No building has ever collapsed due to fire," do you mean to say it is impossible for a building to collapse due to fire? If so, why don't you just say that instead?

 

[Gravy]

Rrramon, you may not be familiar with the many interesting ideas Chris has about fire, steel, photo analysis, and standards of evidence. Here's a primer:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2347941&postcount=913

 

[MRC_Hans]

"No building has ever collapsed due to fire"? ...

No building has ever collapsed due to fire ??????????

Are you crazy ???

Wait... don't answer that question ....

Hans

 

[Belz...]

You left out:
Hayden: "...it took a while for that fire to develop."

There was not a thick column of smoke right away IMO.

Do you have A.D.D. ? Because we discussed this a short while ago. Did you already forget the huge clouds of dust from 1 WTC's collapse ?

Speculation yes, reasonable, not so much.

Explain why.

Dishonest misquote.

In the real world, it's called a paraphrase.

Post #1950 - C7
"I cannot see thru that column of smoke.
neither can you.

Oh. So it was even WORSE than I had read it. Who cares what YOU could see through the smoke ? The point is that THE HOLE might have been obscured by THE SMOKE. "I" or "He" doesn't change a thing.

My statement

"The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part."

is consistent with the statements in the NIST report.
It is not "in opposition or contrast to".

No, it isn't. Because you're making things up. Please explain how the fires started if not due to the falling, flaming debris from 1 WTC. Please explain how the collapse occured if not from structural strain or fire damage.

You are easily confused.

It's not my fault if you're all over the place.

My statement [above, in bold] does not mention fires nor does it say the damage was not caused by debris.

It also doesn't say that George W. Bush isn't controlled by flying pink unicorns, but then who cares ?

Please
Get serious.

I'm dead serious. You seem to think that collapses due to fire are impossible, but cannot explain why.

We are talking about the total collapse of a modern steel frame high rise building.

"Modern" doesn't help you, here. Why would the fact that it's "modern" mean anything ? Why did they install fireproofing on the steel if it wasn't at risk from heat ?

The Windsor Tower was primarily a reinforced concrete frame.
The only similar comparisons are the Meridian Plaza and the Caracus Tower.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective and were abandoned in both buildings.
There was concern that the Meridian Plaza would collapse.
There was NO partial, much total collapse in either building.

Congratulations. You've found two buildings.

Just because knowledgeable people think a building is going to collapse due to fire, it does not mean the building will collapse or that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to fire.

No, indeed. But it is evidence that there were signs of 7 WTC's structural integrity being compromised.

 

[Belz...]

This doesn't require any expertise, just the ability to use a dictionary.

Column [in wood - post], girder and beam, are terms used in the construction of wood and steel framed buildings because they perform the same function in both.

"Same function" doesn't mean "the same". LEGO blocks can serve the same function, Chris.

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Interesting. What do you think it means, then ?

Would all floors above the bulge sag an equal amount Chris? If not what would it look like?

I don't know.

Yes, precisely.

 

[FactCheck]

Hayden: "Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, we put a transit on it and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."

A bulge in the SW corner does NOT mean the building is leaning.

Hayden did NOT say the building was leaning.

FEMA did NOT say the building was leaning.

NIST did NOT say the building was leaning.

He was two blocks away and he was looking at WTC 7 thru a lot of smoke.

None of the firefighters who were around or near WTC 7, said that it was leaning.

Why do you cling to this one observation when something as serious as the building leaning would surely have been mentioned by those at the scene?

Excellent find. Well done.

Because there was a bulge, they put a transit on it to see if the bulge got any bigger.

No

Explain how he was looking through smoke and telling someone to SEE through the smoke at the leaning building??? Do people usually tell others to look through things they can't??? Why would he do that???

Explain how someone looking at the building from the north west would see smoke which was on the south side, with the wind blowing to the south east???

Can't you SEE!!! I SEE the building on that video. Why would they have a harder time looking through the smoke if I can see it on a blury video?? I can't tell if it's leaning but I can see smoke isn't covering it.

You see how when you begin to actually answer questions your argument falls apart faster than building 7...