10 story hole in WTC 7

[Slayhamlet]

So, the idea is something along the lines of: “You’re a criminal defence lawyer, so you’d be perfectly happy about lying to cover up the murder of thousands of American citizens.”

Just what kind of mentality must someone have in order to come out with that sort of offensively bigoted non-sequitur?

You have to remember, this is the same creep who compared Gravy to Hitler and modern structural engineers to Nazi era eugenicists. He hasn't a shred of decency, let alone credibility.

 

[slingblade]

You believe that the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is the best and most frugal explanation.

In reference to this appendix only: yes, I feel this explains what happened and how to WCT 7. As far as frugality, the term really is parsimony, and there is a link in a previous post to a definition of the principle. It really is helpful, and I hope you are either familiar with it or will become so.

Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" is also very helpful, and I recommend that, as well.

You reject other explanations out of hand, even though WTC 7 imploded.

To reject "out of hand" is to reject without even looking. I have not done that. I have looked at and examined many possible explanations, for several years. None fit the events save for what I saw happen: Two planes hit two buildings, and their subsequent collapse damaged several other buildings, one of which collapsed that same day.

CD's cause high rise buildings to implode.

They do, indeed. But these buildings collapsed.

CD cannot be ruled out.

I feel reasonably (not absolutely) certain it can. I have no cognitive problems with the events of 9/11/01. I don't have to imagine bombs to accept the evidence of my eyes, and of experts: I saw those buildings fall. They were not imploded by controlled demolition. They were brutally damaged, and they fell.

If you don't live in a world of absolute certainty, why are you absolutely certain that WTC 7 was not a CD?

I didn't say I was absolutely certain. But I am as sure as I can reasonably be. If new evidence comes along, I will examine it with an open mind. The evidence I've seen so far informs my opinion that the WTC towers were hit by terrorist-manned planes, and they collapsed due to the damage they suffered.

I've been looking at all of this for years--long before I ever joined this forum. I was part of this forum before we ever had a CT subforum, so I didn't join to discuss this matter.

Before I joined JREF forums, I got snagged by the "where's the plane at the Pentagon?!?" query, and was roundly made fun of for it by friends on another list (who normally believe anything they hear), so I figured that if these ladies weren't buying it, I needed to look at it much harder.

I did. And realized I'd been suckered mightily. Not too long after that, I made the fortunate choice to take a college course on parapsychology (a debunking course), in which Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" was our textbook. At the same time, I joined JREF forums.

And to quote Frost, that has made all the difference.

I'm not a fan of labels, but if I had to choose one, I guess right now I'd go with LIHTI, but not doggedly so. Actually, my label would be more like:

EAFTLSYHCTTISWANOHAU.

Every Administration For The Last Sixty Years Has Contributed To This In Some Way, And No One's Hands Are Unsoiled.

But as far as some kind of deliberate government plot?
Nah. I really doubt it.

 

[Belz...]

Guys

brick wall
head
dead horse
dizziness
round and round we go


you know...

Wait, wait... this is a riddle, right ?

I got it! I got it!!

It's a dishwasher, right ??

 

[Belz...]

How about steel, mate ? Or do you contend that steel is better against fire than wood, always ?

Yes

Oh! That's really unfortunate, but thanks for playing. You are utterly, completely, overwhelmingly wrong. Guess that's why you don't work with steel buildings.

There is NO evidence that debris contributed to the collapse.

You are being dishonest here. What you are saying is that there is NO evidence that the FIRES contributed to the collapsed, because you've admitted that the debris started the fires.

slingblade is a serious person who makes thoughtful relevant posts.

You are not.

Says the person who won't respond to the wood vs steel posts proving him wrong.

CD cannot be ruled out.

Oh ? So the lack of visible and audible explosions, the nonsensical nature of that hypothesis and the fact that no trace of the explosives were found doesn't bother you ?

 

[Belz...]

It perplexes me how people can watch a building clearly DROP and yet they can dismiss it with lame explanations. This is an amazing feat even when overcome by too much brew.

And here is exposed succintly the difference between skeptics and CTers. You rely on your inexperienced observation. People here rely on expertise of how things really work, despite subjective observation.

You hand-wave expert opinions, and yet expect your "observations" to be taken more seriously ?

Buildings don't DROP.

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they ?

Well they do with the aid of controlled demolitions!

Indeed.

I realize both sides are married to their beliefs but one has to wonder if you get paid to poke yourself in the eyes?

Of course you'd wonder this. To the uneducated, things seem so simple, so obvious that only a dishonest person with an agenda could possibly disagree, right ?

Again. You state things like the very act of stating them makes them so.

Apparently you rejoice in labeling those who don't cling to your obsessive beliefs. Fair enough. It's a free world. Sacrificing your individuality to become an accepted member of the gang is your perogative.

Is that supposed to convince anyone ? Or was that a prelude to an actual argument ?

With all due respect twinstead and Architect, the experts are pushing hypotheses.

And what are YOU pushing ? Fact ? Based on what ? Your ignorance.

this pilot trainer who used a 737 simulator, an aircraft even more maneuverable than those that supposedly crashed into WTC 1 & 2, setup New York City in the simulator and had highly skilled commercial pilots attempt collisions with the towers.

They all failed.

Well, he's not a very good pilot because some non-pilots made it on the first attempt.

 

[Christopher7]

BS. There is also no evidence for any alternate theory you may come up with.

There is evidence, you just deny it.

You are using the tried and true technique of trying to blast holes in a theory you disagree with and shoving your own unsupported by evidence theory in its place by default and we aren't buying it.

You are half right. I'm pointing out the misleading claims made by those who believe WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage.

jaydeehess started a thread to discuss CD's [at my request] so we could discuss that issue separately.

 

[Christopher7]

No, it really is a proper question for this thread. Why don't you just answer it instead of avoiding it?

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7

I will be glad to respond to questions about CD's on the thread i listed.

 

[Gravy]

There is evidence, you just deny it.

Sorry, your interpretation of a video doesn't count as evidence.

Remember that you said you had plenty of evidence for a conviction, based solely on videos?

So what are you going to do about it? Will you finally be a man and display the courage of your convictions, or are you content to whine on internet forums?

Is this it, then? All done, Chris? Your plan is to change the world by whining on the internet?

Ed, I pity these intellectual cowards who've deluded themselves into thinking that they're accomplishing something beyond making public fools of themselves.

 

[Christopher7]

Oh! That's really unfortunate, but thanks for playing.

You're welcome.

You are utterly, completely, overwhelmingly wrong. Guess that's why you don't work with steel buildings.

True

You are being dishonest here. What you are saying is that there is NO evidence that the FIRES contributed to the collapsed, because you've admitted that the debris started the fires.

Wrong. I have stated that the debris damage [itself] did not have a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

It has NOT been established that fires played a roll in the collapse.

You are stating as fact, a set of assumptions that NIST says "needs more investigation".

How can you be so sure when NIST doesn't know for sure?

Says the person who won't respond to the wood vs steel posts proving him wrong.

The steel v wood game is a diversion and has nothing to do with debris damage to WTC 7.

Oh ? So the lack of visible and audible explosions, the nonsensical nature of that hypothesis and the fact that no trace of the explosives were found doesn't bother you ?

I will discuss those issues on the C7 - C4 thread.

 

[Christopher7]

Sorry, your interpretation of a video doesn't count as evidence.

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

Remember that you said you had plenty of evidence for a conviction, based solely on videos?

In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brianer for most people.

So what are you going to do about it? Will you finally be a man and display the courage of your convictions, or are you content to whine on internet forums?

I make copies of Loose change and the 4 min. video i made and give them to everyone who will look at them.
Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

Is this it, then? All done, Chris? Your plan is to change the world by whining on the internet?

By debating here, i have learned that there is no solid evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

Ed, I pity these intellectual cowards who've deluded themselves into thinking that they're accomplishing something beyond making public fools of themselves.

Talk to yourself much?

 

[Christopher7]

In reference to this appendix only: yes, I feel this explains what happened and how to WCT 7.

NIST isn't at all sure. Why are you?

To reject "out of hand" is to reject without even looking. I have not done that. I have looked at and examined many possible explanations, for several years. None fit the events save for what I saw happen: Two planes hit two buildings, and their subsequent collapse damaged several other buildings, one of which collapsed that same day.

Many buildings were damaged by the collapse of the Trade Towers. Only WTC 7 collapsed.

They do, indeed. But these buildings collapsed.

WTC 7 imploded. [FEMA pg 30]
That's a very unique form of collapse.

I feel reasonably (not absolutely) certain it can. I have no cognitive problems with the events of 9/11/01. I don't have to imagine bombs to accept the evidence of my eyes, and of experts: I saw those buildings fall. They were not imploded by controlled demolition. They were brutally damaged, and they fell.

The discussion here is WTC 7.

There was no debris damage anywhere near the first columns to fail [columns 79, 80 and 81].

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. I have stated that the debris damage [itself] did not have a significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7.

It has NOT been established that fires played a roll in the collapse.

Nice try at a dodge, but it won't work. You admitted that the debris started the fires, but you steadfastly refuse to admit that steel buildings can be destroyed by fire:

The steel v wood game is a diversion and has nothing to do with debris damage to WTC 7.

No, it isn't, because admitting to it would shatter your claim that steel buildings can't be destroyed by fire. You know this.

I will discuss those issues on the C7 - C4 thread.

Oh, come on. A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[Belz...]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

Double strawman. We think that a whole lot of people THINK that 7 WTC was a CD.

In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brianer for most people.

That's why we use experts in courts, lest the jury make a decision based on ignorance.

Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

So you're saying that this impression could be wrong ?

By debating here, i have learned that there is no solid evidence that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire.

I'm sure that's a lie. You "knew" that from the start.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

In the court of public opinion. It's really a no brainer for most people.

It would have to be, wouldn't it?

 

[Christopher7]

Nice try at a dodge, but it won't work. You admitted that the debris started the fires, but you steadfastly refuse to admit that steel buildings can be destroyed by fire:

Wrong

In post #2376, in answer to the question:

"Do you contend that fire cannot cause seriously damage and even collapse in steel framed structures?"

I answered "No"

In post #2387 i said:

"I do not contend that fire could not weaken steel framework, or cause failure."

Oh, come on. A simple yes or no will suffice.

There are 3 statements in that question.

1) The government has collected over 6,000 video clips and has kept them from the public for 5 and 1/2 years.

The visual and audio evidence, one way or the other, is no doubt contained in those video clips.

2) We disagree on the "nonsensical" nature of the CD hypothesis.

3) As for the "no trace of explosives", most of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Thanks to some volunteers from SEAoNY, a few pieces of WTC 7 were salvaged and analyzed.

I will post the results on the C7 - C4 thread.

 

[slingblade]

NIST isn't at all sure. Why are you?

My mouth is crammed full of your words. Please stop.
I have explained why I can accept this interim NIST appendix: It fits the available evidence best. But I am not closed to receiving new evidence, when and if such becomes available. If it does, I will examine and weigh it. To this point, this explanation is acceptable, and far more likely than CD.

See, I don't have to completely rule CD out in order to accept the more likely and more evidence-supported opinion.

I've never been to the moon, but I feel it more likely to be made of something other than green cheese. I've never been deep-sea diving, but I feel Atlantis likely never existed.

Many buildings were damaged by the collapse of the Trade Towers. Only WTC 7 collapsed.

You do realize that all you did was slightly rephrase my last sentence? And that, essentially, you've just agreed with me? Did you mean to?

WTC 7 imploded. [FEMA pg 30]
That's a very unique form of collapse.

Implosion is controlled demolition. WCT 7 collapsed from severe structural damaged caused by both debris damage and fires. I read the report. I studied the images. I am able to accept the [tentative]conclusion.

The discussion here is WTC 7.

Fine. We can pretend towers 1 and 2 had nothing to do with this. It wouldn't be true, but if it makes you happy....

There was no debris damage anywhere near the first columns to fail [columns 79, 80 and 81].

(PP L-51, L-52) The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis, would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses become available.

You want so much for this to be concrete proof. It is not. It is a hypothesis. A working hypothesis, which by its very definition indicates change can be anticipated in future.

Now, the best question: why are you trying to convince me? Go try to convince them, NIST. Tell them how they got it wrong. With me, you're just spinning in your wheel. Why do you even care if anyone here supports your theories or not?

Go tell the people who matter. Go do something meaningful and stand up for what you believe in.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world."

All this internet crap, all of it, makes the CDCT adherents look like hamsters in a giant wheel.

 

[CHF]

You seem to think that i'm the only one who can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

No offense Chris, but it really doesn't matter whether you or other people "can see that WTC 7 was a CD."

Do engineers see things that way? Do demolition pros? Have they written any papers on the matter?

If not then I'm afraid uneducated opinions are of no value whatsoever.

Most people can see that WTC 7 was, or at least looks like, a CD.

Looks like? Sure didn't take you long to back down, did it?

I think WTC7 looks like a CD. In fact I think most people do. So what?

I also think Gravy looks like Robert Deniro. Does that mean he is? Should we investigate?

 

[Christopher7]

Double strawman. We think that a whole lot of people THINK that 7 WTC was a CD.

A lot of other people THINK debris damage contributed to the collapse in spite of the fact that there is NO evidence to support that belief.

So you're saying that this impression could be wrong ?

No, some people are more certain than others.

I'm sure that's a lie. You "knew" that from the start.

No.

Last August i was debating with Gravy. He insisted i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

I found a conundrum on pg 18.
The 10 story gouge was in conflict with "no heavy debris in the lobby" and "atrium glass was intact".

Since then i have learned from FEMA and NIST reports that:

there is NO evidence of diesel fires in the east half of WTC 7

there is NO evidence of debris damage in the area of the initiating event

there is NO evidence that the debris damage to the south east face of WTC 7 had a significant effect on the area of the initiating event

Just last week i learned that Chief Fellini [in charge of operations at WTC 7] was able to negotiate the debris fields, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side.
He would have seen and reported a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to ground.
The 10 story gouge, described on pg 18 and shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32, did not exist.
The damage attributed to this gouge did not happen and the reference to this damage in the Summary is incorrect and misleading.

 

[Gravy]

He would have seen and reported a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to ground.

Thanks for your opinion. And you're afraid to contact Fellini...why?

The 10 story gouge, described on pg 18 and shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32, did not exist.

You're right. It was more like 43 stories, although narrower.

The damage attributed to this gouge did not happen and the reference to this damage in the Summary is incorrect and misleading.

Thanks for your opinion. Anything else, then?

 

[Christopher7]

I have explained why I can accept this interim NIST appendix: It fits the available evidence best.

The available evidence is:

There was no debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event, only office fires.

But I am not closed to receiving new evidence, when and if such becomes available. If it does, I will examine and weigh it. To this point, this explanation is acceptable, and far more likely than CD.

I respect your right to believe that office fires caused a core column to fail, and that caused WTC 7 to implode into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds.

See, I don't have to completely rule CD out in order to accept the more likely and more evidence-supported opinion.

OK

You do realize that all you did was slightly rephrase my last sentence? And that, essentially, you've just agreed with me? Did you mean to?

We agree that many buildings were damaged by falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, some more severely than WTC 7.

Implosion is controlled demolition.

FEMA pg 30

"If the collapse initiated at the transfer trusses, this would explain why
the building imploded."

WCT 7 collapsed from severe structural damaged caused by both debris damage and fires.

There is NO evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse.
[other than starting the fires]

I read the report. I studied the images. I am able to accept the [tentative]conclusion.

It was NOT a [tentative] conclusion.
It is a set of assumptions that "appears possible".

Now, the best question: why are you trying to convince me? Go try to convince them, NIST. Tell them how they got it wrong. With me, you're just spinning in your wheel. Why do you even care if anyone here supports your theories or not?

They are not theories.

They are statements of fact from the FEMA and NIST reports.

Go tell the people who matter. Go do something meaningful and stand up for what you believe in.

Everyone matters.

Devout deniers will ignore the facts but those capable of critical thinking will accept the facts i have listed and realize that:

There is NO evidence for anything other than office fires in the area of the initiating event.