10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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

Actually, it is the smoking gun that will expose the 'evil doers'.

Do engineers see things that way?

I haven't researched that yet but here is a very qualified person who takes issue with the NIST report on the Trade Towers.

James G. Quintiere Ph.D.
http://www.firescience.com/firescience/resources/authors/quintere.aspx
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf

Do demolition pros?

Danny Jowenko

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

Thank you

If it looks like a CD then it is possible that it was a CD.

Denial of this possibility is just a statement of personal incredulity.

 

[beachnut]

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

Was not the first time steel was made weak by fire and collapsed. Your point? Are you like the concrete chris?

Too bad there were no sounds of CD. Darn. Your concrete core is showing. If you only understood sound.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Get serious. There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.

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

There was no 43 story hole.
There is no evidence of any hole below floor 10 other than the "steel ripped out between the 3rd and 6th floors" that Chief Fellini described.

"The only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the south west corner"
Do the math.

Chief Fellini made his way to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, just east of center.
Perhaps you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge or a 43 story hole.

Any major damage that went from floor 10 [or more] to the ground would have left heavy debris in the lobby area.
There was no heavy debris in the lobby area.

Thanks for your opinion. Anything else, then?

"There was no gouge in the middle of WTC 7, floor 10 to the ground"
is a statement of fact supported by the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports.

You have been misleading people with your double talk and misrepresentations of the facts [like a 43 story hole].

I am pointing out the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports that refute these misrepresentations.

 

[Gravy]

Actually, it is the smoking gun that will expose the 'evil doers'.

You've been quite confident of that for about a year now.

I've got $1,000 for the charity of your choice that says no evildoers are indicted or prosecuted for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, within the next two years. Since you're so sure, you'll have no problem putting up your own grand, right?

 

[Gravy]

Get serious. There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.

You're telling a witness what they should have reported, but you won't speak to that person? That's pure cowardice. How sad. I thought you cared about the truth.

I'll give you another chance: will you contact any firefighter who was either making decisions about WTC 7 or who is quoted as seeing its south side damage? Yes or no?

 

[slingblade]

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.

Well, we disagree, and that's just how it is. We both got a little snippy, but I think we at least managed to have a fairly civil conversation.

So, thanks for that. I'm sure we both wish we could make each other see what seems so obvious to each of us. But, we can't. I think you're adding in stuff that wasn't there, and you think I'm missing stuff that really is.

I guess we'll both just keep on keepin' on.

 

[Christopher7]

Well, we disagree, and that's just how it is. We both got a little snippy, but I think we at least managed to have a fairly civil conversation.

What? me snippy? Please.....

So, thanks for that. I'm sure we both wish we could make each other see what seems so obvious to each of us. But, we can't. I think you're adding in stuff that wasn't there, and you think I'm missing stuff that really is.

I guess we'll both just keep on keepin' on.

It is refreshing to debate with someone who stays on subject.

 

[Christopher7]

You've been quite confident of that for about a year now.

I've got $1,000 for the charity of your choice that says no evildoers are indicted or prosecuted for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, within the next two years. Since you're so sure, you'll have no problem putting up your own grand, right?

Wrong

 

[Dave Rogers]

I haven't researched that yet but here is a very qualified person who takes issue with the NIST report on the Trade Towers.

James G. Quintiere Ph.D.
http://www.firescience.com/firescience/resources/authors/quintere.aspx
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/11_22_2004/QuintiereStatement_112204.pdf

This doesn't support your case in any way whatsoever. Quintiere is arguing that the fireproofing may have been less than NIST state, that the fuel load in the areas of the fires may have been very much greater, and therefore that much less removal of fireproofing would have been required to produce a collapse - almost diametrically opposed to the standard CD-ist stance that the fire couldn't have caused the collapse. He also repeats the mistake that NIST claim that no metal was heated to greater than 250C; in fact, their paint analysis technique was only able to measure temperatures up to 250C because at higher temperatures the paint was entirely removed; this leads him to suggest that floor collapse was the dominant mechanism in WTC2 and possibly WTC1, and he suggests that floor collapse is more likely than NIST suggests. If this is your smoking gun, it's pointing at your foot.

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

You're telling a witness what they should have reported,

Wrong

but you won't speak to that person?

Right

That's pure cowardice.

Wrong

How sad. I thought you cared about the truth.

Right

I'll give you another chance:

What a guy

will you contact any firefighter who was either making decisions about WTC 7 or who is quoted as seeing its south side damage? Yes or no?

No

You are a master of avoiding the facts by repeating the same rediculous question.

No one should be bugging the firefighters. They gave their statements to the proper authorities so we could read them.

The ststements in the NIST and FEMA reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Your failure to respond directly to the subject of this thread [again] will make it clear to all that you're just blowin smoke.

Speaking of smoke, i just got a letter from NIST - FOIA

I can purchase the 25 photos and 2 videos of the south side of WTC 7 for $239.25 with the following conditions:
If the cost of search and duplication is less than the estimate, they will send me a refund.
If the cost is more, i will have to pay the difference.
Charges are assessed weather or not responsive documents are located and weather or not any of these documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Such a deal.

If i don't send them a check within 30 days, my request made on Feb. 6 will be closed.

You said that i could have all the 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos that NIST collected and withheld from the public for 5 1/2 years, for a measly $13,700.

Such is not the case.

The people at NIST - FOIA never heard of such an offer.

Furthermore, the videos and photos of WTC 7 are not available to anyone at any price until the 'investigation' is done.

There is no firm date on when the investigation will be completed.

 

[Gravy]

So, Chris, you say you know better than them, but you refuse to talk to the people who were there, risking their lives. It's hard for me to put into words the contempt I have for that cowardly position.

Chris, can you define "a smoking gun?" We seem to have different ideas about that. Please fill me in, m'kay?

 

[Gravy]

Wrong

That's a lie.

No one should be bugging the firefighters. They gave their statements to the proper authorities so we could read them.

YOU said you can judge better than they. Are you changing that statement or not?

The ststements in the NIST and FEMA reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do. But it's YOUR claim, and you won't speak to the people who were there.

Speaking of smoke, i just got a letter from NIST - FOIA

I can purchase the 25 photos and 2 videos of the south side of WTC 7 for $239.25 with the following conditions:
If the cost of search and duplication is less than the estimate, they will send me a refund.
If the cost is more, i will have to pay the difference.
Charges are assessed weather or not responsive documents are located and weather or not any of these documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

Such a deal.

Are you COMPLAINING? That's the lowest price for a smoking gun in the history of firearms.

You said that i could have all the 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos that NIST collected and withheld from the public for 5 1/2 years, for a measly $13,700.

Such is not the case.

The people at NIST - FOIA never heard of such an offer.

Tell it to Dylan Avery. He made that claim publicly.

So are you going to buy the photos?

 

[Belz...]

"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."

EXCELLENT! Let's see what we have, here:

1- The debris from 1 WTC is what started the 7 WTC fires.
2- Fires can destroy steel frame buildings.

I believe the thread is now over. In fact, I think ALL your threads are over (or are belong to us, depending).

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.

Speculation. You're now arguing from ignorance.

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

Fair enough.

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

Circular reasoning. You're still arguing from ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

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.

You must think that was a very clever retort. You're the only one here who's claiming certainty in these matters.

In fact, you've admitted yourself that the chain of events: debris -> fires -> collapse, was possible.

No, some people are more certain than others.

The more certain, the less credible.

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.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. You "knew" in advance what you wanted to find.

The 10 story gouge was in conflict with "no heavy debris in the lobby" and "atrium glass was intact".

And did you bother to think that, maybe, the hole wasn't in the lobby ?

And what about the huge hole we can see in the pictures ?

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

And are you aware that other types of fires exist ?

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

Which you, yourself, agreed is irrelevant.

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

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

I'd like to hear your alternate hypothesis; and yes, it has everything to do with this thread.

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.

Fascinating. I don't know how you can take the lack of a particular report on the part of one person, and ignoring all the rest, hand-wave the evidence that we have that it DID exist. Hey, look, what's this ?

 

[Belz...]

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

And Gunderscored knows fires can't destroy buildings. No, wait. You said that was wrong. What're you left with, anyway ?

I respect your right to believe that office fires caused a core column to fail,

It seems to me like you're contradicting yourself.

and that caused WTC 7 to implode into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds.

How fast would you expect it to take ?

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

We also agree that they weren't 47-floor high.

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

Yes, and that's precisely what we're saying. IT STARTED THE FIRES.

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

Indeed, debris-induced office fires that brought the building down. Case closed.

There is no need for me to contact Chief Fellini, nor should any of us infringe on his right to privacy.

How terribly convenient.

Perhaps you think he didn't notice a 10 story gouge or a 43 story hole.

How about all that smoke ? Oh, that's right. X-ray vision.

If it looks like a CD then it is possible that it was a CD.

Non sequitur. If I project the hologram of a duck on the moon, is it suddenly possible that there's a giant duck on the moon just because it looks like one ?

 

[Christopher7]

So, Chris, you say you know better than them, but you refuse to talk to the people who were there, risking their lives. It's hard for me to put into words the contempt I have for that cowardly position.

It is impossible and improper to contact the firefighters of 9/11.

Your righteous indignation is a farce.

Chris, can you define "a smoking gun?" We seem to have different ideas about that. Please fill me in, m'kay?

Anyone who has seen a few building implosions on TV can see that WTC 7 was a CD.
I respect your right to believe otherwise.

 

[Christopher7]

YOU said you can judge better than they. Are you changing that statement or not?

My disagreement is with the 3 or 4 firefighters who said WTC 7 was fully involved.

Of course I do.

It's easy to say "i have evidence" and refuse to say what it is.

What evidence or statements do you have to refute the statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that i have listed?

But it's YOUR claim,

It is a statement of fact.

There are 4 statements that clearly refute the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

If you know of any statements to the contrary, please enlighten us.

If you fail to do so, it will be obvious that you were just blowin smoke.

Are you COMPLAINING? That's the lowest price for a smoking gun in the history of firearms.

Excellent point

Tell it to Dylan Avery. He made that claim publicly.

When? where?

So are you going to buy the photos?

Yes, when the investigation is complete.

 

[Gravy]

It is impossible and improper to contact the firefighters of 9/11.

Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis. It's easy to tell them apart from other people because they wear bunker gear and ride on big red trucks with sirens. Some have even written books about their 9/11 experiences. Hundreds and hundreds have given inerviews. What's your excuse?

Your righteous indignation is a farce.

Your claim to be "investigating" anything, and to have posession of a "smoking gun" that will convict the "evil doers" is a childish fantasy.

Anyone who has seen a few building implosions on TV can see that WTC 7 was a CD.

Your opinion, which you express for the umpteenth time, is not supported by any more evidence than the first time you said it. You are behaving like a child.

Edit: Avery made the claim about the photos on a radio show in 2006. Then again, he also claimed to have purchased the WTC blueprints in 2006.

 

[Christopher7]

EXCELLENT! Let's see what we have, here:

1- The debris from 1 WTC is what started the 7 WTC fires.
2- Fires can destroy steel frame buildings.

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO

Speculation.

True

Circular reasoning. You're still arguing from ignorance.

Circular, my foot.
The critical evidence of what caused a high rise building to implode was destroyed.
If core/perimeter frame buildings are subject to global collapse, it is essential to know where the problems are.
This is now impossible.
Destruction of vital evidence, whatever the cause of the collapse, was irresponsible.

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"

There is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2629725#post2629725

 

[twinstead]

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO

And what exactly again qualifies you to make that statement in direct opposition to the majority of structural engineers on Earth?