10 story hole in WTC 7

[Kent1]

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


True

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

Barnett and others who worked on those samples certainlly don't think that. They came up with likely sources of the "hot corrosion" years ago. I would suggest e-mailing Barnett or Erin Sullivan who worked on the samples like I did.

 

[Christopher7]

Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis.

You live in NY, i don't.

It's easy to tell them apart from other people because they wear bunker gear and ride on big red trucks with sirens.

As a devout sarcasimist, i like that one.

Some have even written books about their 9/11 experiences. Hundreds and hundreds have given inerviews.

So what?

Do any of them say there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18?

Your opinion, which you express for the umpteenth time, is not supported by any more evidence than the first time you said it.

False

I recently found out that Chief Fellini made his way thru the debris to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, which means he could see the area where the 10 story gouge would have been if it had existed.

For the umteenth time, the statements i have listed clearly refute the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.

Your failure to post the statements you say you have, that would refute the statements i have listed, shows that you were just blowin smoke again.

Edit: Avery made the claim about the photos on a radio show in 2006. [/quote]
That's a bit vague.
Please provide proof.

 

[Christopher7]

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

What statement is that?

 

[twinstead]

What statement is that?

This one:

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

 

[Christopher7]

Barnett and others who worked on those samples certainlly don't think that. They came up with likely sources of the "hot corrosion" years ago. I would suggest e-mailing Barnett or Erin Sullivan who worked on the samples like I did.

Did they answer your email, if so what did they say?

It's easy to say "i have information but i won't tell you".

 

[Christopher7]

This one:

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

 

[Kent1]

Did they answer your email, if so what did they say?

It's easy to say "i have information but i won't tell you".

I agree its easy for me to make a claim that's why I think you should e-mail him yourself.

However he stated
Gyp wallboard, Likely
Heating oil Likely
Acid Rain

He's also not happy about being misrepresented by the CT'ers

I asked if I could post his reply at one of the major websites and he stated that he'd rather people talk to him directly.

 

[CHF]

Chris,

I asked: "Do engineers see things that way?"

To which you respond:

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

You haven't researched that yet??? I find this amazing.

You claim that WTC7 was an obvious demolition that will bring the evil doers to justice and yet you haven't gotten around to the engineers yet. What on earth are you waiting for, Chris???


As for Danny Jowenko his acknowledgement that he was merely guessing based on video evidence and his lack of interest in the subject since indicates that he's not all that sure of his initial recation. Maybe you should contact him and ask.

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

If your case was based on more than just "looks like" then yes, it would be a real possibility.

Yet when we add in FDNY testimony and a curious lack of charges going off (they make a very loud bang) your demolition theory is left with very little.

 

[twinstead]

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

Dude. The authors and contributors of the NIST report reads like a who's who of eminent structural engineers in the US.

How many times must the list be presented to you?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Lets say every engineer in my office think WTC7 was brought down by fire. That's 12. Only several thousand more to go.

 

[twinstead]

Lets say every engineer in my office think WTC7 was brought down by fire. That's 12. Only several thousand more to go.

You know, that's what pisses me off about Chris. Here he is confronted by the fact that he contradicts the prevailing thought concerning structural engineers world-wide, and even though we know he has been presented in the course of this debate with a detailed list of them, he tries to counter with "the majority of engineers? Well name them" every time it is brought up.

It's like a primer in conspiracy theory argument.

 

[CHF]

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

There's also the ASCE, which backs the NIST WTC tower report. 140,000 engineers are members. The same engineering minds are studying WTC7 and look to be reaching a conclusion far different from that of da twoofers.

So the match-up thus far is: ASCE & NIST vs. the 911 "scholars"

Not exactly UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson, is it Chris?

 

[Civilized Worm]

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

So much for that "smoking gun" then!

 

[LashL]

So much for that "smoking gun" then!

Sadly, every "smoking gun" presented by troofers to date has been one of these:

 

[slingblade]

Lash, that's a soaking gun. Which proves the LC guys are...all wet!


Thank you, I'll be here all week.

 

[LashL]

Lash, that's a soaking gun. Which proves the LC guys are...all wet!


Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Boom, tish

 

[Corsair 115]

You live in NY, i don't.

You have heard of such communication devices as the telephone, the written letter, and e-mail, have you not?

 

[Christopher7]

There's also the ASCE, which backs the NIST WTC tower report. 140,000 engineers are members. The same engineering minds are studying WTC7 and look to be reaching a conclusion far different from that of da twoofers.

So the match-up thus far is: ASCE & NIST vs. the 911 "scholars"

Not exactly UFC 71: Liddell vs. Jackson, is it Chris?

ASCE may represent 140,000 engineers but they did not ask all those people what they thought.

The ASCE went on record supporting the official story on 9-13-01, just two days after the collapse of the Trade Towers.

They could not possibly analyze anything and write a credible report in that time.


The DD/F explanation is still an unproven hypothesis.

At this point in time, no one can justifiably say

"Debris damage and fire caused the collapse of WTC 7."

 

[CHF]

ASCE may represent 140,000 engineers but they did not ask all those people what they thought.

So when do you plan on contacting engineers, Chris? When are you gonna show them your amazing proof and bring a few of them over to your side?

Here's a link with tons of US engineering firms; contact info and all.

[SIZE=-1]www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Now get to work and stop waiting for experts to come to you. What kind of Mickey Mouse truthseeker are you?
[/SIZE]

 

[Christopher7]

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.

A partial collapse due to office fires is possible but the implosion of WTC 7 could not be the result of office fires. IMO

The more certain, the less credible.

IYO

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

Actually, i had no idea what i would find.

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

Yes, so i went thru the report and found on pg 8 & 9 that the lobby was on the south side and extended from the ground to floor 5.

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

NIST has published pictures of every side of WTC 7 except the south east face where the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 was supposed to be.

And are you aware that other types of fires exist ?

That is a stupid question, given that i have talked about office fires.

Which you, yourself, agreed is irrelevant.

No

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

Debris>fires>possible partial, local collapse.

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

I think i have mentioned this before, but in case you missed it:

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7. It is not about CD.

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 ?

Your ability to ignore what you can't deal with is astounding.

There are 4 statements that refute the 10 story gouge statement.

Do you think that this is a picture of a gouge floor 10 to the ground?