10 story hole in WTC 7

[beachnut]

Danny Jerwenko knew immediately that WTC 7 was a CD, he is an expert.
He later reconfirmed his assessment in this phone call.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

He also agrees with me [and many others] that CD experts and structural engineers in this country who say WTC 7 was a CD, will loose their jobs.

The Swiss structural engineers determined WTC 7 was a CD by studying the videos.

William Rice, P. E., is a retired civil engineer and professor at Vermont Technical College.
He says that the Trade Towers and WTC 7 were CD's.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

You asked for experts, you got experts, yet you still can't except the truth.


Before you say goodbye, would you state what your evidence is that there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, or were you lying about that ?

At least you are not alone being wrong.

If we were to vote with all engineers on CD, it would be you with .0067 percent of all engineers.

You have lost by vote. You have to get millions of engineers to get even. Seems there are only a few nut cases and you have found them. How do you do that?

Should have used wood. Fire destroys the strength of steel, learn to live with the truth and ask the truth movement to stop telling lies.

If only you could find some real "experts", the ones in the 9/11 "liars" movement are not very good. So very disrespectful to make up lies about 9/11. Your continued support is sad.

 

[chipmunk stew]

 

[CHF]

The videos are all that is needed to see WTC 7 was a CD.
They are qualified to make the call, you are not.

In other words, qualifications are not needed and yet they are.

Are you gonna contact engineers in Holland, Chris? I didn't catch your answer.

 

[Christopher7]

Your opinion is irrelevant. What do the people with RELEVANT expertise say ?

Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.

Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

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

In essence, you are saying that there was evidence of explosive; but that it was removed. You are now using the fact that it was removed to prove some nefarious intent. In other words you are using your conclusion of a controlled demolition as the very basis of your argument. How is that NOT circular ?

Wrong, I am saying that it cannot be determined weather or not explosives were used on the evidence that no longer exists.
I am also saying that the removal and destruction of most of the evidence was nefarious.
The few surviving pieces need to be analyzed by an independent lab, preferably by a European firm.

If and only if you assume that something was wrong with it. More circular reasoning.

No.

The physical evidence is essential to accurately determine what caused the building to collapse in order to make proper code changes.
[if the cause was fires]

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

No, people here are saying that.

So the evidence WASN'T destroyed ? Make up your mind.

What part of 'most' don't you understand?

You said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I live in Canada and I could talk to them if I wanted to. What's your excuse ?

You are the one advocating that we all call the firefighters and ask them to clarify their statements.
Why don't you call them?

I think it would be an invasion of their right to privacy.

You're conveniently ignoring this:

I have already responded to that.

For the second time:

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

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/15842465996b473b27.jpg

Cool find.
Steel is not always better than wood against fires.
I stand corrected.

 

[Architect]

Cool find.
Steel is not always better than wood against fires.
I stand corrected.

Chris,

Frankly, I'm puzzled and concerned about this response.

Firstly, the matter was raised - and explained to you - something like a week ago, during which time you have been posting frequently. I am therefore worried that you're not really taking in the points put to you at the time.

Secondly, this is a fairly well know fact within the entire construction industry, and you purport to be a chippie. Now unless by "carpenter" you actually mean a cabinet maker, I just don't see how such a basic point has escaped you.

Thirdly, in this thread you are purporting to address issues about the damage to the building and, inter alia, the performance of building facbric during a fire. How can you adopt an informed position if, as this post suggests, you're unclear about the technical issues involved?

Finally, let me skip back a post or two.

You have challenged us to find you experts on imploding buildings, or demonstrated examples of steel buildings which have imploded.

I'm sure that even you can see the logical problems with such an argument.

911 was an extraordinary event. Never before had two buildings such as WTC1 and 2 been hit by high speed airliners and suffered such catastrophic damage. Never before had another tall building been struck by such substantial falling debris as WTC1 and 2. Given what we know of the convoluted structure of WTC7, there is every reason to believe that it has a unique structural design. And so on.

Now we may not be able to get an "expert" in all these things, because no such person exists. But we can get experts in structural engineering, fire performance, architecture, and so on. These people can analyse a structural model (something you've been unable to do), understand the performance of buildings in a fire (ditto), and come to a decision based on the evidence before them rather than wild speculation (ditto, again).

So tell me why I should prefer your unsubstantiated opinion to their own?

 

[Belz...]

Danny Jerwenko knew immediately that WTC 7 was a CD, he is an expert.

From watching a video.

 

[Belz...]

Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Oh, no. Please, by all means, answer my question.

Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

Irrelevant. Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.

Wrong, I am saying that it cannot be determined weather or not explosives were used on the evidence that no longer exists.

You're also saying that videos are all you need to know it was a CD. So which is it ?

I am also saying that the removal and destruction of most of the evidence was nefarious.

Speculation.

The few surviving pieces need to be analyzed by an independent lab, preferably by a European firm.

And if they determine that explosives were NOT used, will you claim they are also in on the plot ?

No.

The physical evidence is essential to accurately determine what caused the building to collapse in order to make proper code changes.
[if the cause was fires]

Chris, what you are saying is that the physical evidence could prove if it was a CD, but ALSO that the removal of the evidence proves your point. How do you call that form of reasoning ?

No, people here are saying that.

Ah! So, are you saying there ARE traces of explosives ?

What part of 'most' don't you understand?

If it's only "most" then you should be able to get it analysed. So what are you complaining about ?

You are the one advocating that we all call the firefighters and ask them to clarify their statements.

Nope. I never did that.

Why don't you call them?

Because I don't question their statements and expertise.

I think it would be an invasion of their right to privacy.

Calling them AT WORK would be an invasion of privacy while trying to uncover the real "truth" to the death of 3000 people ?

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

Yep. It ALSO extends to the 47th floor, as you can see.

Is there anything else ?

 

[CHF]

Chris, why don't you contact experts in Holland?

We've already established that Bush's death squads can't reach them. So why would you not seek to add more names to your list of Dutch experts?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,

So tell me why I should prefer your unsubstantiated opinion to their own?

I'm not asking you to take my word for anything.

I'm just asking you to look at the statements from the NIST and FEMA reports i have listed about the
'10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Do you still think there was a '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18 ?

If so, what evidence do you have to support that belief ?

 

[Christopher7]

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

"... the atrium glass was still intact"

FEMA Report pg 20

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner."

Oral Histories, NY Times: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."



NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

 

[Christopher7]

From watching a video.

Yes

Then, after watching a another video [CBS] and seeing the a NIST graphic of where the perimeter and core columns were, it took him about 10 seconds to figure out how to do it.

The precise details are very complicated but the basic plan is dirt simple.

You blow all the core columns and the building implodes.

 

[Christopher7]

Oh, no. Please, by all means, answer my question.

The people with relevant expertise say

they don't know what caused the collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Yep. It ALSO extends to the 47th floor, as you can see.

Is there anything else ?

You can't see the bottom 25 stories in that photograph.

How can you say there's a gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, by looking at that photograph?

 

[CHF]

Chris, this very second there are hundreds of Dutch engineers just waiting for you to show them your amazing WTC7 proof. Bush's secret Engineer-killing squads are nowhere to be found.

This is your chance to be a hero. You gonna let it pass?

 

[Christopher7]

In other words, qualifications are not needed and yet they are.

Qualification are not needed to see that it is a CD, but they are needed to confirm that it was a CD.

Are you gonna contact engineers in Holland, Chris? I didn't catch your answer.

You guys are really big on telling me to call people.

If you think calling people is necessary, then call.

I'm going to find statements that have been made by relevant people by searching the web.

If this doesn't meet with you approval, no worries.


BTW Here's a Architect that designs steel frame buildings.
Listen to what he has to say.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

 

[slingblade]

Please name the experts who say fire can cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did.

Fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

First, Chris, you're begging the question here. That expression means your conclusion is implicit in your premises. You can't use your conclusion to prove your conclusion. That's a fallacious way to present an argument.

You haven't yet proven that WTC 7 was wired for a controlled demolition which was then implemented. You are asserting that's what happened, yes. But you can't use your conclusion as one of your assertions. Argument doesn't work that way.

Which leads me to my second pont: your use of the word "implode" makes your assertion all but impossible to address. I'll tell you why:

Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

An explosion is just the opposite, and is also about pressure. You know, it doesn't take any explosives to make an explosion. All it takes is a sufficient change in the internal/external pressure ratio. When you fill a balloon too full of air, it explodes.

Only a sufficient change in pressure could make a building truly implode.

However, implosion's effects can be replicated by the judicious, skilled placement of explosives.

Controlled demolitions experts have only borrowed the term "implosion" for what they do. Their work mimics the effects of an actual implosion.


So. I absolutely agree that a fire in a non-pressurized structure can't make it implode. That's because nothing can make a non-pressurized structure implode. Your assertion can't be addressed, because it's obviously true, but it isn't what you mean to assert.

You need to rephrase your argument, so that each assertion provides support for your conclusion, without using your conclusion as an assertion.

 

[Rrramon]

Chris, this very second there are hundreds of Dutch engineers just waiting for you to show them your amazing WTC7 proof. Bush's secret Engineer-killing squads are nowhere to be found.

This is your chance to be a hero. You gonna let it pass?

This is one of my favorite things to say to the truthers who have infested various other forums I go to. If the flaw you've discovered is so simple and obvious, start emailing experts at random with your discovery and post their responses for the rest of us to read.

People like this subconsciously know they are full of s--- and are doing what they do solely out of a need for attention.

 

[Architect]

Chris, why don't you contact experts in Holland?

We've already established that Bush's death squads can't reach them. So why would you not seek to add more names to your list of Dutch experts?

Why restrict yourself to Holland? Is there a problem with the rest of the Netherlands?

 

[Belz...]

Then, after watching a another video [CBS] and seeing the a NIST graphic of where the perimeter and core columns were, it took him about 10 seconds to figure out how to do it.

To figure out ONE way to do it.

Of course, a controlled demolition wouldn't collapse the building in that way.

And of course, making up one's mind without studying the evidence in 10 seconds is an indication that Jowenko was either pressed for time or wasn't interested in studying the phenomenon.

The precise details are very complicated but the basic plan is dirt simple.

You blow all the core columns and the building implodes.

"God clapped his hands" explains the universe, too. But it doesn't mean it happened that way.

The people with relevant expertise say

they don't know what caused the collapse.

That should tell you something.

You can't see the bottom 25 stories in that photograph.

How can you say there's a gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, by looking at that photograph?

Because you've missed this one, too: