10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

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

How can you see it was a CD without confirming it ??

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.

No matter if they could be misleading ? Why would that be preferable to actually getting the information from the people who were there ?

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

Of course not. This personal reality of yours isn't subject to scrutiny.

 

[CHF]

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.

In other words, you're a coward who has no confidence in his own claims.

I'm shocked - shocked I tell ya!

 

[Architect]

I still don't think he's a chippie, FWIT.

 

[slyjoe]

Being in the US, I wasn't sure what "chippie" was, so I looked it up.

1. Australian, n, carpenter.

Me an me mates are all chippies, we meet up the pub roun lunch time.

2. chippie - Cheap, common, sexually promiscuous girl, wearing way too much makeup and shiny cheap jewelry, usually underage or close to it.

Don't wear that outfit. That miniskirt with the hot-pink lipstick and inch of black eyeliner on your eyes makes you look like a chippie.


Which is better, 1 or 2?

 

[Architect]

Alternatively there is option 3 which is a common, sexually promiscuous carpenter.


The term "chippie" is used within the construction industry in the UK and Ireland to denote a joiner or a carpenter, usually the former.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are we sure he doesn't just work in a shop that sells deep-fried fish?

Dave

 

[Rrramon]

Chris, you've got 634 posts in this thread, and the True Culprits™ of 9/11 are no closer to being prosecuted. How many trips to the gym, pages from a good book, or warm embraces of a woman do you think 634 posts equals?

 

[Slayhamlet]

How can you see it was a CD without confirming it ??

Probably the same way one might see a dog or horse in the outline of a cloud. It's entirely subjective.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

You can't deny this so you doubletalk around it.

You are talking to yourself. You have concluded that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

The experts at NIST don't know what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

How can you be so sure?

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.

I'm not using CD as part of my 'conclusion' that there was no 10 story gouge as described on NIST Apx. L pg 18.

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

Which leads me to my second pont: your use of the word "implode" makes your assertion all but impossible to address.

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

CDI. coined the term implosion to describe what they do to buildings.

The term implosion has become synonymous with controlled demolition when talking about buildings.

FEMA said WTC 7 imploded on pg 30.

 

[Christopher7]

To figure out ONE way to do it.

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

On the contrary, CD is the only thing that has ever made a building collapse that way.

An 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.

He was not pressed for time.
He viewed several videos and the column layout of WTC 7.
He was surprised that he had been lied to.
He had been told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

Watch the whole interview.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jowenko+WTC7+Demolition+interviews

He is an expert and he was absolute in his belief that WTC 7 was a CD.

Jowenko later confirmed his analysis and stated his reasoning in this phone call.

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

"I looked at the drawings of the construction."

That should tell you something.

Yes, it tells me that people who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and debris damage are expressing their opinion.

That opinion is NOT supported by the 144 experts at NIST that Gravy listed.

Because you've missed this one, too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg

That picture shows floors 10 and UP.

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

 

[Rrramon]

Wait--Christopher, at which floor do you believe the damage started?

 

[slingblade]

The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

You can't deny this so you doubletalk around it.

Did you read my post?

I absolutely, 100% agree with you that fire alone has never caused a building to implode, because it's impossible for fire alone to cause a building to implode. I even showed you the basic science to support that.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, CD is the only thing that has ever made a building collapse that way.

Controlled demolitions don't knock out part of a building's support, resulting in said building to topple over partly and damage buildings across the street.

Would you mind explaining the difference ?

He viewed several videos and the column layout of WTC 7.
He was surprised that he had been lied to.

How was he being lied to ? He basically checked out Youtube and said "hey! CD!"

He is an expert and he was absolute in his belief that WTC 7 was a CD.

Even were I to believe that he arrived at this conclusion by analysing the whole set of evidence, which I don't, the fact that he's pretty much the only person in that field to claim this is not very convincing.

Yes, it tells me that people who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and debris damage are expressing their opinion.

It also means that you, continuously quoting them, are ALSO expressing your opinion. Now please tell me why I should favour yours over those of people who know this stuff.

That picture shows floors 10 and UP.

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

Because unless you somehow claim that the hole ended right where the picture ends, the most likely scenario is that this is the same hole that was described, only that the whole thing wasn't visible from the ground.

 

[Christopher7]

Did you read my post?

I absolutely, 100% agree with you that fire alone has never caused a building to implode, because it's impossible for fire alone to cause a building to implode. I even showed you the basic science to support that.

Symantec doubletalk.
You refer to the original definition of implode [atmospheric pressure] and then say it doesn't apply to buildings.

When talking about buildings, 'implode' means a CD that causes a building to collapse in on itself.

The site you listed is about "How Building Implosions Work"

WTC 7 imploded. [in the CD definition of the word]

 

[twinstead]

Symantec doubletalk.
You refer to the original definition of implode [atmospheric pressure] and then say it doesn't apply to buildings.

When talking about buildings, 'implode' means a CD that causes a building to collapse in on itself.

The site you listed is about "How Building Implosions Work"

WTC 7 imploded. [in the CD definition of the word]

And, we disagree with you that only a CD can cause what WTC7 did.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept your word for it? Jowenko's word for it?

Or, should I accept the word of just about every other qualified expert world wide?

Decisions, decisions...

 

[Rrramon]

Christopher, at which floor did the damage start?

 

[Rrramon]

Symantec doubletalk.

Hey hey--espouse any conspiracy you want, but I won't have you besmirch the good name of that company!!

 

[realitybites]

The fact is, fire has never caused a high rise building to implode.

Dude. You saw a picture at the top of this page of what fire can do to steel, correct?

What part of your brain is causing you to believe that, left unchecked (which they were), the fires in WTC7 would not have the same effect?

 

[Christopher7]

Controlled demolitions don't knock out part of a building's support, resulting in said building to topple over partly and damage buildings across the street.

Would you mind explaining the difference ?

WTC 7 did not toppel over. Part of the north facade buckeled out and damaged the building across the street.

The north facade actually fell inward as can be seen in one of the videos.

WTC 7 was nearly 600 feet tall and 140 feet front to back.

There was too much of it to land entirely within it's own footprint.

There was damage to surrounding buildings, but the center of the debris pile was in the center of WTC 7.

How was he being lied to ?

Jowenko:
"I rember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be."

Even were I to believe that he arrived at this conclusion by analysing the whole set of evidence, which I don't, the fact that he's pretty much the only person in that field to claim this is not very convincing.

He looked at the column layout and figured out how it was done. [basically]

In the telephone call, weeks later, he said "I looked ay the drawings of the construction and it coulden't be done by fire."

It also means that you, continuously quoting them, are ALSO expressing your opinion. Now please tell me why I should favour yours over those of people who know this stuff.

Don't favor my opinion, favor Jowenko's opinion.

Or this Archetect

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

 

[Christopher7]

And, we disagree with you that only a CD can cause what WTC7 did.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept your word for it? Jowenko's word for it?

Or, should I accept the word of just about every other qualified expert world wide?

Would you please post the statements of the world wide experts who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.