10 story hole in WTC 7

[Rrramon]

Christopher, at which floor did the damage start?

I wonder if there is some vBulletin mod that can just ask this question after every post Chris makes.

 

[Christopher7]

I wonder if there is some vBulletin mod that can just ask this question after every post Chris makes.

In this photo, it's impossible to tell.

In any case, the hole is centered on column 5 [Spak#] which is about 50 feet west of center.

 

[Rrramon]

Well, here is a different one:

 

[Christopher7]

Well, here is a different one:

http://judi.kw.nl/uploads/fok/wtc7-sw-corner1.jpg

That is not a picture of

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

There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground' in the middle of WTC 7.

See post #2531 for the facts.

 

[slingblade]

This is as good a time as any to display my handiwork.

 

[Belz...]

Symantec doubletalk.

That's NORTON doubletalk, mister.

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

Good. Then can I expect you will NEVER again claim it fell within its own footprint ?

I rember that they told they've imploded it

Hearsay.

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

Wow. This guy's really good. He looks at a building's layout and figures how it was demolished. Never mind studying the actual collapse evidence.

 

[Pardalis]

See post #2531 for the facts.

You do realize that it's been 2500+ posts and you are still arguing without any knowledge from the full NIST report about the WTC7 collapse.

 

[Belz...]

Pardalis: we all know that the facts will not change in the final report!

 

[Christopher7]

Good. Then can I expect you will NEVER again claim it fell within its own footprint ?

NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

WTC 7 fell straight down, at near freefall, and landed in it's own footprint.

Most people understand and agree with this statement.

Nitpickers will insist on mostly straight down and mostly in it's own footprint.

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.
The north and west exterior walls, the screenwall and the west penthouse fell at near freefall.
The north and west exterior walls were attached to the east and south exterior walls respectively.
The building, other than the area under the east penthouse, fell at near freefall, just like a CD.

Hearsay.

So what?

Wow. This guy's really good. He looks at a building's layout and figures how it was demolished. Never mind studying the actual collapse evidence.

He looked at the same collapse evidence that NIST looked at, the videos.

 

[Christopher7]

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?

Are you seriously comparing a wood frame building to WTC 7?

Those steel 'beams' were about 2" by 6" [the nails sticking out of the wood beam were probably 16d, 3 1/2 " or 20d, 4"]

A better comparison would be the Meridian Plaza which burned out of control for more than 19 hours, and completely consumed 8 floors.
Firefighting efforts were ineffective, because of inadequate water pressure, and were abandoned after 11 hours.

 

[Christopher7]

You do realize that it's been 2500+ posts and you are still arguing without any knowledge from the full NIST report about the WTC7 collapse.

[bolding mine]
Wrong

I am quoting the basic data in the FEMA and NIST reports that will not change in the final report.

i.e.

The location and progression of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

No debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

No 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7.
[See post# 2531]

If there was significant damage to the south east facade of WTC 7, NIST would have put a photograph of that damage, [along with the photographs of every other part of WTC 7] in the progress report.

I applied to NIST FOIA for photographs of the south east side of WTC 7.
[after the collapse of WTC 1]
They told me that they have 25 photographs and 2 videos of that area.


Why don't you wait until the final report comes out before claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F ?

 

[Par]

Why don't you wait until the final report comes out before claiming that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F ?

Incidentally, what was your more parsimonious explanation?

 

[Christopher7]

Incidentally, what was your more parsimonious explanation?

You did not answer the question.

You cannot dispute the facts so you ask that esoteric, bombastic question again.

I have answered all the challenges to the 'no 10 story gouge' statement.

Some here were honest enough to acknowledge that there was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg. 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

Some have acknowledged that there is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Some keep on avoiding the facts by changing the subject.

 

[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?

Who are you talking about?

The 145 experts, that Gravy listed, don't know what caused the collapse of WTC 7.

I have posted one demolitions expert
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jowenko+WTC7+Demolition+interviews

two Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2634672#post2634672

and an Architect
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079

who say WTC 7 was a CD.

Here are 51 Architects and Engineers who are demanding an independent investigation into the collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php


Please post some of the world wide experts that say WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and/or fire.

 

[Christopher7]

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

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

Of course I do.

Please demonstrate that you're not lying.

Post the evidence you say you have.

 

[MortFurd]

That's NORTON doubletalk, mister.

Computer geek jokes.


Made ME chuckle, anyway.

 

[Belz...]

"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

WTC 7 fell straight down, at near freefall, and landed in it's own footprint.

Most people understand and agree with this statement.

I don't know that anyone here does. You said that it fell within its own footprint, and now that I've cornered you you claim that it was always meant to say "mostly" in its footprint ?

That is a dishonest way of debating, but then that's exactly what I've come to expect from you. You keep contradicting yourself and dancing around to take our attention away from that fact.

Nitpickers will insist on mostly straight down and mostly in it's own footprint.

Which makes a world of difference, because otherwise it implies completely straight down and completely in its own footprint.

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.
The north and west exterior walls, the screenwall and the west penthouse fell at near freefall.

"Near" is not freefall. Again, you've lied to advance your cause. Pious fraud, anyone ?

The building, other than the area under the east penthouse, fell at near reefall, just like a CD.

Just like ANY form of collapse, you mean ? If a building does not fall at a rate close to free fall, then you'd expect it NOT to undergo a complete collapse, now would you ?

So what?

SO WHAT ???? I say that the quote is mere hearsay, unsupported by evidence and speculative and you say "so what" ? Is that what you call "research" ?

He looked at the same collapse evidence that NIST looked at, the videos.

Are you sure that was the whole evidence ? Really ? Videos of 7 WTC collapsing ?

 

[Belz...]

Are you seriously comparing a wood frame building to WTC 7?

Coming from a guy who thinks steel is always better than wood in a fire, I think you should've refrained from commenting.

I am quoting the basic data in the FEMA and NIST reports that will not change in the final report.

See, Pardalis ? What did I say he'd answer ?

 

[Christopher7]

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

I don't know that anyone here does. You said that it fell within its own footprint, and now that I've cornered you you claim that it was always meant to say "mostly" in its footprint ?

I've been quoting the NIST statement "mostly within the original footprint" for a long time.

Which makes a world of difference, because otherwise it implies completely straight down and completely in its own footprint.

Most people don't care if it was completely straight down or completely in it's own footprint.
The point is, it imploded and turned into a pile of rubble, just like a CD.

"Near" is not freefall. Again, you've lied to advance your cause. Pious fraud, anyone ?

When did i say "freefall" ?

Just like ANY form of collapse, you mean ? If a building does not fall at a rate close to free fall, then you'd expect it NOT to undergo a complete collapse, now would you ?

Right

The only form of collapse that turns a high rise steel frame building into a pile of rubble in less than 15 seconds, is a very professional building implosion.

SO WHAT ???? I say that the quote is mere hearsay, unsupported by evidence and speculative and you say "so what" ? Is that what you call "research" ?

Bottom line:
Someone told Jowenko that WTC 7 collapsed several days later.
He was shocked to find out it collapsed on 9/11.

Are you sure that was the whole evidence ? Really ? Videos of 7 WTC collapsing ?

He also looked at the drawings of the construction of WTC 7 and stated that it could not be brought down by fire.

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

 

[Par]

You did not answer the question.

You cannot dispute the facts so you ask that esoteric, bombastic question again.

I have answered all the challenges to the 'no 10 story gouge' statement.

Some here were honest enough to acknowledge that there was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg. 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

Some have acknowledged that there is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.

Some keep on avoiding the facts by changing the subject.

I see. But what was your more parsimonious explanation?