10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

I see. But what was your more parsimonious explanation?

 

[Belz...]

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

Good. Then stop saying it was within the footprint.

Most people don't care if it was completely straight down or completely in it's own footprint.

Argument from popularity. I don't give a rat's right eye what most people care. There is a world of difference between completely and mostly.

The point is, it imploded and turned into a pile of rubble, just like a CD.

And just like ANY collapse.

When did i say "freefall" ?

Right here.

Truth foggers will say the entire collapse sequence took 13 seconds and is therefore not freefall.

Implying that you do believe it was in freefall.

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.

That is ridiculous. Read the following very slowly:

The only way that the collapse could take significantly less time is if there was significantly more resistant from the "intact" floors below. Now, if this happened, the thing wouldn't collapse completely, would it ? So if it DOES collapse completely, it pretty much HAS to do it very quickly.

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

That's because he wasn't keeping up. I learned about it a few minutes after it happened.

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

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?

 

[twinstead]

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?

And not just NIST and you, but just about every OTHER demolition expert and structural engineer on Earth.

I think it is a dangerous thing to hang so much on to one expert's opinion when it flies in the face of the consensus of his peers without some serious explanation by that expert.

Chris, the fact that you take Jowenko's word as gospel without even hearing any detailed explanation from him concerning WHY he parts ways with his colleagues on the issue is poor investigation and very telling indeed--and just about par for the CT course.

IMO it's simply because you agree with him.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.


[qimg]http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2800/meridian5lo2.png[/qimg]

How many floors were above the one shown?

 

[slyjoe]

...

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.

Did you read what the structural engineer on the scene had to say about the damage this fire caused? Since you don't seem to want to do any research, here's the quote (bolding mine):

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

 

[Par]

Two smilies? Your attempts at distraction appear to be growing more despondent by the day. You must be utterly desperate to avoid answering an extremely succinct and straightforward question. Again, I simply cannot imagine why that might be.

To summarise our interlocution so far:

• You claimed that the idea that World Trade Center 7 collapsed as a result of fire, debris damage or a combination of those factors isn’t supported by any evidence.
• I stated that – even if you were right – fire and/or debris damage is still the most parsimonious explanation for the collapse; I then (repeatedly) asked you if you agreed.
• After numerous and blatant attempts to avoid the question through distraction, you eventually answered by saying that, no, you didn’t think that fire and/or debris damage was the most parsimonious explanation.
• I then (repeatedly) asked you for a more parsimonious explanation.
• So far, you have made numerous and blatant attempts to avoid the question.

So, Christopher7, the question still stands: What is a more parsimonious explanation?

 

[Christopher7]

Good. Then stop saying it was within the footprint.

OK

Argument from popularity. I don't give a rat's right eye what most people care. There is a world of difference between completely and mostly.

Argument from nitpickery.

And just like ANY collapse.

Your answer indicates that there has been a total collapse of a high rise building other than a CD.
Such is not the case.

Right here.

Ya got me.
I was making a point about nitpickery.
I will hereinafter say that WTC 7 landed mostly in it's own footprint.

Implying that you do believe it was in freefall.

Near freefall, just like a CD.

That is ridiculous.

Wrong
That's a fact!

Read the following very slowly:

The only way that the collapse could take significantly less time is if there was significantly more resistant from the "intact" floors below. Now, if this happened, the thing wouldn't collapse completely, would it ? So if it DOES collapse completely, it pretty much HAS to do it very quickly.

Right
There was virtually no resistance from the floors below because all the core columns failed.
The only thing that has ever caused this to happen is a CD.

Therefore a real investigation would consider this possibility.

The executive decision not to consider this possibility is clear evidence of interference by 'higher ups'.

Perhaps you naively think that the Bush administration doesn't interfere with scientific reports.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has testified in congressional hearings that the Bush administration has repeatedly altered scientific reports to fit their political agenda.

That's because he wasn't keeping up. I learned about it a few minutes after it happened.

So what?
The fact is, he was told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

NIST disagrees with him. And so do I. If it COULDN'T have been brought down by fire, then there'd be no point in protecting steel from fires in buildings, would it ?

A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

Perhaps you believe that the weight of falling debris on to the floors below could pull the other 21 core columns sideways.
That's bloody ridiculous.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Argument from nitpickery.

I like that. Mind if I borrow it on occasion?

 

[twinstead]

OK

A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

Perhaps you believe that the weight of falling debris on to the floors below could pull the other 21 core columns sideways.
That's bloody ridiculous.

What is your opinion as to why so many people, and so many experts, disagree with you about this?

 

[Belz...]

Argument from nitpickery.

That doesn't even exist.

Your answer indicates that there has been a total collapse of a high rise building other than a CD.

That's because you're reading wrong and adding words to my sentence. Don't do that.

What I'm saying, is that ALL global collapses implode buildings into piles of rubble. So saying that it imploded into a pile of rubble doesn't say anything about CD.

Near freefall, just like a CD.

Again, that's completely ludicrous. You're completely ignoring the fact that many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect, just because it so happens that a controlled demolition is part of this group.

Wrong
That's a fact!

Is it, now ? So you're saying that NOTHING short of a controlled demolition can possibly demolish a building in this way ? Really ?

There was virtually no resistance from the floors below because all the core columns failed.

That's a given. If it hadn't, there wouldn't be a global collapse, which was my whole point.

Therefore a real investigation would consider this possibility.

You see, if I were the one making this point, this last sentence would lead me to think the following:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, they ruled it out."

But, no. You think this:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, the investigation was a sham."

Basically, you're arguing from your own subjective point of view. Your argument has this form:

_I_ Think this, therefore anybody who disagrees is wrong.

Perhaps you naively think that the Bush administration doesn't interfere with scientific reports.

Perhaps I naively think that you should provide evidence that they did before jumping to that conclusion.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has testified in congressional hearings that the Bush administration has repeatedly altered scientific reports to fit their political agenda.

That is very true. But the fact that someone's a thief doesn't mean he stole my pen just because it's missing.

So what?
The fact is, he was told that WTC 7 collapsed days later.

Your point being ?

A fire could possibly cause a partial collapse, but could not cause all the support columns to fail at the same time.

The fire didn't cause all the support columns to fail at the same time. That's why the collapse began at a specific point of the building's inner structure and pulled the rest along. Weren't you watching when the thing fell ?

 

[Christopher7]

And not just NIST and you, but just about every OTHER demolition expert and structural engineer on Earth.

Overstate much?

Please post the statements of these experts who say that WTC 7 was defiantly not a CD.

The 145 experts that contributed to the NIST report may or may not rule out CD as a possible cause.
So don't assume you know what they believe.

I think it is a dangerous thing to hang so much on to one expert's opinion when it flies in the face of the consensus of his peers without some serious explanation by that expert.

I addition to this CD expert, i have posted two structural analysis experts and an architect who say WTC 7 was a CD.

I also posted a list of 51 experts who are demanding an independent investigation because they don't believe WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

You have not posted any statements by experts who say WTC 7 was not a CD.

Chris, the fact that you take Jowenko's word as gospel without even hearing any detailed explanation from him concerning WHY he parts ways with his colleagues on the issue is poor investigation and very telling indeed--and just about par for the CT course.

IMO it's simply because you agree with him.

In the video and the phone call he states why he is absolutely certain that WTC 7 was a CD. He also says, and i agree with him, that any CD expert in this country who goes against the official story will probably loose their job.

 

[Christopher7]

I like that. Mind if I borrow it on occasion?

Go for it.

 

[Christopher7]

Two smilies? Your attempts at distraction appear to be growing more despondent by the day.

Look who's talking.

You must be utterly desperate to avoid answering an extremely succinct and straightforward question. Again, I simply cannot imagine why that might be.

Please

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

Weather or not this is parsimonious is of no consequence and your repeated asking is just bombastic obfuscation.

So, Christopher7, the question still stands: What is a more parsimonious explanation?

I offer none because i think this is a silly diversion.

You don't believe a freakin word i say so why are you asking me for my opinion?
to avoid the point perhaps?

[revised version]

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

Did you read what the structural engineer on the scene had to say about the damage this fire caused? Since you don't seem to want to do any research, here's the quote (bolding mine):

They thought the building might collapse.

They did the prudent thing and got their people out of there.

The building did not collapse.


The Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.
There is no mention in any of the Chiefs statements that they consulted a structural engineer. [to my knowledge]



http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on the pg counter]

"After the fire there was significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures and fishers developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

 

[Belz...]

There is no evidence that debris damage contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse

There is no evidence that gravity contributed to the collapse, either, by your method.


Come on, Chris, I'm sure you can answer my other points.

 

[Par]

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

OK, Chritsopher7, perhaps we really have simply been misunderstanding each other all this time. “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence”. I’d hoped I’d been clear on this, but your claim is not something I am disputing.

Here is my revised question:

Even if it is true that there is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (which, remember, is not something I am disputing), can you offer an explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 that introduces fewer assumptions and postulates fewer hypothetical entities (in other words, an explanation that is more parsimonious) than explaining it in terms of fire and/or debris damage?

Now, unless you can offer such an explanation, (which would seem to be impossible given that the number of assumptions made and the number of hypothetical entities postulated within the fire/debris explanation is ZERO (or perhaps ONE very strictly speaking) and that this number would be drastically higher for every other explanation) your point won’t have any significant affect on a rational person’s broader conclusions about 9/11. It may well serve as an interesting fact about how NIST, in at least one instance, have relied on an assumption or an inference to the best explanation rather than any direct physical evidence, but nothing more. Even without any such evidence, the conclusion that the building collapsed due to fire/debris is still by far and away the most parsimonious and, as a result, the most rational.

I hope I have managed to make myself a little clearer.

 

[Christopher7]

That's because you're reading wrong and adding words to my sentence. Don't do that.

What I'm saying, is that ALL global collapses implode buildings into piles of rubble. So saying that it imploded into a pile of rubble doesn't say anything about CD.

On the contrary, all buildings that have imploded were CD's.
Therefore, CD should be considered as a possibility.
NIST says they awarded a contract for blast scenarios so they are finally considering it.
They also say that there is no evidence of CD in spite of the fact that WTC 7 imploded and has all the characteristics of a CD.

1) The center falls first, pulling the outer walls inward
2) Collapse at near freefall
[screenwall, east penthouse, north and west walls]
3) Virtually straight down collapse
[center of debris pile in center of building]
4) dust cloud of pulverized concrete and other materials.

Again, that's completely ludicrous. You're completely ignoring the fact that many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect, just because it so happens that a controlled demolition is part of this group.

Not so.
The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.
A building implosion is a very specialized CD that only a few demolition companies can do.

Building implosions are easy to recognize because of their unique nature.

Perhaps you could tell us what some of the many other causes of implosion are and how would work.

Is it, now ? So you're saying that NOTHING short of a controlled demolition can possibly demolish a building in this way ? Really ?

Absolutely.

Can you site another cause?

Remember, fire and progressive collapse is just a hypothetical.

That's a given. If it hadn't, there wouldn't be a global collapse, which was my whole point.

You see, if I were the one making this point, this last sentence would lead me to think the following:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, they ruled it out."

But, no. You think this:

"Wait a minute. These guys are professionals. They know this stuff. Obviously they would've considered this possibility. Ergo, the investigation was a sham."

The decision not to consider CD was made by management before the investigation began. There is no mention of CD in the preliminary report. It was not considered.

NIST Final 4-5-05
NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition.

That statement is blatantly false.

WTC 7 exhibits all the characteristics of a CD.

Basically, you're arguing from your own subjective point of view. Your argument has this form:

_I_ Think this, therefore anybody who disagrees is wrong.

You are doing the same.
When you stop and think about it, that is always the case when someone believes something.
That's a rather silly, non statement.

Perhaps I naively think that you should provide evidence that they did before jumping to that conclusion.

"Scientists say administration distorts facts

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific facts in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biochemical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A00E2DD133DF93AA25751C0A9629C8B63

The Bush administration has editorial control of all scientific publications.
They systematically distort scientific facts.

No evidence of CD is a distortion of the facts.

The fire didn't cause all the support columns to fail at the same time. That's why the collapse began at a specific point of the building's inner structure and pulled the rest along. Weren't you watching when the thing fell ?

Same time was an oversimplification.
As can be seen in the CBS video, columns 79, 80 and 81 collapsed simultaneously, or very near simultaneously.
The other 21 core columns failed near simultaneously about 6 seconds later.

The falling debris hitting floors 5 thru 7 supposedly pulled 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

According to this scientific formula, that is not possible.

21>3

 

[Newtons Bit]

Par, I've actually posted structural models showing how column damage can affect a large area. He discounts these as not relevant because he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of engineering. He's never going to change his mind. He believes there had to be CD because he believes there was no damage. CD is his life. He's not going to change because of pesky facts.

 

[Christopher7]

Par, I've actually posted structural models showing how column damage can affect a large area. He discounts these as not relevant because he doesn't understand the basic mechanics of engineering. He's never going to change his mind. He believes there had to be CD because he believes there was no damage. CD is his life. He's not going to change because of pesky facts.

What facts?
Your model only showed the principle of how weight could be transferred thru a perimeter moment frame.

By your own admission, it's not evidence of what happened in WTC 7.

Further, it does not apply to the transfer of loads to the core columns, or how any load could be transferred to the far end of the core framing.

NB post #2103
"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage."

Hogwash

Your model shows that load decreasing dramatically only a couple columns away.

Of course, you can make the columns weaker and the moment frames stronger until you get the results you want, but it will not be anything like the actual conditions, which you admit you don't know.

It's just sophistry.

You did not demonstrate how debris damage to the south west perimeter frame could effect, mush less weaken, the columns in the area of the initiating event.

You are long on arrogance and insults, short on evidence to refute this statement:

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7

 

[Newtons Bit]

NB post #2103
"If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upward load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage."

Hogwash

Your model shows that load decreasing dramatically only a couple columns away.

Of course, you can make the columns weaker and the moment frames stronger until you get the results you want, but it will not be anything like the actual conditions, which you admit you don't know.

This is the part that is fun. I provided two models, one which showed the force transfering to the other side of the building and one that didn't (based upon beam and column stiffness). He automatically assumes the one that didn't transfer forces is right and the one that did was manipulation. This is what you face in dealing with Christopher7. Semantics, quote mining and selective interpratation.