10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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),

subject change:

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?

Suffice it to say that you still believe there is more evidence for DD/F than CD, in your ever so round about way.

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.

In your opinion.

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

Quite

This thread is about the evidence of debris damage and fire in WTC 7, not CD's. [we did get a bit off topic]
There is a thread where we can debate evidence for CD's
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

You say are not disputing that there is no evidence of debris damage having a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.
That is inconsistent with "Even if it is true that there is no evidence.....


FEMA and NIST had two years [+ or -] to gather the basic data for the investigation.

It is doubtful that they missed something major like debris damage to the area of the initiating event.


There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

That is the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Your model had 5 columns. WTC 7 had 14 on the south wall.

It did not show the effect to the end of the south side, much less the other side of the building.

Remember, there were no moment frames from beam to girder, or girder to column in the core framework so you cantilever effect does not apply there.

 

[Belz...]

On the contrary, all buildings that have imploded were CD's.

Then let's have your definition of "implode"; because buildings generally don't explode, either.

Therefore, CD should be considered as a possibility.

We have considered it. And it's been rejected.

NIST says they awarded a contract for blast scenarios so they are finally considering it.

Which doesn't mean you're right, because you don't know their conclusion, yet.

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.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.

1) The center doesn't fall first. You of all people should know this.
2) I told you that this was nonsense, already.
3) Again, seeing as how the collapse initiated, how else would it fall ?
4) You don't expect this from other collapses ??

Not so.
The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

Irrelevant.

Before the first jet engine, the only thing that hat been used to power a plane was a propellor. Does that mean that jet engines are impossible ?

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

Well, the first that comes to mind is implosion caused by the inward pulling of columns due to one of them being damaged by fire...

Absolutely.

Can you site another cause?

Remember, fire and progressive collapse is just a hypothetical.

You say this as though CD wasn't hypothetical.

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.

And real investigators and experts can tell you why: it's nonsense.

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.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.

You are doing the same.

A tu quoque. How cute.

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

Absolutely not. Many things disagree with me and turn out to be correct. But considering the "evidence" that truthers present for a controlled demolition didn't change my mind because your evidence is not convincing. In fact, all it shows is your ignorance of these matters; and even someone similarily ignorant, like me, can apparently learn how you guys are wrong in just a few days.

"Scientists say administration distorts facts

I didn't ask you to show that the Bush administration had distorted scientific facts. I told you I agreed with that assesment. What I'm saying is that this is no proof that they ARE distorting facts about 9/11's events, no more than a thief is guilty of all larcenies.

No evidence of CD is a distortion of the facts.

Right, sure.

Same time was an oversimplification.

If you're trying to make a point I suggest being correct instead of concise.

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

Let me get this straight. According to you, it is impossible for a lesser number of columns to pull a greater amount of columns out of alignment ?

 

[Par]

subject change

It can hardly be considered a subject change if it renders your entire argument academic.

I see now that you’re saying that if there is no evidence for X, then necessarily ¬X. That’s the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Saying “even if Y is true…” does not amount to disputing Y. It merely remains neutral to its truth or falsity.

There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event.

That is the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

And how many assumptions does that make and how many hypothetical entities does it postulate? How about a controlled demolition?

Anyway, you seem to be of the opinion that the most parsimonious explanation being considered the most rational is merely a matter of opinion. So, we’re unlikely to get anywhere.

 

[Par]

Par... 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.

You know, I’m starting to think you’re right.

 

[Christopher7]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

Then let's have your definition of "implode"; because buildings generally don't explode, either.

Grandma Loizeaux was the first to use the term 'implode' to describe what CDI does to buildings. It has become synonymous with CD's that cause a building to collapse in on itself.
NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 was an implosion.

We have considered it. And it's been rejected.

I have listed 55 experts who say otherwise.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

Which doesn't mean you're right, because you don't know their conclusion, yet.

I read somewhere that the analysis is limited to the 8th thru the 46th floors. I'll try to find the article and post it.

1) The center doesn't fall first. You of all people should know this.
2) I told you that this was nonsense, already.
3) Again, seeing as how the collapse initiated, how else would it fall ?
4) You don't expect this from other collapses ??

1) The center does fall first.
The east penthouse, then the screenwall and west penthouse, then the exterior walls.

2) The screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell in about 7 seconds.

3) The failure of one column would not cause a global collapse. IMO
NIST has suggested this as a possibility but they could only say that it "appears possible".

4) No.
Do you know of a collapse with a dust cloud like the one WTC 7 created that wasn't a CD?

Irrelevant.

We disagree

Before the first jet engine, the only thing that hat been used to power a plane was a propellor. Does that mean that jet engines are impossible ?

Ah yes, another silly simile.

Well, the first that comes to mind is implosion caused by the inward pulling of columns due to one of them being damaged by fire...

That is a hypothesis, not a fact. Implosion by CD is a fact.

You said "many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"

Can you site one or two that have actually been documented or were you making a statement that you can't back up?

You say this as though CD wasn't hypothetical.

Both theories are hypothetical.

And real investigators and experts can tell you why: it's nonsense.

The experts at NIST were not given the option of considering CD.
That task has been contracted out.
There are real experts who say it was a CD.

You've conveniently left out a very important element: explosions.

There were explosions.
I have debated that point on this thread.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320

Absolutely not. Many things disagree with me and turn out to be correct. But considering the "evidence" that truthers present for a controlled demolition didn't change my mind because your evidence is not convincing.

I respect your right to your opinion.

In fact, all it shows is your ignorance of these matters; and even someone similarily ignorant, like me, can apparently learn how you guys are wrong in just a few days.

If you can convince yourself that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall and the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds, then you will remain ignorant.

I didn't ask you to show that the Bush administration had distorted scientific facts. I told you I agreed with that assesment. What I'm saying is that this is no proof that they ARE distorting facts about 9/11's events, no more than a thief is guilty of all larcenies.

What part of 'systematic' don't you understand?
There is reason to believe the reports are a "half baked farce" as Fire Engineering Magazine described the FEMA report.

Insisting that there is no evidence of CD [even though WTC 7 imploded], showing every part of WTC 7 except the south east side, [they have 25 photographs of that area]
and taking nearly six years to complete the report is evidence that the administration is doing what it does with other scientific reports.

The administration has a record of systematically distorting scientific reports to fit their political agenda yet you believe that they did not distort this one.

Let me get this straight. According to you, it is impossible for a lesser number of columns to pull a greater amount of columns out of alignment ?

The weight of the falling debris would cause the floor beams to break away before pulling 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

 

[Christopher7]

It can hardly be considered a subject change if it renders your entire argument academic.

IYO

I see now that you’re saying that if there is no evidence for X, then necessarily ¬X. That’s the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually, you are the one saying that about CD.

I said that office fires are the evidence for DD/F.

Where did you get no evidence?
Is English your first language?

Saying “even if Y is true…” does not amount to disputing Y. It merely remains neutral to its truth or falsity.

You do like to be vague.
You refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
Saying you don't believe something or you are 'neutral', is effectively disputing it.

And how many assumptions does that make and how many hypothetical entities does it postulate?

None

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

This is a statement of fact.
If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

Anyway, you seem to be of the opinion that the most parsimonious explanation being considered the most rational is merely a matter of opinion. So, we’re unlikely to get anywhere.

You got that part right.

 

[tsig]

IYO

Actually, you are the one saying that about CD.

I said that office fires are the evidence for DD/F.

Where did you get no evidence?
Is English your first language?

You do like to be vague.
You refuse to acknowledge that there is no evidence that the debris damage had a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
Saying you don't believe something or you are 'neutral', is effectively disputing it.

None

There is no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

This is a statement of fact.
If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.


You got that part right.

Oh the "initiating event"

Much like when your parents begot you.

 

[Christopher7]

Oh the "initiating event"

Much like when your parents begot you.

Welcome to facts and sarcasm, nice entrance.

It's just like when my parents begot me only entirely different.

The term initiating event is from the NUST report Apx. L, page 30 - 34 [34 - 38 on pg counter]

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

If you have dial up, it takes about 15 - 20 min. to download.
This is a must read if you want to know the facts and/or debate WTC 7.
The final report will be released around the 12th of never.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

I see you’ve taken to describing matters of logical and mathematical necessity and of straightforward relevance as merely those of “my opinion”. It’s as if we’re playing a game of soccer and you just won’t stop picking the ball up and running with it; the rules are only “my opinion,” after all. I would suggest, however, that your theory not sitting comfortably with certain well-established epistemological principles, says rather more about the validity of your theory than it does about the supposed disposability of those principles themselves.

Further, as if these principles weren’t grave enough casualties of your argument, it seems that commonly-understood semantics have perished somewhere along the line as well. One can no longer suppose to remain neutral to the truth of a proposition without necessarily asserting its falsity. A synthetic dichotomy that until now (coincidentally, I’m sure) has been exploited in repeated attempts to draw attention away from the fact that the non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious.

It’s something of a relief, nonetheless, to see you finally acknowledge as much, but that relief is rendered decidedly bittersweet by the fact that as you so swaggeringly admit, you’re more than happy to, apparently without so much as a second thought, simply jettison the principle of parsimony completely.

So, unless you’re prepared to make a concerted effort to heave yourself from the murky swamp of quasi-relativism, you continue to render yourself practically immune to pedagogy. But then again, I suppose that was half the point of you having waded in there in the first place.

• “My car can fly.”
• ---“No it cannot.”
• “Yes it can, it’s got wings.”
• ---“Even if it does have wings, it still couldn’t fly.”
• “It has got wings!”
• ---“Well, even if it has, it still couldn’t fly.”
• “Stop changing the subject! It has got wings! It has got wings!”

PS:

Two further, miscellaneous points:

Perhaps you should study your own post to determine where I got the term “no evidence” from. It’s in there twice – in large, bold lettering. (And you ask me whether English is my first language. Indeed.)

I haven’t said anything about the evidence (or lack thereof) of a controlled demolition.

 

[DGM]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Danny Jowenko is a contributor to "Implosion World" and has never refuted their findings. Any comments?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I see you’ve taken to describing matters of logical and mathematical necessity and of straightforward relevance as merely those of “my opinion”. It’s as if we’re playing a game of soccer and you just won’t stop picking the ball up and running with it; the rules are only “my opinion,” after all. I would suggest, however, that your theory not sitting comfortably with certain well-established epistemological principles, says rather more about the validity of your theory than it does about the supposed disposability of those principles themselves.

Further, as if these principles weren’t grave enough casualties of your argument, it seems that commonly-understood semantics have perished somewhere along the line as well. One can no longer suppose to remain neutral to the truth of a proposition without necessarily asserting its falsity. A synthetic dichotomy that until now (coincidentally, I’m sure) has been exploited in repeated attempts to draw attention away from the fact that the non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious.

As compared to CD.

I haven’t said anything about the evidence (or lack thereof) of a controlled demolition.

Not directly, but saying that CD is a less parsimonious explanation you are effectively saying that there is less evidence for CD.


This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7.

You have avoided the fact 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 WTC 7.

by shifting the debate to "My dog is more parsimonious than your dog."

Par:
"Can you offer an explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 that introduces fewer assumptions.........."

All your doubletalk does not change the fact that the above statement is true.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, post it.


I misinterpreted your x and y statement.
My bad
My apologies

You were using the 'Rumsfield defense'

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

There is no reason to believe that debris damage to the south west facade weakened or put significant stress on columns 79, 80 and 81 [initiating event - first columns to fail]

NB's cantilever effect does not apply to the core framework because there were no moment frames in the core framework.

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Danny Jowenko is a contributor to "Implosion World" and has never refuted their findings. Any comments?

His statement refutes their opinion.

He is an expert, they are not.

It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.

Have they refuted his statement?

 

[Belz...]

Grandma Loizeaux was the first to use the term 'implode' to describe what CDI does to buildings. It has become synonymous with CD's that cause a building to collapse in on itself.
NIST acknowledges that WTC 7 was an implosion.

Well, I guess that means that if my mother thinks that larceny isn't a crime, if YOUR mother steals something she's scot-free.

You're just playing semantics. "Implosion" means it fell into itself, as opposed to an explosion. If NIST thinks it was an implosion and you think that definitely means CD, why haven't THEY considered it ? You're just contradicting yourself, only keeping the conclusions you like.

I have listed 55 experts who say otherwise.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
You have yet to list any who say WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

Of course. Because the interim report is not final, you can say that to your heart's content. The fact of the matter is, your theory has no grounds.

1) The center does fall first.
The east penthouse, then the screenwall and west penthouse, then the exterior walls.

Since when is the east penthouse in the center ?

2) The screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell in about 7 seconds.

Irrelevant. Haven't you been reading what I've said ?

3) The failure of one column would not cause a global collapse. IMO

Exactly, it's an opinion and you keep stating it as a fact.

NIST has suggested this as a possibility but they could only say that it "appears possible".

What's the difference ? They haven't even finished their analysis, yet. But you'd like to think that you know more than all of them.

Do you know of a collapse with a dust cloud like the one WTC 7 created that wasn't a CD?

Well, aside the fact that it's a weirdly-worded question, why would you expect a collapsing building NOT to release a cloud of dust ?

Ah yes, another silly simile.

Why not ? You seem incapable of understanding it when I state it plainly: The fact that something hasn't happened before does not mean it is impossible. If you could show that it is not physically possible, then sure. So far you're just prefering one hypothesis to another, for no reason other than your personal incredulity.

That is a hypothesis, not a fact. Implosion by CD is a fact.

Then I submit that, aside from controlled demolitions, you have never seen a building collapse before 9/11.

Your problem is that you are using the absence of the event pre-9/11 as some sort of proof that it can't happen.

You said "many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"

Can you site one or two that have actually been documented or were you making a statement that you can't back up?

How about earthquakes and meteors ? There. Gosh.

Both theories are hypothetical.

Impossible. You're mixing terms, here.

The experts at NIST were not given the option of considering CD.

Speculation. You have NO IDEA what options they were given.

There are real experts who say it was a CD.

One, actually.

There were explosions.

There was ONE sound that could be interpreted as an explosion. ONE explosive is insufficient to cause the damage you've described.

Of course, then it would beg the question of why someone would decide to send people in a flaming building in order to demolish it.

I respect your right to your opinion.

Nice dodge. I was countering your earlier point about our respective opinions.

I

f you can convince yourself that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall and the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds, then you will remain ignorant.

That's an appeal, not an argument.

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

That is no proof that they altered the facts of the collapses. Again, you're trying to fool me with flawed logic. Good luck.

There is reason to believe the reports are a "half baked farce" as Fire Engineering Magazine described the FEMA report.

Good, good. Do you care to show me those reasons ?

Insisting that there is no evidence of CD [even though WTC 7 imploded], showing every part of WTC 7 except the south east side, [they have 25 photographs of that area]
and taking nearly six years to complete the report is evidence that the administration is doing what it does with other scientific reports.

It is evidence that the report is taking longer than expected, and your reason for that is mere speculation. It could simply be that their budget was reduced because 7 WTC is less important to the issue than 1 and 2 WTC were.

The administration has a record of systematically distorting scientific reports to fit their political agenda yet you believe that they did not distort this one.

In the absence of evidence, I cannot hold that they did. You are arguing from ignorance.

The weight of the falling debris would cause the floor beams to break away before pulling 21 massive interconnected columns sideways.

I'm sorry, I thought that there was "no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event."

Are you retracting that statement ?

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice that you’ve attempted to downplay your logical fallacy by associating my highlighting of it with a sleazy politician and his attempt at weaselling out of his responsibilities. Perhaps if you’re ever to claim that Berlin is in Germany, that smoking is bad for you or that Friedrich Nietzsche was an important philosopher, I can return the favour by pejoratively characterising your statements as “Hitler beliefs”. Put a little more succinctly, you’re employing the guilt by association fallacy.

Regarding evidence, given the sheer quantity and nature of the assumptions made and hypothetical entities postulated by a controlled demolition theory, it carries an inherent burden of extreme improbability. You appear to be labouring under the misconception that controlled demolition theories and their non-conspiratorial counterparts are competing on an even evidential playing field. This is not the case. Even without any direct evidence for any theory at all, as we have seen, a non-conspiratorial explanation is by orders of magnitude more rational.

Due to its burden of extreme improbability, a controlled demolition theory has a tremendous probability deficit that it would need to compensate for before it can even be considered a theory worthy of serious evaluation. This compensation would have to take the form of direct evidence of such compelling quantity and/or quality that the probability of it all being illusory is markedly lower than probability borne by the theory itself.

As I have said, I don’t endeavour to “avoid” your central claim. At this stage I don’t acknowledge it, but I don’t dispute it either. My neutrality to its truth or falsity is multi-causal, but here are the two principal reasons:

• Firstly, given my relative unfamiliarity with the specifics of the subject matter and also my lack of structural engineering expertise, supposing to directly acknowledge or dispute the claim would be rather intellectually inappropriate.
• Secondly, and most importantly, given that its truth value has no bearing on the overarching conclusion concerning the collapse (in other words, given that the question of which explanation is the most rational doesn’t hinge on your claim), a commitment to its truth or falsity is simply unnecessary. Similarly, referring to the analogy in my previous post, a thorough investigation into the wingedness or lack thereof of your car is simply unnecessary in determining whether or not it can fly.

It’s reassuring to see you again acknowledge that non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious. I would add though, that this is the case not merely when they’re compared to controlled demolition theories, but also when they’re compared to all other explanations.

 

[Christopher7]

In the absence of evidence,

Well, I guess that means that if my mother thinks that larceny isn't a crime, if YOUR mother steals something she's scot-free.

You're just playing semantics. "Implosion" means it fell into itself, as opposed to an explosion. If NIST thinks it was an implosion and you think that definitely means CD, why haven't THEY considered it ? You're just contradicting yourself, only keeping the conclusions you like.

NIST knows that WTC 7 imploded, exhibiting all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD.
Weather or not they thought this was 'evidence', it should be considered as a possibility.
There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7,
yet they considered that.

Of course. Because the interim report is not final, you can say that to your heart's content. The fact of the matter is, your theory has no grounds.

It's not my theory.
100 experts have gone on record calling for a new investigation because they don't believe the 'official' explanation.
http://www.ae911truth.org

Since when is the east penthouse in the center ?

How did i know you would say that?
Another argument from nitpickery.
OK
The interior fell first, drawing the exterior walls inward, just like a professional building implosion.

Irrelevant. Haven't you been reading what I've said ?

You say the entire collapse sequence took about 13 seconds, therefore not near freefall.
This is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.
You cannot deny that the screenwall, west penthouse, the north and west exterior walls fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

Exactly, it's an opinion and you keep stating it as a fact.

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

What's the difference ? They haven't even finished their analysis, yet. But you'd like to think that you know more than all of them.

No

Well, aside the fact that it's a weirdly-worded question, why would you expect a collapsing building NOT to release a cloud of dust ?

Buildings that collapse due to fire don't create a huge cloud of dust that spreads out for blocks.
The closest example i know of is the Windsor building.
There was a partial collapse that occurred over a period of an hour, and created no dust cloud.
The dust cloud in a CD is caused by explosions pulverizing concrete and other materials.
A collapse without explosives would not create anywhere near as much dust.

Why not ? You seem incapable of understanding it when I state it plainly: The fact that something hasn't happened before does not mean it is impossible. If you could show that it is not physically possible, then sure.

It is physically impossible for a building, collapsing due to structural failure, to create as much dust as a building that has been destroyed with explosives.

So far you're just prefering one hypothesis to another, for no reason other than your personal incredulity.

incredulity: disbelief
You are doing the same.

Then I submit that, aside from controlled demolitions, you have never seen a building collapse before 9/11.

I've seen burning buildings collapse. No dust cloud.

Your problem is that you are using the absence of the event pre-9/11 as some sort of proof that it can't happen.

The odds that a fire induced collapse could cause a building to implode just like a CD are rather remote.

How about earthquakes and meteors ? There. Gosh.

You said "Many other sources of collapse can cause this exact same effect"
Earthquakes result in a very different effect.

Meteors?
Gosh, why didn't i think of that?

Speculation. You have NO IDEA what options they were given.

Speculation based on the Bush administration 'systematically' distorting scientific documents and the fact that CD in not mentioned in the report.
If the engineers had been allowed to consider CD, they would have stated their reasons for rejecting it.

One, actually

Actually,

Danny Jowenko - controlled demolitions expert
Von Daniele Ganser and Jorg Schneider - Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction
Richard Gaga - architect
William Rice P.E. - civil engineer

So far, 100 experts have stated publicly that they don't believe the 'official' story and are demanding a new investigation.

There was ONE sound that could be interpreted as an explosion. ONE explosive is insufficient to cause the damage you've described.

IYO
Blowing 21 core columns at the same time would produce a sound like clap of thunder.
Craig heard explosions as the building was falling.

Of course, then it would beg the question of why someone would decide to send people in a flaming building in order to demolish it.

There was not enough time to rig for demolition WTC 7 on 911
It was rigged before 911. IMO

That is no proof that they altered the facts of the collapses. Again, you're trying to fool me with flawed logic. Good luck.

The administration systematically distorting scientific documents is clear evidence that any government scientific publication is unreliable.

Good, good. Do you care to show me those reasons ?

I already have.

It is evidence that the report is taking longer than expected, and your reason for that is mere speculation. It could simply be that their budget was reduced because 7 WTC is less important to the issue than 1 and 2 WTC were.

Right $30,000,000 to investigate a blow job and $600,000 to investigate The collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7. [initially]
The implications that this core - perimeter frame design can lead to global collapse in 15 seconds due to the loss of one column is an urgent matter of public safety.
A timely, complete analysis was essential.
It has been nearly six years.
Spring is about to turn to summer and no release date has been announced.

In the absence of evidence, I cannot hold that they did.

The fact that they systematically distort scientific reports, is evidence.

I'm sorry, I thought that there was "no evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event."

Are you retracting that statement ?

No.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I notice that you’ve attempted to downplay your logical fallacy by associating my highlighting of it with a sleazy politician and his attempt at weaselling out of his responsibilities. Perhaps if you’re ever to claim that Berlin is in Germany, that smoking is bad for you or that Friedrich Nietzsche was an important philosopher, I can return the favour by pejoratively characterising your statements as “Hitler beliefs”. Put a little more succinctly, you’re employing the guilt by association fallacy.

Regarding evidence, given the sheer quantity and nature of the assumptions made and hypothetical entities postulated by a controlled demolition theory, it carries an inherent burden of extreme improbability. You appear to be labouring under the misconception that controlled demolition theories and their non-conspiratorial counterparts are competing on an even evidential playing field. This is not the case. Even without any direct evidence for any theory at all, as we have seen, a non-conspiratorial explanation is by orders of magnitude more rational.

Due to its burden of extreme improbability, a controlled demolition theory has a tremendous probability deficit that it would need to compensate for before it can even be considered a theory worthy of serious evaluation. This compensation would have to take the form of direct evidence of such compelling quantity and/or quality that the probability of it all being illusory is markedly lower than probability borne by the theory itself.

As I have said, I don’t endeavour to “avoid” your central claim. At this stage I don’t acknowledge it, but I don’t dispute it either. My neutrality to its truth or falsity is multi-causal, but here are the two principal reasons:

• Firstly, given my relative unfamiliarity with the specifics of the subject matter and also my lack of structural engineering expertise, supposing to directly acknowledge or dispute the claim would be rather intellectually inappropriate.
• Secondly, and most importantly, given that its truth value has no bearing on the overarching conclusion concerning the collapse (in other words, given that the question of which explanation is the most rational doesn’t hinge on your claim), a commitment to its truth or falsity is simply unnecessary. Similarly, referring to the analogy in my previous post, a thorough investigation into the wingedness or lack thereof of your car is simply unnecessary in determining whether or not it can fly.

It’s reassuring to see you again acknowledge that non-conspiratorial explanations are by far and away the most parsimonious. I would add though, that this is the case not merely when they’re compared to controlled demolition theories, but also when they’re compared to all other explanations.

You are still double talking, at length, comparing the two theories.

You cannot dispute nor can you admit that

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area for the initiating event.

 

[Quad4_72]

You are still double talking, at length, comparing the two theories.

You cannot dispute nor can you admit that

There is NO evidence that the debris damage had any significant structural effect on the area for the initiating event.

Does the massive hole in the side and raging fires that produced billowing smoke clouds count? What kind of evidence exactly would satisfy you?

 

[DGM]

His statement refutes their opinion.

He is an expert, they are not.

It is not necessary nor would it be wise for Jowenko to write them and tell them that they are wrong.

Have they refuted his statement?

Implosion world is the experts.This is a very specialized trade. The paper itself refutes his findings. Did you bother to read it? No.Read the credits

 

[respublicus]

Six seconds flat

Are you still wrangling about this?

It's so simple.

THE ONLY WAY THE TOP OF THE BUILDING COULD REACH THE GROUND AT FREE FALL SPEED IS:
IF THE LOWER FLOORS WERE BLASTED OUT OF THE WAY.

That's the whole story, mates.

Takes less than 6 seconds to say and even less than that to understand.

WTC 7 came down in 6 or 7 seconds, the time for a free fall through air.
With nothing standing in the way.
Just like a controlled demolition.
Nothing else could work.