10 story hole in WTC 7

[LashL]

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.

Damn, too bad that it took more than twice as long as that, then.


Gotta hate when that happens.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Richard Gaga - architect

I know it's bad form to nitpick typos, but this one was just too apt.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

NIST knows that WTC 7 imploded, exhibiting all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD.

Yeah, when you fall down stairs, you exhibit all the easily recognizable characteristics of a beating.

Weather or not they thought this was 'evidence', it should be considered as a possibility.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you assume that your impressions are correct. Perhaps, to real experts in this field, 7 WTC does NOT exhibit all the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD. Did you ever think of that ? Or are you so enamoured by your own theory as to be unable to doubt yourself ?

There is NO evidence of diesel fuel fires in the east half of WTC 7,
yet they considered that.

Because there were huge amounts of diesel in the building. 7 WTC was not know to have explosives in it.

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

Yeah. They're asking congress for an independent investigation. Not the smartest of people.

How did i know you would say that?

Probably because you knew you were wrong by saying it in the first place.

Another argument from nitpickery.

Well, I'm sorry if being precise isn't important to you.

The interior fell first, drawing the exterior walls inward, just like a professional building implosion.

Which is utter nonsense. The building fell all over the street and to the other side, damaging nearby buildings severely. That is NOT one of the easily recognizable characteristics of a CD. In fact, if you were one of the badguys and made a building fall, wouldn't you try to NOT make it look like a CD ?

You say the entire collapse sequence took about 13 seconds, therefore not near freefall.

A flat-out lie. I never said anything about 13 seconds. You just made that up.

This is a deliberate obfuscation of the facts.

On your part, yes.

The fact is that a good portion of the building fell BEFORE the whole thing comes down. This ALSO is part of the collapse yet twoofers usually leave that part out. How is that NOT obfuscating the facts ??

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

That's what I said. It's good that you decided to say "IMO" that time, but before that you were asserting it as a fact.

No

Good. Then let them do their job and wait for the final report before making up your mind.

Buildings that collapse due to fire don't create a huge cloud of dust that spreads out for blocks.

Buildings that collapse due to fire aren't usually 47 storey high.

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.

Yeah.

The dust cloud in a CD is caused by explosions pulverizing concrete and other materials.

Then it's amazing the dust cloud isn't visible before and during the building's collapse, isn't it ?

A collapse without explosives would not create anywhere near as much dust.

You've never seen such a tall building collapse; and all major demolitions empty a building before setting off the charges. So wouldn't you expect more dust from a full office building ?

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.

Show your math and expertise or otherwise support this assertion.

incredulity: disbelief
You are doing the same.

Nope. Experience tells us it would take months to rig 7 WTC for demolition if they could do it in the open and without interruption. This would not be possible in a staffed building. They couldn't possibly do it in a few hours.

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

You're not following this. You asked for a source of collapse that could cause this exact same effect. Not a source of collapse that HAS caused this effect. When's the last time a building collapsed completely because of an earthquake. It's forseeable, however.

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

You don't think a small meteor could demolish a building ?

Speculation based on the Bush administration 'systematically' distorting scientific documents and the fact that CD in not mentioned in the report.

"Systematically" doesn't mean "always", Chris. You're not using evidence in this case to determine if they've distorted this one. You're only using past behaviour and presumption.

If the engineers had been allowed to consider CD, they would have stated their reasons for rejecting it.

You're saying they would have rejected it ?

Blowing 21 core columns at the same time would produce a sound like clap of thunder.

Assuming you want to blow them all simultaneously. Of course, if you did, 7 WTC would not have collapsed the way it did.

Craig heard explosions as the building was falling.

That's just dandy, because they don't blow up buildings as they are falling.

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

That's already more believable, but how did they manage to do this without anyone noticing the steel drilling sounds ?

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

Even were that true, it doesn't mean that any government scientific publication is false.

I already have.

I'm sure you can reiterate them.

Right $30,000,000 to investigate a blow job and $600,000 to investigate The collapse of the Trade Towers and WTC 7. [initially]

Nice recovery with the "[initially]".

Why don't you give us the full amounts for both, instead ?

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.

Sure. A 110-storey building fell on it. That's not about to happen anytime soon.

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

Interesting.

 

[Belz...]

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.

No, it's not, because it's false.

 

[Belz...]

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 ?

No.

You've just said that debris would prevent the sideways forces from being a factor. If there were no debris in the area of the initiating event, how is this possible ?

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

In your previous post, you made inaccurate claims concerning my position on evidence, controlled demolition theory and their respective relationships with the principle of parsimony. So, it seems decidedly unreasonable of you to have criticised me for having taken some time to explain those relationships.

Further to that, you’ve repeatedly accused me of making use of doublespeak. Given how painfully precise I’ve been about everything from my arguments to my reasons for my neutrality to your central claim, my initial reaction was to wonder just what your definition of the term might be.

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.

You’re quite right. I cannot. Nor, due to reasons given in my previous post, would it be appropriate for me to do so. Thankfully though, also due to reasons given in my previous posts, there is simply no need for me (or anyone else, for that matter) to do so in order to legitimately conclude that non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse are still by far and away the most rational.

 

[Christopher7]

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

There was NO 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.
[see following post]

The large hole around the 14th floor and the billowing smoke screen were no where near the area of the initiating event that started the collapse of WTC 7.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

There were only office fires on several floors.

 

[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 [ground to floor 5] 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: 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]

I know it's bad form to nitpick typos, but this one was just too apt.

Dave

Oops

 

[Christopher7]

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

Protec does structural inspections, vibration prediction and monitoring, and video documentation.

They don't plan or carry out controlled demolitions.
They are very knowledgeable but they are not demolitions experts.

Danny Jerwenko owns a demolition company.
He is an expert.

 

[Christopher7]

The fact is that a good portion of the building fell BEFORE the whole thing comes down. This ALSO is part of the collapse yet twoofers usually leave that part out. How is that NOT obfuscating the facts ??

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is 6 seconds.

 

[Belz...]

There was NO 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

No, you're right. There was NO exactly 10-storey gouge exactly in the MIDDLE of 7 WTC.

Was that the entire point of your thread ? Then you should've made your initial claim accordingly. Obviously, any such statement would be true, because you can always claim it was 1 inch smaller than 10 stories, or 1 foot to the east of the center of 7 WTC. Any discussion of such a statement would therefore be fruitless.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

I see you're retreating on all fronts. You're changing all of your claims in order to accomodate the schooling you've received here. Now it's MOST of 7 WTC. If we could show that that wasn't true, you'd probably switch to "some of 7 WTC", and then "a tiny fraction of 7 WTC". Why don't you instead admit that this free fall canard is just that ?

 

[Christopher7]

No, you're right. There was NO exactly 10-storey gouge exactly in the MIDDLE of 7 WTC.

Was that the entire point of your thread ? Then you should've made your initial claim accordingly. Obviously, any such statement would be true, because you can always claim it was 1 inch smaller than 10 stories, or 1 foot to the east of the center of 7 WTC. Any discussion of such a statement would therefore be fruitless.

The 10 story gouge, as described on page 18, DID NOT EXIST!

It's not a mater of inches or feet.

There was no heavy debris in the lobby.

Therefore, there was no gouge, 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor whatever to the ground, anywhere.

I see you're retreating on all fronts. You're changing all of your claims in order to accomodate the schooling you've received here. Now it's MOST of 7 WTC. If we could show that that wasn't true, you'd probably switch to "some of 7 WTC", and then "a tiny fraction of 7 WTC". Why don't you instead admit that this free fall canard is just that ?

I have indeed been 'schooled' in the fine art of sophistry.

You're claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie.

We cannot see how fast the area under the penthouse falls but the videos clearly show most of WTC 7 falling at near freefall.

To satisfy sophistic nitpickers i will add the words 'most' and 'mostly' to this statement of fact:

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I have indeed been 'schooled' in the fine art of sophistry

soph·ist·ry
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Agreed.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

So you're saying that after extensive fire and what ever debris damage occured the building collapsed pretty fast after collapse initiated, and that the building fell where it should have and not blocks away?

I Agree. You are right about this one.

 

[Pardalis]

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

I see that Chris hasn't moved one iota since January. I'll check back in september.

 

[Christopher7]

So you're saying that after extensive fire and what ever debris damage occured the building collapsed pretty fast after collapse initiated, and that the building fell where it should have and not blocks away?

I Agree. You are right about this one.

Thank you.

You are one of the few people here who is honest enough to acknowledge that WTC 7 fell at near freefall.

 

[Christopher7]

I see that Chris hasn't moved one iota since January. I'll check back in september.

I have changed two iotas.

Most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

This was to stop some people from using sophistry to claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall or land in it's own footprint.

 

[slingblade]

That's great. So you've given up on CD, and now agree that structural damage and fire caused the catastrophic failure and collapse of that building?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

You are one of the few people here who is honest enough to acknowledge that WTC 7 fell at near freefall.

'Pretty fast' does not equal 'near freefall'?