10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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?

No

 

[slingblade]

Sigh. Okay.

 

[Christopher7]

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

In this case, it does.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is about 6 seconds.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

Originally, you made claims about the World Trade Center 7 debris field, its spatial relationship with the buildings footprint and, also, about the speed of the collapse itself. Others on this thread then corrected you – showing those claims to be simply and demonstrably erroneous. So, it’s slightly disappointing (if, by now, not entirely surprising) to see you attempting to colour those acts of correction as ones of mere sophistry.

To distinguish between the concepts of “mostly” and “entirely” is hardly pedantry. To manufacture, for example, a mechanical device that is mostly efficient would be a fairly unexceptional feat. To manufacture one that is entirely efficient, on the other hand, would necessitate the reconsideration of the laws of thermodynamics. While not quite to the same degree, this distinction is also significantly important in the cases of the area of the debris field and of the speed of the collapse.

The ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint.” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” To attempt to portray distinguishing between the two as nothing more than sophistry is, for one thing, simply wrong and, for another, decidedly intellectually dishonest.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

Originally, you made claims about the World Trade Center 7 debris field, its spatial relationship with the buildings footprint and, also, about the speed of the collapse itself. Others on this thread then corrected you – showing those claims to be simply and demonstrably erroneous. So, it’s slightly disappointing (if, by now, not entirely surprising) to see you attempting to colour those acts of correction as ones of mere sophistry.

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

The center of the debris pile is roughly in the center of the building.

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

It was physically impossible to get all of it to remain within it's original footprint.

Furthermore, as someone mentioned, they didn't want it to look too good.

Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern.

To distinguish between the concepts of “mostly” and “entirely” is hardly pedantry. To manufacture, for example, a mechanical device that is mostly efficient would be a fairly unexceptional feat. To manufacture one that is entirely efficient, on the other hand, would necessitate the reconsideration of the laws of thermodynamics. While not quite to the same degree, this distinction is also significantly important in the cases of the area of the debris field and of the speed of the collapse.

The ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint.” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” To attempt to portray distinguishing between the two as nothing more than sophistry is, for one thing, simply wrong and, for another, decidedly intellectually dishonest.

Talk to yourself much?

Only a devout sophist would make a big deal out of mostly.

The fact is, WTC 7 did the same thing that professional building implosions do.

Where no two professional implosions are exactly alike, large buildings often collapse progressively with each part falling at near freefall, just like WTC 7.

Attempts to say that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall are sophistry.
[deceitful nitpicking]

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice you’ve reasserted and provided evidence to support the claim that “The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.” I’m not all that sure what’s prompted you to do this. It’s a claim that was simply never in dispute.

After this, your reply diverges somewhat from the point. It’s worth highlighting, however, that in stating that “They didn’t want it to look too good” and that “Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern,” you’re attempting to explain away the counterevidence in terms of the truth of the theory itself. This commits the begging the question fallacy by presupposing the existence of a “they”; the existence of a “they” is precisely the question at issue.

The second part of your post merely indulges itself in a bout of gainsaying.

[T]hey didn't want [the collapse] to look too good.

The fact is, WTC 7 did the same thing that professional building implosions do.

Further, it’s difficult to see how these two statements are not in direct contradiction.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

I notice you’ve reasserted and provided evidence to support the claim that “The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.” I’m not all that sure what’s prompted you to do this. It’s a claim that was simply never in dispute.

After this, your reply diverges somewhat from the point. It’s worth highlighting, however, that in stating that “They didn’t want it to look too good” and that “Damage to surrounding buildings was not a concern,” you’re attempting to explain away the counterevidence in terms of the truth of the theory itself. This commits the begging the question fallacy by presupposing the existence of a “they”; the existence of a “they” is precisely the question at issue.

The second part of your post merely indulges itself in a bout of gainsaying.

Further, it’s difficult to see how these two statements are not in direct contradiction.

I did stray from the point, which is:

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute. Further, I notice you didn’t feel the need to address or acknowledge your logical fallacies. Oh well; never mind.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Who cares ? The hole doesn't seem at the center of the building from the pictures we've seen. Yes, your mythological gouge doesn't exist. Another, much larger one, does, and this one is probably the one the firefighters saw, because there wasn't anything more obvious in the area. So what ?

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

I don't think you need classes.

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

I don't care what you call it. It didn't fall at "free fall", and even if it did it wouldn't help your case, because there is no way a building like that will support its full weight once it starts coming down.

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

What you are saying is that you have no idea, but prefer a particular scenario. I surmise this is simply circular reasoning.

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

Yeah, kinda like water is only somehow dry and only very faintly red. We can play these word games all day, Chris. The fact of the matter remains that all you have is speculation, bias and circular reasoning. Sophistry, indeed.

 

[Belz...]

In this case, it does.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Freefall is about 6 seconds.

How far would not be near freefall ?

10 seconds ? 8 seconds ? 7.2 seconds ?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute. Further, I notice you didn’t feel the need to address or acknowledge your logical fallacies. Oh well; never mind.

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

You and i agree that it did.

I'm just clearing up a misconception that many people have come to believe.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

Well, I certainly didn’t agree to that. One of those qualifiers seems to have gone astray again.

 

[Christopher7]

Who cares ? The hole doesn't seem at the center of the building from the pictures we've seen. Yes, your mythological gouge doesn't exist. Another, much larger one, does, and this one is probably the one the firefighters saw, because there wasn't anything more obvious in the area. So what ?

Thank you for acknowledging that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist.

However, it's not my mythological gouge!

It is an incorrect account of the actual damage that NIST subsequently depicted in the graphic on page 23 as "Possible region of impact damage by WTC1 debris" and then as "Approximate region of impact damage by large WTC1 debris" on pages 31 and 32.

I don't care what you call it. It didn't fall at "free fall"

You left out 'near' free fall.
That's sophistry.

 

[Christopher7]

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

Christopher7:

That is the second time in two posts that you’ve reasserted a claim that was simply never in dispute.

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

You and i agree that it did.

Well, I certainly didn't agree to that.

Then what was "never in dispute" ?

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

The idea that most of World Trade Center 7 fell at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute. The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

The idea that most of World Trade Center 7 fell at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute. The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.

The fact [not a claim] that WTC 7 fell at near free fall has been denied here many times.

Only by adding 'most of' could this sophistry be brought to an end.


Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.

C7: "You and i agree that it did."

Par:" I certainly didn't agree to that.

Now you pretend you were referring to a statement two posts back.

Do you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall or not?

i.e. This is not an idea or a claim, it is a fact.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall or not?

Not. The Northern and Western Facades fell at near freefall speed, the rest of the building had already collapsed or was in the process of collapsing prior to them starting to collapse, which is why if you look in the photo you just posted you can see them sitting on top of the pile. Something that would be impossible unless the southern and eastern parts of the build has collapsed first and the north and west parts come down on top of them.

 

[Christopher7]

Not. The Northern and Western Facades fell at near freefall speed, the rest of the building had already collapsed or was in the process of collapsing prior to them starting to collapse, which is why if you look in the photo you just posted you can see them sitting on top of the pile. Something that would be impossible unless the southern and eastern parts of the build has collapsed first and the north and west parts come down on top of them.

OK, you agree that the north and west facades fell at near freefall.
[about 6 1/2 seconds]
The screenwall and the west penthouse begin falling about 1/2 second before the north and west facades.
They also fell at near freefall. [about 6 1/2 to 7 seconds]

Pause this video at 24 - 25 seconds. You can see that the east facade, which is attached to the north facade, has not begun to fall.
It falls at the same time as the north facade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNK-cWt7DY

The east and west facades are attached to the south facade.
Therefore, the two ends of the south facade collapsed at the same time as the east, north and west facades.

That constitutes most of the building falling at near free fall.

 

[Par]

Now you pretend you were referring to a statement two posts back.

I’m afraid you’re wrong; you have yourself hopelessly muddled. The claim I said I didn’t dispute is this one:

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall [speed].

The one I said I certainly didn’t agree to, on the other hand, is this one:

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall. You and i agree that it did.

The above, at the time, was not “two posts back.” It was in the post immediately preceding my reply. The reason I said I certainly didn’t agree to it, is that it lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning from that of the formulation in the second quotation. (The second quotation in this post.)

Incidentally, the concepts of “facts” and “claims” are hardly mutually exclusive.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.