10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
The debris damage in the photos you posted is NOT the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' described on pg 18 and shown in the NIST graphic i posted.
Click to expand...

That's what I keep saying, Chris. Please pay attention. The REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?
 
Chris;
The Mariden is not a very good example for you. A large portion of the building DID collapse and within a few hours. The building construction was also quite different and it was 15 storeys shorter. Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

Time Collapse Situation
1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed
1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed
1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed
Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor
2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed
2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed
2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed
3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed
Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor
3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor
4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down
Click to expand...
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm
 
DGM said:
Chris;
The Mariden is not a very good example for you.
Click to expand...

Actually, the case you cite is the Windsor Tower, not the Meridian Plaza. But it is interesting how Christopher wants to ignore the Windsor Tower case.
 
BeAChooser said:
So if there had been no sprinkler system, the implication is that the fire would have continued burning, totally gutting the structure. And perhaps at some point in that process, steel might have begun to actually fail as it did in the Madrid fire.
Click to expand...
Probably not.

The Caracas Towers did not have a sprinkler system. The fire burned to the roof and gutted much of the building.

It did not collapse.

648pmdw1.jpg



madridwindsortk8.jpg


The light weight perimeter columns on the upper 10 floors of the Windsor Tower were much smaller than the massive core columns in WTC 7.

Windsor perimeter column:
120mm [4.75 inches] square x 7mm [1/4 inch] thick
18 pounds per lineal foot
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

WTC 7 core columns:
Built up 14 inch wide flange I beams
730 pounds per lineal foot
[see NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 14 [17 - 18 on pg counter]
 
You can't take two different incidents that have certain things in common, but not others, and say they should have had similar results.
 
slingblade said:
You can't take two different incidents that have certain things in common, but not others, and say they should have had similar results.
Click to expand...
Correct ..... but ........ where did i say that?

I was indicating just the opposite.

WTC 7 should have a different result because the core columns in WTC 7 were 40 times as massive as the perimeter columns in the Windsor Tower.
 
Belz... said:
That's what I keep saying, Chris. Please pay attention. The REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, by the 'reported hole' do you mean the

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

as described in NIST Apx. L pg 18 and depicted in the graphic on pg 31 as
'Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris'

11qd1.jpg


is actually further west, around column 5 as seen in the photos you posted?
 
Christopher7 said:
Just to be clear, by the 'reported hole' do you mean the

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

as described in NIST Apx. L pg 18 and depicted in the graphic on pg 31 as
'Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris'

[qimg]http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg[/qimg]

is actually further west, around column 5 as seen in the photos you posted?
Click to expand...

Seems like it, doesn't it ? Of course, my point is that:

the REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?

There is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the
initiating event
Click to expand...

And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.
 
Belz... said:
Seems like it, doesn't it ? Of course, my point is that:

the REPORTED hole may not exist AS REPORTED, but may instead REFER to the ACTUAL hole we see in the pictures. Got that ?
Click to expand...
OK, we agree the 'gouge' was further west and the damage in the graphic i posted "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris" is a misrepresentation of the actual damage.

And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.
Click to expand...
We agree
 
Christopher7 said:
A building fell on WTC 7 ?

There was a lot of damage to the south west side if WTC 7 but:

There is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the
initiating event
Click to expand...

Funny, no evidence of explosives either. But yet when it comes to that, you have no problem. Isn't that funny?
 
Belz... said:
And we've covered this before, as well. The debris started the fire. Maybe it had some effect on the rest of the structure because of load transfer, but that doesn't seem crucial.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?

I'm so confused by your arguments, Chris. I just keep seeing a rehash of "if they got this part wrong in the report, then there must have been CD." I know that's boiling your argument down to near-absurdity, but that is, essentially, what you seem to argue.

And it's a crap way to argue. Not ad homming you, but the argumentative style. Instead of concentrating on what isn't said, what isn't shown, what isn't proven, and calling that evidence of CD, you really need to be showing positive evidence of CD.

I don't care if there was or was not any debris in the lobby. While that shows me something's been missed, it doesn't show me that bombs went off.

Show me the bombs. Show me positive evidence of bombs that isn't "this wasn't there, so bombs must have been used."
 
slingblade said:
That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?
Click to expand...

I suppose you can only deny for so long that someone else's position pretty much coincides with reality. Seems Chris has reached that point.
 
slingblade said:
That's what I've been saying as well, and now Chris agrees with it?
Click to expand...
I have been saying that the debris damage did not have any significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.
You and Belz agree that it doesn't seem crutial.

I'm so confused by your arguments, Chris. I just keep seeing a rehash of "if they got this part wrong in the report, then there must have been CD." I know that's boiling your argument down to near-absurdity, but that is, essentially, what you seem to argue.
Click to expand...
No

This thread is not about proving CD, it is about the facts related to the 'WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F' hypothesis.
 
Christopher7 said:
This thread is not about proving CD, it is about the facts related to the 'WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F' hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the usual technique of debate for a conspiracy theorist is to find tiny and sometimes irrelevant points (and in this case a preliminary report) to discredit in whole what is considered for the most part by real experts a credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 and then shoehorn their unsupported pet theories in the little holes they try to create.

We know you believe in CD. CD is your little unsupported pet theory you will eventually get around to trying to insert in all your little holes.

It's obvious to all; since you could never 'prove' CD, this is your way of trying to slip it in by default.

It's almost as if you think we've never seen it done before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom