10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jonnyclueless said:
Funny, no evidence of explosives either. But yet when it comes to that, you have no problem. Isn't that funny?
Click to expand...
[bolding mine]

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

Evidence for explosives is being discussed on the C7 --- C4 thread.
 
twinstead said:
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)
Click to expand...
The fact that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event is very relevant.

NIST had two years to gather all the relevant facts regarding the debris damage and fires in WTC7. They have 25 pictures of the south east side of WTC7. If there was any evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event, they would have included it in the 'preliminary report'.

If NIST could now say that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage, they would have released their report in the spring as they projected.
Instead, they have postponed it again until the end of the year.

to discredit in whole what is considered for the most part by real experts a credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7
Click to expand...
There are 'experts' on both sides of this issue.

It's obvious to all; since you could never 'prove' CD,
Click to expand...
I disagree

this is your way of trying to slip it in by default.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your terminology "slip it in by default" but you are essentially correct.

The fires that burned out of control in WTC 7 were not sufficient to cause a core column [that weighed 730 pounds per foot] to collapse.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, but I want to be quite clear about a couple of things:

First, I'm no scientist--I'm a word-person. I'm very good at language. I do have more basic scientific knowledge than it seems the average high-school graduate ( +/- a few years) does, but I'm still no scientist. My opinions aren't worth much, scientifically.

And second, my position is thus: There was significant debris damage to WTC 7, caused by the collapse of one or both WTC towers. This debris did damage the structure, and also caused fires, which were fed by many fuel sources within the building. The initiating event referred to in the Appendix report was the fire, caused by this debris. Therefore, in differing ways, both events are significant, since the fire wouldn't have happened without the debris.

As to whether the debris damage contributed in other, significant ways to the collapse....frankly, I'd have to read the appendix again to be certain just what it says, and I haven't time at the moment. (I get to go see Harry Potter! :D) I think it does suggest this, however, and as I recall, I was comfortable with the reasoning and evidence.


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...

I think this interim report does an adequate job of explaining that hypothesis.
 
Christopher7 said:
There are 'experts' on both sides of this issue.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but many of the experts' expertise on your side are dubious, and I would bet money that the vast majority of 'experts' world-wide would support my position over yours.

Regardless, if this conspiracy of yours, this CD, is SO obvious, how do you account for so many experts who fail to see it? There are experts from around the world who have studied the entire event. Where are the droves of them coming forward and demanding answers? Since I don't have the expertise personally to judge for myself by simply looking at videos (you obviously think you do, though) the consensus of experts while not everything is a very important part of my personal understanding of the event.

I disagree
Click to expand...
I know you think you can prove CD. What I am saying that no matter what you think, IMO and in the opinion of quite a few experts, you cannot.

I disagree with your terminology "slip it in by default" but you are essentially correct.
Click to expand...
I would assume you would disagree with my terminology. By 'slip it in by default' I mean of course you would try to pass off some untenable theory as the winner by default just because you find a couple small holes in an otherwise totally supportable theory that just cannot be right in your mind because your world view precludes anything BUT conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
[bolding mine]

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

Evidence for explosives is being discussed on the C7 --- C4 thread.
Click to expand...

How do you know there is no evidence? The report has not been released. You are simply assuming there isn't. Unlike you the rest of us have not made judgment on the exact cause of the collapse or how it initiated. And we're not discussing evidence for explosives remember? We're talking about double standards being used in this thread.
 
slingblade said:
There was significant debris damage to WTC 7, caused by the collapse of one or both WTC towers. This debris did damage the structure, and also caused fires, which were fed by many fuel sources within the building. The initiating event referred to in the Appendix report was the fire, caused by this debris. Therefore, in differing ways, both events are significant, since the fire wouldn't have happened without the debris.
Click to expand...
I'm with you so far.

As to whether the debris damage contributed in other, significant ways to the collapse....frankly, I'd have to read the appendix again to be certain just what it says, and I haven't time at the moment. (I get to go see Harry Potter! :D) I think it does suggest this, however, and as I recall, I was comfortable with the reasoning and evidence.
Click to expand...
At your suggestion, i've been re-reading "Collapse Initiation Scenarios"
On pg 36 - 40 [40 - 44 on pg counter]

pg 38, I4.2
"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. ............ This column ... would be approachingts its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.

As the report states, 4 floors would have to collapse all around a column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to more than 500 C, before it failed.



This would have to happen before the vertical progression could begin.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
How do you know there is no evidence? The report has not been released. You are simply assuming there isn't.
Click to expand...

The had 2 years to gather the evidence of what happened for the 'interim report'.

They had no evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event as of June 2004.

Do you think they missed something critical?

They have photographs of the south east side of WTC 7.

What makes you think they will find evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event at this late date?

The 'final report' has been delayed another six months because they have not as yet been able to demonstrate, with any certainty, that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

Unlike you the rest of us have not made judgment on the exact cause of the collapse or how it initiated.
Click to expand...
Maybe not the 'exact' cause of how it was initiated, but you have made up your mind that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.
 
Christopher7 said:
Maybe not the 'exact' cause of how it was initiated, but you have made up your mind that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.
Click to expand...

And you have made up your mind that CD caused the collapse of the WTC7. So?

I believe the evidence doesn't support you. You disagree. We shall see.

I would LOVE to see you present your case to a court of law, or some kind of official inquiry.
 
twinstead said:
And you have made up your mind that CD caused the collapse of the WTC7. So?

I believe the evidence doesn't support you. You disagree. We shall see.

I would LOVE to see you present your case to a court of law, or some kind of official inquiry.
Click to expand...
I would also like to see the evidence presented in a court of law, however, it's not my evidence, it's the evidence.


You cannot dispute the fact that the massive core columns were capable of supporting several stories without any bracing.

Fires would have to burn very hot, for a long time, on 4 contiguous floors to cause the floor beams and girders to fail all around a column and heat that column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to greater than 500 C.

These fires would have to burn all around column 79, 80 and/or 81 for hours, without spreading to the north and east exterior walls.

The columns in WTC 7 were larger than the ones in the Meridian Plaza because there were fewer of them.
The support columns in the Meridian Plaza suffered no apparent damage despite the extraordinary exposure.
 
Christopher7 said:
You cannot dispute the fact that the massive core columns were capable of supporting several stories without any bracing.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think I can.

First you have to define what you mean by bracing.

Are you taling about bracing against lateral racking movements?

Are you talking about bracing against buckling?

Be a little more precise, please
 
Alferd_Packer said:
Oh, I think I can.

First you have to define what you mean by bracing.

Are you taling about bracing against lateral racking movements?

Are you talking about bracing against buckling?

Be a little more precise, please
Click to expand...
Please see the quote from Apx. L in post 2846
 
twinstead said:
Regardless, if this conspiracy of yours, [you talk like i'm the only one saying this] this CD, is SO obvious, how do you account for so many experts who fail to see it? There are experts from around the world who have studied the entire event.
Click to expand...
Would you please list some of these experts or did you just make that up.
 
FWIW

NIST Apx. L pg 38, [42 on pg counter] I4.2

"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. ............ This column ... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 C.
[emphasis mine]
As the report states, 4 floors would have to collapse all around a core column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to more than 500 C, before it failed.



This would have to happen before the vertical progression could begin.
 
It's a pointless argument since the findings and data are not out yet. It's a persona who is making assumptions arguing against people who want to see all the data first. So for now it's pretty much debating opinion, something no one here cares to do, except for conspiracy theorists.

But of course al the worlds structural engineers are all keeping quiet about this obvious cover up because they're all afraid of losing their jobs right?
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

We agree that there is no evidence of debris damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.
Click to expand...

Indeed. We also seem to agree that fires started by the debris could have SPREAD to the area of the initiating event.
 
Christopher7 said:
Would you please list some of these experts or did you just make that up.
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot. Part of your particular fantasy is to suggest that the only reasons why the majority of CD experts on Earth hasn't come out and questioned the official story is because they are afraid of losing their jobs.

You find nothing wrong with the crickets chirping in the world of CD experts concerning the WTC because you have built into your (and by YOUR I mean the minority view that you hold concerning CD) little theory a nice little out to explain it.

I find the silence very telling, but for quite another reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom