10 story hole in WTC 7

[Unfit4Command]

He also said:
"Gravity brought the building down because the bottom collapsed."

Did gravity not bring down the building? Did he find evidence of explosives and not tell anyone? This is pointless, he got one thing wrong, therefore everything he says is false? Well...if you want to be that way.

William Rice also said:
"in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."

Wrong.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed."

Wrong, both collapses took longer than 10 seconds.

"The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed."

This sounds like he has just read a few conspiracy sites without doing any research. The 9/11 Commission report wasn't an engineering report, nor was it meant to cover the collateral damage from the attacks.

"The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view."

Why did the media show its collapse several times on 9/11? Why was it even mentioned in "America Rebuilds"?

"Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11."

It didn't collapse onto itself. The Verizon Building and 30 West Broadway were both dealt serious damage and Barclay Street was covered by debris.

"This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today."

Remind me why the FDNY Chief of Operations, Daniel Nigro call for an evacuated from around Building 7? Because he, along with several other Firemen felt the building was too damaged and may collapse.

"Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing."

WTC 3 remained standing? The building that was 22 stories tall and had a 3 section standing after the North Tower Collapsed? All of the others partially collapsed and several of the columns on ther perimeter bowed due to heat.

"The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more."

Molten metal is a byproduct of explosives? That's news to me. You know what molten metal is a byproduct of? Large, hot fires. You know what burned under the rubble piles for weaks after 9/11? Large, hot fires.

The large dust clouds in controlled demolitions aren't caused by the explosives. It's the collapses themselves. Like these buildings that collapsed with no explosives, guess what? Massive dust clouds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHbC9gc_Ylo

It would be pointless and it would take a HUGE amount of explosives to pulverize all of the concrete. And when will people get it through their heads that all of the concrete didn't turn to dust?

Is he refering to the massive section of perimeter columns that pivoted over from the North Tower and fell on the Winter Garden and several other structures?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX74_P5BI0E

Many of the beams that were found stuck inside of other buildings near the Twin Towers probably broke off of sections like the one above.

"The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated."

What percentage of the building did the above agencies control? And which of them actually had an entire floor to themselves? I believe the Secret Service is the only one.

And again, the 9/11 Commission Report wasn't meant to investigate the collateral damage of the attacks, it wasn't an engineering report.

Has yet to be investigated? That's really sad, he obviously hasn't read the NIST report or even heard about it. So how educated do you think he is about Building 7's condition?

Well, I guess this means William Rice isn't an expert you can refer to, he was wrong about a few things.

 

[Christopher7]

Did he find evidence of explosives and not tell anyone?

He did not see explosives on the steel he inspected.

"I didn't see any explosives ... just evidence of intense fire."

Unless he inspected all or most of the steel, his statement

"It's (explosives theory) all complete nonsense."

is unfounded.

he got one thing wrong, therefore everything he says is false?

No

Neither Hassan Astaneh or Ron Hamburger said why they thought WTC 7 had collapsed because of the fires or what evidence they had.

William Rice also said:
"in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."

Wrong

Good counter point.
That should be high rise building.

That's probably what he meant.

"The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed."

Wrong, both collapses took longer than 10 seconds.

Originally, FEMA said 10 and 8 seconds, i believe.
What is the current 'official' time according to NIST?

"The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed."

The 9/11 Commission report wasn't an engineering report, nor was it meant to cover the collateral damage from the attacks.

I agree

Many CT'ers would argue, it should have been included.

"The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view."

Why did the media show its collapse several times on 9/11? Why was it even mentioned in "America Rebuilds"?

Other than on 9/11 and the History Channel special, it has not been shown, to my knowledge.
In the HC special, there is a 5 second clip [street view] of WTC 7 collapsing and they went straight to something else.

I saw that special but i did not notice the WTC 7 collapse because it went by so fast.

In 2005 i saw a 'conspiracy theory' special on LINK TV.

Until then, i was like you, conspiracy theory, yea, yea.

When i saw the video with the redish building in the foreground, my first reaction was denial. I knew it was a CD so i rationalized that they were lying, ...... that was not building 7.

A few months later, i saw the History Channel special again.

This time i watched for WTC 7.

That's when i had my "Oh s*it" moment.

I have told hundreds of people about WTC 7 and given out LC2 and the 4 min. video i made.

None had seen the videos of WTC 7.

All vaguely remembered WTC 7 or not at all.

Most now believe that WTC 7 was a CD.

 

[Belz...]

What experts?

Oh, you know, those working on the report on 7 WTC.

Who is it that you are sticking with?

The sane people.

Just because people contributed to the NIST report does not mean they personally believe that WTC 7 was not a CD.

I don't care about their personal beliefs. Why should you ?

The Final report of 4-5-05 contains he statement "NIST has seen no evidence of CD".

Which is evidence that there was no CD.

There are no names of experts listed in this report.

So they're farmers, or something ?

As of right now, there are NO experts who have publicly stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.

Are you trying to make me prove a negative ?

"It appeared to me that charges had been places in the building"

Key word: appeared.

 

[Belz...]

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Only to a layman.

 

[Christopher7]

"Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11."

It didn't collapse onto itself. The Verizon Building and 30 West Broadway were both dealt serious damage and Barclay Street was covered by debris.

FEMA Ch 5 pg 30
“… the building imploded …”
[fell in on itself]

Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. What we're really doing is removing specific support columns within the structure and then cajoling the building in one direction or another, or straight down.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html


NIST Apx. L pg 33 [37 on pg counter]
“The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.”
[it fell mostly straight down]


Part of the north facade buckled out and damaged the building across the street.

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

There was too much of it to land entirely within its own footprint.

There was damage to surrounding buildings, but the center of the debris pile was in the center of WTC 7.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9131/copyof4ai9.jpg

 

[Christopher7]

I don't care about their personal beliefs. Why should you ?

You do not know or care weather or not they believe WTC 7 was a CD, yet you claim they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

Which is evidence that there was no CD.

A Bush appointee says "there is no evidence of CD", and that's evidence?

 

[GlennB]

As of right now, there are NO experts who have publicly stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.

There are no experts denying that mutant alien squirrels secretly steal our pocket lint at night to use as spaceship fuel*

This is not evidence that mutant alien squirrels are ... (etc)

Meanwhile - are you aware of the lies and leading questions Jowenko was subjected to? Watch those videos again.

*with apologies to Scott Adams

 

[Christopher7]

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

Only to a layman.

These people are experts, not laymen.

Danny Jowenko, "This is controlled demolition" "A team of experts did this"

Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html


Richard Gage, Architect

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8079


The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hugo Bachmann and Jorg Schneider

Their statements were based solely on looking at a few video recordings presented to them by conspiracists during an interview (just like they did Jowenko). And I've already proven how deceptive the interviewer was in Jowenko's case. Bet they were just as deceptive during Bachmann's and Schneider's quote mining exercise.

Now Bachmann, through his career, has focused on bridge engineering, concrete structures and, later, vibration problems and earthquake resistant structures. Not steel, fire and impact dynamics. Joerg's resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Again, not steel, fire and impact.

And by the way, neither seems to want anything to do with the *truth* movement now. Just like Jowenko. Go figure ...

 

[Christopher7]

are you aware of the lies and leading questions Jowenko was subjected to? Watch those videos again.

Interviewer:
What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.


The interviewer did not lie or ask leading questions.

After seeing one video of the WTC 7 implosion, Jowenko was absolutely certain that it was a CD.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Imagine what opinion Jowenko would have if he too got to do some real research into the issue like some of the other engineers who also thought it originally was a demolition.

But we're expected to accept the opinion of someone who has only seem a small piece of footage over the many experts who have all done extensive research that far exceeds watching a couple of seconds of video.

 

[Christopher7]

Their statements were based solely on looking at a few video recordings presented to them .....

That is the point!

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Now Bachmann, through his career, has focused on bridge engineering, concrete structures and, later, vibration problems and earthquake resistant structures. Not steel, fire and impact dynamics. Joerg's resume would indicate he focused on concrete structures and then, later, the safety and reliability of structures, with special emphasis on human error. Again, not steel, fire and impact.

They are Professors of structural analysis and construction.

It does not get more 'qualified' than that.

You are trying to say that these people are not qualified to say WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos.

They are experts, you are not.

They know far better than you weather or not the videos are evidence of a CD.


The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

Imagine what opinion Jowenko would have if he too got to do some real research into the issue like some of the other engineers who also thought it originally was a demolition.

He saw several videos but he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one.

In the phone call, a couple months later, he said

"I looked at the drawings of the construction, and it couldn't be done by fire."

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

You think you know better than the owner of a CD company, you don't.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one? That must be why he kept saying he needs to see more information.

And a quote of him saying it couldn't be done by fire is not him saying it was a CD. But either way, it's not enough to make a proper determination. A lot of people thought it was a CD from just looking at the video. But when studying the rest of the details, every one has been convinced otherwise. Of course that doesn't stop a lot of CTers from taking quotes from before those experts changed their minds.

 

[SOMERLED]

In no particular order:

1. Watergate
2. FBI’s “Virtual Case File” fiasco
3. Mars Polar Lander
4. Abscam
5. Mars Climate Orbiter
6. Randy "Duke" Cunningham Bribery Case
7. Rep. Ney pleads guilty to federal charges of corruption & bribery involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
8. Challenger Explosion
9. Former Bush aide David Safavian convicted on four of five felony counts of lying and obstruction.
10. Vioxx

There’s just ten. Need I go on?

Find ten when the same party held both the Presidency and a majority in both houses.

 

[GlennB]

The interviewer did not lie or ask leading questions

Really?

From 2:33 in the first interview at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

I: "This is a map of the building .... blow up ... this heart .... these 12 (core columns) .... "

12 ?

Around 3:30
J: "It was not really clean"
.....
I: "But you can walk around it. So clean you can walk around it"

A lie

Around 4:51
I: "building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside wall going inside"

Another lie

Have you actually watched those interviews from start to finish?

The interviewer led and lied from the outset. And Jowenko comes across as very easily led.

 

[Christopher7]

he was absolutely certain after seeing the first one? That must be why he kept saying he needs to see more information.

He needed more information to say HOW they did it.

He was certain it was a CD after seeing the first video.

He was certain at the end of the interview.

He was still certain a couple months later.

And a quote of him saying it couldn't be done by fire is not him saying it was a CD.

Jeff: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny: Absolutely

But either way, it's not enough to make a proper determination.

Danny, Hugo and Jörg think it is enough.

Do you really think they are full of it and you know better?

A lot of people thought it was a CD from just looking at the video. But when studying the rest of the details, every one has been convinced otherwise.

A lot of people?

Name one

When Ron Hamburger saw the collapse of WTC 1, it appeared to him that charges had been placed in the building.

i.e. it looked like a CD.

He later decided that there were not any explosives.

He did not mention the videos of WTC 7.

He did not offer any explanation of why WTC 7 imploded other than to say it collapsed because of fire.

How could he be so sure less than three months after 9/11, when NIST wasn't sure 2 1/2 years later?

He has made no statements about WTC 7 since 2001 that i know of.

 

[Belz...]

You do not know or care weather or not they believe WTC 7 was a CD, yet you claim they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

I never said that. Please stop putting words in my mouth and answer the question.

Why should I care about someone's opinion when the evidence contradicts it ?

A Bush appointee says "there is no evidence of CD", and that's evidence?

Ad hominem.

These people are experts, not laymen.

I think you meant to say "three people are experts". And looking at videos arranged by CTers is not much to work with.

That is the point!

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Yes, and anyone who makes such a call without looking at all the available evidence is a moron.

The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

NO, because they don't show anything that's UNIQUE to a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

Really?

From 2:33 in the first interview at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

I: "This is a map of the building .... blow up ... this heart .... these 12 (core columns) .... "
12 ?
Around 3:30
J: "It was not really clean"
.....
I: "But you can walk around it. So clean you can walk around it"
A lie
Around 4:51
I: "building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside wall going inside"
Another lie

The interviewer led and lied from the outset. And Jowenko comes across as very easily led.

Please

Interviewer:
What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

Where is the lie or misleading statement?

Jowenko knew that WTC 7 was a CD after seeing the first video.

It is blatantly obvious to anyone not in denial.

The rest of the first video Danny is trying to explain HOW it was done.

You are right about the 12 columns and the 'clean' but Danny had already concluded that WTC 7 was a CD in the first minute.

These things had NO effect on his conclusion that WTC 7 was a CD.

Throughout the entire interview, he was adamant that WTC 7 was a CD.

He reaffirmed his conclusion in the phone call a couple months later after he had looked at the drawings of WTC 7.


You can't deal with the reality that the owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis and construction say WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, so you desperately try to find a reason to discredit their conclusions.

They are intelligent, educated experts, not idiots.

The videos speak for themselves.



The videos are, at very least, evidence of a CD.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No he was not certain it was a CD, he needed more information to see what was going on. And he may have thought it was a CD at the end, but that's because it's all he conclude given the extremely limited data he got.

Do I think I know better? Do I think the 225 engineers who have done more than simply looked at a single video know better? ABSOLUTELY 100%.

Here's the funny part, you use a guy who has only viewed an extremely limited amount of data to counter hundreds of people who have vast amounts of data.

Yes a lot of people. Like I said, over 225 engineers just working on NIST alone. Do I have their individual names? Not on hand, but I am sure they can be looked up quite easily. Are you really sure you want people to go there? Are you really sure you don't want people to call your bluff in assuming that there isn't a single person that worked on the NIST reports?

Would you like us to send a request to NIST for a list of engineers involved?

Also, please prove your claim that all the world body of engineers are all simply silent on one of the most well known engineering issues in the history of man because they are all too scared. You and I both know that they don't say anything because they see nothing suspicious with the events of that day. And we ALL know the vast majority are well aware of the WTC 7 collapse.

So you can play these little games all day, but at the end of the day, your whole case is nothing but a little song and dance.

You have found 3 people in the whole world (1 of which might be somehwat credible, though lacked proper evidence to make a legitimate determination) to support your case. You can dance around all you want, but nothing is going to change this. You can try to use little tricks and bluffs to bolster your lack of evidence. But that's all it is. Just like you will take quotes of people before they did research to try to mislead people into thinking they claimed it is a CD.

And you can dress it up any way you want, but in the end, you're being dishonest and trying to use smoke and mirrors. I suggest a forum where people aren't smart enough to see your bluff.

THE VIDEOS ARE IN NO WAY EVIDENCE OF A CD. Not even the slightest bit.