10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Then they are quacks. Nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity makes such a certain call based on fragmentary information. Your experts are bunk machines.

So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.

Name three.

 

[Christopher7]

You have a good mind, Chris. You're just using it so poorly.

Listening to what the experts say is using the mind poorly.

Calling them quacks and ignoring what they say is a better way to use ones mind.

 

[GlennB]

Name three.

Years back Margaret Thatcher was in political difficulties and her party's ratings were plummeting. A TV interviewer said "millions of people are turning against your policy on <whatever>"
She said - in true Thatcher style - "name some of them".

Of course he couldn't, but it didn't mean his statement was wrong.

I think we can get there by deductive logic ... (stress *think* here. It could be inductive, I'm not too sure )

Premises:
More than 25% of scientists are outspoken in expressing their scientific beliefs and observations.
CD experts and building engineers are scientists.
There are many thousands of CD experts and building engineers.
If there were reasonable evidence of CD at WTC7 some thousands of CD experts and building engineers would have spoken out.
They haven't spoken out

Conclusion:
There is not reasonable evidence of CD at WTC7

That is to say, the experts don't need to identify themselves. Their lack of action is significant.

(Others might like to knock that 'logic' into more formal shape )

 

[Belz...]

So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.

Name three.

Read the NIST report.

 

[Christopher7]

Years back Margaret Thatcher was in political difficulties and her party's ratings were plummeting. A TV interviewer said "millions of people are turning against your policy on <whatever>"
She said - in true Thatcher style - "name some of them".

There are millions of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job but we're not talking about millions of people,we are talking about three experts who say WTC 7 was a CD.

There are two experts that say WTC 7 was not a CD but they did so before FEMA and NIST gathered the data. More important, they did not address the videos.

 

[slingblade]

Listening to what the experts say is using the mind poorly.

It can be, depending. You've been here long enough; you know all about the fallacious appeal to authority. The man is wrong about what he thinks, and what he's said.

Calling them quacks and ignoring what they say is a better way to use ones mind.

In this post, you're talking to me, remember? And I never called that man a quack. I reserve that term for doctors.

You want us to discount the experts on the NIST report, but to listen to your own. Those putting the NIST report together are right here, and they've seen the site first-hand, many times. Your expert, in another country, has seen a couple of bits of video, once.

I know you are smart enough to see the basic flaw that's staring you in the face. What I don't know is if you are brave enough and wise enough to admit it.

 

[Christopher7]

Thousands disagree.

Thousands of what?

Only two experts have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.
According to you, they are morons because they made their determination without looking at all the evidence.

Read the NIST report.

I have read the NIST Apx. L report. There is no mention of CD.

The 'final report' of 4-5-05 says there is no evidence of CD but it is not endorsed by anybody. [except the Bush appointed author]

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

 

[Christopher7]

It can be, depending. You've been here long enough; you know all about the fallacious appeal to authority. The man is wrong about what he thinks, and what he's said.

The three men are experts, you are not.

They say that the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

You can say they are wrong and you know better but you are not qualified to make that statement.

You want us to discount the experts on the NIST report, but to listen to your own. Those putting the NIST report together are right here, and they've seen the site first-hand, many times. Your expert, in another country, has seen a couple of bits of video, once.

Only two of the experts have said that WTC 7 was not a CD and they did not address the videos.

Only one has seen the site first hand.

They concluded that WTC 7 was not a CD before the data was compiled.

They have made no comment since NIST determined that it "appears possible".

 

[Christopher7]

it qualifies as an opinion based on lack of facts and background information, if it was introduced as evidence anywhere it would be laughed at

IYO

Expert opinions are used in court all the time.

These experts say the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD.

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence?

No

These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence.

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

 

[slingblade]

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

If you keep missing and dismissing, no one can help you. This is definitely a case where you have to help yourself. I can't really understand why you keep arguing with us. I don't see what, ultimately, it's supposed to accomplish, or what you hope to gain from it.

I mean, I don't care if you continue. Feel free. I just don't see what's in it for you, or what you plan to do.... It's simplistic, I know, but to me, you look like someone who's trying to argue water isn't wet. I can't imagine why, or why here, of all places.

But hey, I guess everyone needs a hobby.

 

[Christopher7]

If you keep missing and dismissing, no one can help you. This is definitely a case where you have to help yourself. I can't really understand why you keep arguing with us. I don't see what, ultimately, it's supposed to accomplish, or what you hope to gain from it.

By debating here i learn a lot about the evidence.

The 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the actual damage

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2506088#post2506088

The statements in the NIST and FEMA reports [that you insisted i read] clearly show that
the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist.

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do.

Gravy never posted the evidence he says he has.


I have learned that there is NO evidence debris damage or diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
See post 1884
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

NIST defines the initiating event as the beginning of the collapse on pg 36 of Apx. L

That I know. What they state, however, by your own admission, is that there was no debris damage or diesel fires in the area of that initiating event. We can agree on that.

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

Indeed. We also seem to agree that fires started by the debris could have SPREAD to the area of the initiating event.

The two experts who have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD say:

"We have reason to believe that, without the fire, the buildings could have stood indefinitely "

"Hamburger noted that the fuel in both jetliners burned off rapidly "

[FONT=&quot]"What they just were not able to survive was the incredibly intense fires that ensued from all of that burning jet fuel."

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Hassan Astaneh:
We are not sure, of course, what was in those planes but the amount of fuel that came and was delivered to this building was enough, in my opinion, ........... [/FONT][FONT=&quot]What happened here was the initial impact did not cause much damage; it just ignited the fire.

This is what they said in 2001, before they 'did the math'


[/FONT] 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.



The statements of three experts who say WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, based on the videos, would be considered evidence in a court of law.

 

[Christopher7]

Specifically, what is the evidence that fire caused the implosion of WTC ?

If you keep missing and dismissing

When i ask for specific evidence that fires caused the implosion of WTC 7, i get non answers.

That is because there is no such evidence, only speculation by the people at NIST.

[emphasis mine]
L.3.2 Collapse Initiation Scenarios
For the collapse to have started, there must have been a component or group of components that failed first, referred to here as the initiating event, as shown in Fig. L–36.

I1.2 Initiating Components Fail Due to Fire Effects:
The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components.

I2.3 Components on Floors With Burned Out Fires:
If the initiating components failed from fire effects, then locations where fires had burned out by mid afternoon could possibly been affected by the cooling which occurs after a fire.

I3.4 Floor Systems Fail:
The cooling that may have occurred as the fires burned out in an area may have generated thermal contraction forces, which may have induced tensile forces at floor-to-column connections.

I4.2 Unbraced Columns:
If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.

I2.4 Components on Floors With Fire:
If the initiating components failed because of fire effects, .....

I3.5 Floor System Failure:
The fires could have caused the failure of portions of one or more floor system and its framing connections.

I4.3 Unbraced Columns:
If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing.

I3.6 Columns, Transfer Girders or Transfer Trusses Fail:
The fires could have failed interior columns, transfer girders, transfer trusses, or their framing connections.

I4.4 Lateral Displacements:
Fire effects may have caused column instability

I4.5 Temperature Gradients:
Fire effects may have caused the failure of columns

I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures:
If initiating event components were sufficiently exposed to fire effects to be uniformly heated to elevated temperatures,

 

[Gravy]

Gosh, if only someone would study these things. Oh, well.

 

[twinstead]

Chris is grasping at straws.

 

[Christopher7]

When i ask for specific evidence that fires caused the implosion of WTC 7, i get non answers.

That is because there is no such evidence, only speculation by the people at NIST.

Gosh, if only someone would study these things. Oh, well.

 

[funk de fino]

I'll ask again

would you be happy to be convicted on the video evidence studied by 3 experts when you had no other evidence against you and in fact had supporting evidence in your favour?

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence in your case?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris is grasping at straws.

Perhaps it is you who is straw grasping.

Some here say the NIST report is enough for them to believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.

There is no actual evidence to support that belief.

Every paragraph in the Collapse Initiation Scenarios section contains the qualifiers "may have", "could have" and/or "if"

It is speculation with no evidence of the intense, long duration fires, in the area of the initiating event.


They had two years to gather the photographic and video evidence.

They interviewed over 100 witnesses.

They had the data on the location and progression of the fires in 2004.


In the areas where the fires burned out of control until they burned out, there is no sign of collapse.

 

[notheist]

Watch the long versions of Jowenko, This guy sure does not seem sure in his opinion, but he had already made a commitment to a controlled demolition of WTC7 so he is stuck with trying make himself look good.

I am sure Jowenko thought the clean-up people did a controlled demolition on a damaged building 7 several days after 9/11. But note his shock when he is told it happened that day, Why? Because he knows it could not have been accomplished in that short a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

 

[notheist]

I1.2 Initiating Components Fail Due to Fire Effects:
The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components.

Christopher, you don't get it do you?

Because the NIST study is real science and not a religious belief like 9/11 truth they use word like "may have" and "could cause".

You view seems to be if is not 100% sure then it must be a controlled demolition, God of the gaps, Find hole and then try and cram your "Inside Job God" in the hole.

If push came to shove and you asked me what is the likelihood that the collapse of the WTC were a controlled demolition, I would not say 100% for sure it was not, No from the evidence at hand it would be something like 99% chance it was caused by impact damage and fire.

Only a fool would bet on something with such bad odds as a WTC controlled demolition.

 

[Belz...]

Thousands of what?

Experts in the field. You know, something that you are not.

Only two experts have stated that WTC 7 was not a CD.
According to you, they are morons because they made their determination without looking at all the evidence.

You're putting words in my mouth.

The null-hypothesis is no CD, I don't need them to tell me that there was no CD, but I'd need a whole lot of them to say it WAS one, or at least ONE of them with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it was, not just his snap judgment.

I have read the NIST Apx. L report. There is no mention of CD.

Excellent. Then we can drop this angle immediately.

The 'final report' of 4-5-05 says there is no evidence of CD

Excellent, as well.

but it is not endorsed by anybody. [except the Bush appointed author]

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

Precisely, which is why I never mentioned what they believe. Stop putting words in my mouth.