10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

You have a pet theory and you'd do anything to cling to it.

That pretty much describes the entire truth movement with any of the myriad different and sometimes competing theories they tend keep as pets.

 

[Belz...]

And the pets breed...

 

[Christopher7]

No. I think YOU think THEY think videos are sufficient evidence. I don't know what THEY think.

Really? Your reading comprehension seems to be impaired.

Jowenko: This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

[FONT=&quot]"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."

They think WTC 7 was a CD.

They are well qualified to make that call.

[/FONT]

Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

Really ? AND HOW COULD YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE SINCE SKYSCRAPERS RARELY COLLAPSE AT ALL ?

Rarely? Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

 

[GlennB]

Rarely? Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

Except that Jowenko disagrees with you on that. Which leaves damage and fire as another possibility.

But I suspect we established this way back ....

 

[twinstead]

You realize Chris that we are not going to let you weasel out of the fact that your prize expert doesn't believe the WTC1 and 2 were controlled demolition.

We know YOU do. You're going to have to deal with this eventually.

 

[Christopher7]

therein lies your problem

on initial glances at the video (especially the edited ones) it may look similiar,

WTC 7 imploded

however when you have the full story

The full story

There was no debris damage near the area where the collapse began.

There were office fires on several floors in the area where the collapse began.

The core columns were massive, over 4 tons per floor.

It takes a long time to heat that much steel to 1,000 F

and really look at all the available video evidence

They did. They considered what they saw enough to say WTC 7 was a CD but, of course, you know better than these experts.

and eye witness testimonies with all background information,

Three fire chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse, one did not.
They did not consult a structural engineer like the chiefs at the Meridian Plaza did.
What they thought does not equal evidence

then read the NIST report,

I did. They don't explain how fires caused that first column to collapse.

then look and listen to real CD's,

The lack of sound on the videos is not a problem for most people including the owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction.

 

[Christopher7]

Skyscrapers do not implode unless destroyed with explosives.

Except that Jowenko disagrees with you on that. Which leaves damage and fire as another possibility.

But I suspect we established this way back ....

WTC 1 & 2 did not implode, they exploded from the top down, throwing debris over 500 feet in all directions.

Implode means "to fall in on itself"

Danny did not recognize WTC 1 & 2 as CD's because there had never been a top down demolition before.

In the video he points this out.

Jowenko: Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
Interviewer: 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.

 

[Christopher7]

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

True, but when they pointed out that it was on 9/11, he doesn't believe it a first.

J: This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.
I: But it also happened on September 11th.
J: The same day?
I: The same day.
J: The same day? Are you sure?
I: Yes. There he goes again.
J: I remember that they told me they’ve imploded it.
It smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone.
Are you sure it was the 11th? That can’t be.

He knew it was a CD, he just couldn't believe it happened on the same day.

He repeats the "same day" question and finally asks, "Are you sure?"
He then states, "I remember that they told they've imploded it."

He knows it's unlikely that WTC 7 could be rigged in a few hours.

He also states, "I don't know the structure of the building." They only show him the column layout, not anything close to how the floors were laid out or the ConEd station. So he really is working with very limited information.

At this point, he has already concluded that it was a CD.
He was trying to figure out how it was done in a few hours.
When he saw the column layout he said "That explains quite a lot"
[the ConEd station is irrelevant, the core columns are the key to how WTC 7 was imploded]

When asked "Ok, but could it not be by fire?" Danny says no and explains a little about something dealing with the fire. He then states,"But I don't know, it's only guessing for me."

I: "Ok, but could it not be by fire? That it was on fire and that the building... "
J: "No. Well, maybe that some.... that burning parts fly away so far, I don't believe that. But, I don't know, it's guessing for me."

I: Yes, on the pictures we've seen you could see clearly ...
J: "This is the work of man."

Later he says
"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."
[imploded is synonymous with controlled demolition]

Danny's whole belief that 7 was demolished is based on his belief that Silverstein ordered it.

No

His belief is based on the videos just like the two professors of structural analysis and construction.
[not to mention 135 architects and engineers, and 40,000,000+ other people]

Link to one video that has part of the roof caving in several seconds prior to the start of the demolition.

This picture illustrates the principle.

Every implosion is different and requires a unique sequence of demolition.

WTC 7 was nearly 600 feet high.

The columns under the penthouse were blown first to create a hole so the east and west walls could fall inward. It took 6 or 7 seconds for this area to clear out. The kink that developed in that area brought the east and west walls inward.

What makes me doubt that is was real is that Danny keeps talking about how Silverstein says he is going to "pull it down." Silverstein never said that. Sounds like a problem with translation. Is there any non-9/11 based video where he talks in English?

The reason that "pull it" has gotten so much attention is because it's a demolition term.
Danny knew it to mean "pull it down with explosives".

BTW: The whole "pull it" thing is a red herring. If Silverstein meant "pull it down", they would have "pulled it" later like the others, not while rescue operations were still going on.

 

[GlennB]

....
At this point, he has already concluded that it was a CD.
He was trying to figure out how it was done in a few hours.
When he saw the column layout he said "That explains quite a lot"
[the ConEd station is irrelevant, the core columns are the key to how WTC 7 was imploded]

And Jowenko was told there were 12 core columns. Spot the problem here?

The reason that "pull it" has gotten so much attention is because it's a demolition term.
Danny knew it to mean "pull it down with explosives".

Except that in CD circles it doesn't mean that at all.

 

[RedIbis]

BTW: The whole "pull it" thing is a red herring. If Silverstein meant "pull it down", they would have "pulled it" later like the others, not while rescue operations were still going on.

A red herring, indeed. Even if Silverstein did not mean to take the bldg down, why would the Capt. call Silverstein to consult about pulling a rescue operation?

The FDNY doesn't consult with the landlord before pulling a rescue operation.

 

[Unfit4Command]

A red herring, indeed. Even if Silverstein did not mean to take the bldg down, why would the Capt. call Silverstein to consult about pulling a rescue operation?

The FDNY doesn't consult with the landlord before pulling a rescue operation.

It was a courtesy call. In the end "They" (the Fire Department) made the decision to pull the operations away from the building.

 

[twinstead]

After 6 years, a good rule of thumb is that if you're a truther, and you STILL are arguing that Silverstein admitted to bring the building down with CD, you might as well hang it up; you're irrelevant to the movement.

You will never get anywhere. You will stay arguing your point on obscure internet forums for the rest of your life. You might as well be demanding answers, arguing minutiae, and claiming revolution is near for the dastardly conspiracy of the USS Maine explosion.

"Just a few more months, and we'll bring those evil people responsible for the destruction of that ship to justice!"

 

[Christopher7]

And Jowenko was told there were 12 core columns. Spot the problem here?

No

"They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
"the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

He said that before he was told there were 12 columns.

He could see there were more but that did not matter to him.

How many core columns is irrelevant. You blow them and "the rest implodes".

 

[twinstead]

I wouldn't put all of my eggs in one Jowenko basket, Chris, if I were you

Oh, and this Jowenko is wrong about WTC1 and 2 but right about WTC7 rationalization thingy you have going on?

 

[LashL]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

This is nonsense. Any "expert" who came to court to provide an opinion without having first obtained a whole lot of background information, and without having done a whole lot of detailed analysis based on complete information, and who gave an opinion in this matter on such a flimsy basis as a few seconds of video, would be laughed out of court.

 

[RedIbis]

It was a courtesy call. In the end "They" (the Fire Department) made the decision to pull the operations away from the building.

What operations?

 

[A W Smith]

There was no debris damage near the area of the initiating event.

there does not need to be. All that is needed is a load transfer and a rate of steel expansion elsewhere to push columns many bays away out of plumb for the structure to fail.

 

[A W Smith]

A red herring, indeed. Even if Silverstein did not mean to take the bldg down, why would the Capt. call Silverstein to consult about pulling a rescue operation?

The FDNY doesn't consult with the landlord before pulling a rescue operation.

The answer lies in the quote. "there has been such a terrible loss of life"

They did not want to risk losing more under the collapse of building seven..

 

[LashL]

there does not need to be. All that is needed is a load transfer and a rate of steel expansion elsewhere to push columns many bays away out of plumb for the structure to fail.

There you go again, confusing the poor little twoofer with facts and reality. He's never going to get out of his mother's basement at this rate.

 

[Unfit4Command]

What operations?

The searches for hundreds of fallen Fire Fighters and people trapped in the piles of the Twin Towers were called off and everyone was pulled away from the area.