10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

So, you're saying that since no pictures clearly show the side that was impacted by debris and burning (and that's no surprise; it was a tad dangerous on that side, right?) then according to you, all the eye witness accounts be damned, no matter what other evidence points to it, the fire wasn't that bad.

Typical. You have built in a woo woo circuit breaker that won't allow you to assimilate ANY conflicting evidence. You can therefore, in your mind at least, never loose a debate. It's a variation of the 'well, that evidence could have been faked' technique. It's the 'well, show me a picture then. Until then I will never believe it' technique.

Powerful debate mojo...

Oh, and you say you looked at the 911myths WTC7 page. Exactly what parts of it don't you agree with?

 

[GlennB]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

Ah. I get it now. You believe the smoke belching from the whole of the South side of WTC7 was being produced by ..... by ..... er, by what?

Are you aware the wind was from the NW that day?

Are you aware that all the collapse videos were shot from the North side of the building and that the smoke emerging from the S of WTC7 was, therefore, not very apparent in the collapse videos?

And please explain why the smoke plumes here are travelling sideways on a day of light winds :

But, of course, if you - sitting at a PC 6 years later - can't actually see the flames through the smoke then they didn't exist and the FDNY testimony is wrong? Is that what you're saying?

 

[funk de fino]

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

That'll be due to the enormous amount of smoke emanating from those fires then eh?

 

[Belz...]

No I am not and that is why I post photos of WTC 7. I do not depend on quotes to support my position because they are among the weakest of evidence. People can change their story, misdescribe what they saw, lie, be intimidated into remembering something else, etc. There are numerous provocative quotes on both sides of this issue.

Good, good. Then I assume you think Jowenko's opinion on the matter is equally weak ?

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.

Actually, we have a large body of evidence to go with them.

Absolutely, and that is why it's important to notice in the WTC 7 collapse videos, there is no major fire burning.

Then where does all that smoke come from ?

If the bldg was engulfed in an inferno just before the collapse, where are the flames, shooting out of the bldg as the floors collapse?

You're simply not very good at this.

1) Why would we expect flames to be shooting out ? How large do you expect these flames to be ? The building is 47 stories, remember.

2) Why would you expect to see the flames as the building collapses ? You don't see a floor-by-floor collapse, in this case, and even if you did I don't know why you expect to see hollywood-style flames shooting out for no reason.

It's a simple exercise. You say that fire was on nearly all floors, show a picture of that, a video.

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

That's mighty dishonest of you, showing the opposite side of the building and claiming you can't see fire when many pictures have shown that there was lots of fire in 7 WTC.

 

[Christopher7]

That'll be due to the enormous amount of smoke emanating from those fires then eh?

[FONT=&quot]NIST Apx. L pg 22 – 26
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m[/FONT][FONT=&quot].:
fire on floor 22 on south side[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]fire on floor 12[/FONT][FONT=&quot] burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported on the east half of the south side]

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT] About 3:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions,
eventually reaching the NE corner

[FONT=&quot]Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.

There are no fires on the east half of the south face

 

[Christopher7]

Show me the one available in 2001 then mate

HiEx Teleblaster II

http://hiex.bc.ca/promo.htm

We use a safe, reliable and proven signaling method - the same method the US Corp. of Army Engineers, US Forest Service and numerous bomb squads have chosen to use. This method has been in use at Weyerhaeuser Eve River Operations since 1999.

What if he had sound and realised there were no explosions noises? The video gets played in court and all the sound recordings from that day are played and there are no CD explosions present. What would Jowenko most likely say?

[FONT=&quot]This explosion occurred about 10:20 a.m., [estimate based on shadows] about the time Barry Jenkins and Michael Hesh reported an explosion in WTC 7.

[/FONT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

What would you say if he said it was impossible to rig it up

There is no reason to think he would say that.

just answer the question?

No, you could come up with irrelevant 'what if' questions all day long.

Would you accept his expert opinion?

Asking 'what if' questions is just a way of avoiding 'what is'.

There are also two professors of structural analysis and construction that came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence.

 

[funk de fino]

[FONT=&quot]NIST Apx. L pg 22 – 26
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m[/FONT][FONT=&quot].:
fire on floor 22 on south side[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]fire on floor 12[/FONT][FONT=&quot] burned west to east across the south side
[there were no other fires reported on the east half of the south side]

From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][qimg]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg[/qimg]

[/FONT] About 3:00 p.m., the fire on floor 12 reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions,
eventually reaching the NE corner

[FONT=&quot]Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side[/FONT]

[qimg]http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png[/qimg]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][qimg]http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg[/qimg]

Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor.
The smoke [screen] obscures the south face.

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.

[qimg]http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg[/qimg]

There are no fires on the east half of the south face

[qimg]http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3983/copyofsfacegraphic3qs7.jpg[/qimg]

do you just post with your eyes closed?

post the plan of the buiolding and show me where your pictures are depicting

where is all the smoke coming from in the last picture?

and where is all the smoke coming from the in the picture you posted just prior to the collapse?

or are you saying it is not smoke?

 

[funk de fino]

HiEx Teleblaster II

an example in your own words and i cannot see where it says this model has been in use since 1999?

We use a safe, reliable and proven signaling method - the same method the US Corp. of Army Engineers, US Forest Service and numerous bomb squads have chosen to use. This method has been in use at Weyerhaeuser Eve River Operations since 1999.

what would happen to all the electronics on the detonators in the fires in WTC7? also what would happen to the explosives? i also believe this only takes away the lead line which is attached to the control box allowing safer distances, it does not look to me like they can have a remote detonator cap on each piece of explosive and they are all fired at once via Rf signal? how many pieces of explosive do you think were used in the WTC7 case?

This explosion occurred about 10:20 a.m., [estimate based on shadows] about the time Barry Jenkins and Michael Hesh reported an explosion in WTC 7.

estimate based on shadows????

so the building fell down when? how many hours later? do you think jowenko would agree with you on that aspect of a CD?

where are the CD explosions in any sound recording from that day? from either the twins or WTC7

There is no reason to think he would say that.

there is every reason, do you know how long it would take to set up this? ask any CD expert, it does not have to be jowenko, in fact ask HiEX they should be able to tell you roughly, i bet you dont though?

No, you could come up with irrelevant 'what if' questions all day long.

Asking 'what if' questions is just a way of avoiding 'what is'.

run away sunshine, jowenko is saying the twins were not a CD so what do you say to that? this is not a what if

There are also two professors of structural analysis and construction that came to the same conclusion based on the same evidence

.

yep, they base their opinions on edited video, next witness please

 

[Christopher7]

post the plan of the buiolding and show me where your pictures are depicting

You don't know the east and north sides of WTC 7 when you see them?
The post even says what they are.
You need a diagram?

where is all the smoke coming from in the last picture?

The wast half of the south side where all the debris damage was.

and where is all the smoke coming from the in the picture you posted just prior to the collapse?

None of the pictures i posted was just prior to the collapse.

According to NIST, the only fire in the area of the initiating event at the time of collapse was on floor 8.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, these fires are on the east half of the north side and all fires in WTC 7 started on the south side. You have shown then that fire ravaged floors 7 through 12 on the east side of the building. The main core supports are more to the south of the building's center but still certainly it is quite possible that fire damage occured to them due to these fires. Smoke emanated from pretty much every floor of the south side which had a large percentage of its windows broken by the collapses of WTC 1&2.

You debunk yourself.

 

[funk de fino]

You don't know the east and north sides of WTC 7 when you see them?

No i just want to be sure what you are posting

The post even says what they are.

Confirmation again

You need a diagram?

yes, why not?

The wast half of the south side where all the debris damage was.

The south side of WTC7 is hwere all that smoke is coming from? Why do you insist on showing the fires on the other sides then?

None of the pictures i posted was just prior to the collapse.

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

You showed a picture then said the above. Where is all the smoke coming from in this picture at this point just before collapse?

According to NIST, the only fire in the area of the initiating event at the time of collapse was on floor 8.

I never mentioned initiating event, trying to sidetrack again

There is smoke billowing out from nearly all floors on the south side, if there are hardly any fires then where is it coming from?

 

[Christopher7]

an example in your own words and i cannot see where it says this model has been in use since 1999?

The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.

what would happen to all the electronics on the detonators in the fires in WTC7? also what would happen to the explosives?

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

There are no reports of fire below floor 6 at any time.

The only fire reported on floor 6 was near the south west corner.

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. [/FONT]

so the building fell down when? how many hours later? do you think jowenko would agree with you on that aspect of a CD?

I don't know.
The point is, there was a very large explosion.

where are the CD explosions in any sound recording from that day? from either the twins or WTC7

The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911.

do you know how long it would take to set up this? ask any CD expert, it does not have to be jowenko,

I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.

jowenko is saying the twins were not a CD so what do you say to that?

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.

yep, they base their opinions on edited video,

The same videos we have all seen

next witness please

Yep, they're only experts, what do they know?

 

[Christopher7]

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg

Chris, these fires are on the east half of the north side and all fires in WTC 7 started on the south side. You have shown then that fire ravaged floors 7 through 12 on the east side of the building.

Welcome back jaydeehess

There were fires on floors 8, 11, 12 and 13, burning at different times, in the east end of WTC 7

Floor 12 was gutted and the fire burned out before 4:45.
Floor 11 burned from the south east corner toward the north between 2 and 3 p.m. but did not appear on the north side
[in the middle] until around 4:45.
Floor 7 started on the west side* and burned to the center of the north face where it appears to have burned out around 4 p.m.
[when the photo you posted was taken]

*At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face.
[near the middle]
Some time later, fires on floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving
from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west.
The fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
.... the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face.
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.

The main core supports are more to the south of the building's center but still certainly it is quite possible that fire damage occured to them due to these fires.

The implosion began near the east end of the building, columns 79, 80 and 81.

These columns weighed over 4 tons per floor.

NIST Apx. L pg 38 [42 on pg counter]
I4.2 Unbraced Columns:
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure.
The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced
column length, K. This column, which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, 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.

pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.

When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.

Meridian Plaza

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/2...ridian5lo2.png

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

After the fire, there was evident significant structural
damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire
damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as
three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the
reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.

Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html
[FONT=&quot]12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.[/FONT]

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again then Chris you utterly fail to imagine the sum total of all damages to the structure. The floor system may well have been compromised by debris damage. The columns themselves may well have been compromised by debris damage and evidence of this is the ejected elevator car. Something caused an elevator car to leave its shaft. If the lift cables were severed they had to be severed by something that entered the shaft which in turn would have to be something rather substantial.

So that gives initial conditions that are far from ideal. Now you have fires some of which burn out and all of which would be considered major fires by themselves on any other day. When vertical steel is heated and expands under load it buckles. When it then cools and contracts it results in a downward creep which can easily snap connections to horizontal members. Now you have a floor system that is not intact and a severed connection between column and floor system.
More fires spread on proximate floors putting pressure on the same columns but on different levels.

Steel columns can and have failed under fire damage alone. The oft cited Windsor building is illustrative of this. Yet WTC 7 was not a fully intact structure when the fires started as was the Windsor.

You claim that there is absolutly no way that the senario of debris damage and fire damage to WTC 7 could have resulted in the collapse and I say that you simply cannot make such a definitive statement. The evidence is staring you in the face that this was entirely possible.

 

[GlennB]

....
I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.
...

Why would everybody "know their task" - i.e. be ready to go for a hit+run CD of WTC7 - in advance of 9/11 ?

If "they" expected the building to be hit by WTC1 debris, then how could "they" possibly predict that the damage and initial fires would be slight enough to allow the CD work to go ahead?

I can only repeat what has been said many times - there is no possible narrative that makes any sense.

 

[funk de fino]

The point is, this method has been in use since 1999.

by whom?

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

There are no reports of fire below floor 6 at any time.

The only fire reported on floor 6 was near the south west corner.

[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Depending on the height of the structure, we'll work on a couple of different floors—usually anywhere from two to six. [/FONT]

so for all CD there is only explosives below the 6th floor? never on any floor higher?

I don't know.
The point is, there was a very large explosion.

one explosion? heard by who? would one explosion be enough to bring down the building but be able to leave it a few hours before deciding to fall?

The government collected, and is withholding from the public, over 6,000 video clips from 911.

how many of WTC7? and are you sure it is the goverment that is witholding them? also source please?

I read somewhere that it takes a few weeks to rig a building.
Jowenko thought it might be done in one day with 30 or 40 men if everyone knows his task.

a few weeks? interesting? source please for jowenko saying it could be done in one day

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

so they are not CD then, good i am glad you have come off that fence

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.


The same videos we have all seen

Yep, they're only experts, what do they know?

more than anyone else watching an incomplete and edited video with no further background info, but still not enough to use as evidence

 

[jaydeehess]

Why would everybody "know their task" - i.e. be ready to go for a hit+run CD of WTC7 - in advance of 9/11 ?

If "they" expected the building to be hit by WTC1 debris, then how could "they" possibly predict that the damage and initial fires would be slight enough to allow the CD work to go ahead?

I can only repeat what has been said many times - there is no possible narrative that makes any sense.

,,, and there you have it. The evidence supports the very real possibility that the collapse was the result of debris damage coupled with the fire damage, and on the flip side there is scant evidence of a CD and , as Glenn puts it, no narrative regarding a CD that makes any sense.

So is this thread over, complete, finished? It was many weeks ago as far as I was concerned and, upon revisiting the thread, I see no reason to change my mind.

 

[funk de fino]

Answer post # 3091 now Christopher including your "just before" quote you posted

 

[Belz...]

These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building.

We've been through this before, Chris. Several times, in fact.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse.

 

[Christopher7]

Once again then Chris you utterly fail to imagine the sum total of all damages to the structure. The floor system may well have been compromised by debris damage.

There was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event [columns 79, 80 & 81]

The columns themselves may well have been compromised by debris damage and evidence of this is the ejected elevator car.

The elevators were not near columns 79, 80 & 81.

Something caused an elevator car to leave its shaft.

An explosion

If the lift cables were severed they had to be severed by something that entered the shaft which in turn would have to be something rather substantial.

There is no evidence of anything but an explosion.

Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hesh ...." "Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search=

Michael Hesh "another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
[start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume]

So that gives initial conditions that are far from ideal. Now you have fires some of which burn out and all of which would be considered major fires by themselves on any other day. When vertical steel is heated and expands under load it buckles.

No, it does not. Quite the contrary.

Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.

[FONT=&quot]Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.[/FONT]

When it then cools and contracts it results in a downward creep which can easily snap connections to horizontal members.

Source?

Now you have a floor system that is not intact and a severed connection between column and floor system.

The only case where this happened in a high rise building was the Windsor. It was poorly designed and cannot be compared to WTC 7.

The gap between the original cladding and floor slabs was not firestopped as well. In fact, these weak links in the fire protection of the building was being rectified in the refurbishment project at the time of the fire.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

More fires spread on proximate floors putting pressure on the same columns but on different levels.

OK

Steel columns can and have failed under fire damage alone.
The oft cited Windsor building is illustrative of this. Yet WTC 7 was not a fully intact structure when the fires started as was the Windsor.

The perimeter columns in the Windsor Tower were lightweight box beams weighing about 18 pounds per lineal foot and cannot be compared to columns 79, 80 & 81 which weighed 730 pounds per lineal foot [40 times as massive]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html#details

You claim that there is absolutly no way that the senario of debris damage and fire damage to WTC 7 could have resulted in the collapse and I say that you simply cannot make such a definitive statement. The evidence is staring you in the face that this was entirely possible.

Again, there was no debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.

NIST Apx. L pg 36 p[40 on pg counter]
If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade.

pg 38 [42 on pg counter]
At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure.
This column, which had a service load stress of approximately 21 ksi, 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.

At no time were there fires on 4 contiguous floors in the area of the initiating event.