10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

That makes two of you. The difference is that you are certain about something you cannot know, and use that dubious certainty as evidence of CD of WTC7

Wrong

We are not certain which stairwell it was.

The lack of evidence for DD/F is not evidence of CD.

 

[twinstead]

Come on Chris. You believe with all your heart that CD brought down WTC7. ANY anomaly or anomalous testimony you find, real or imagined, can and will be used by you to 'prove' your point.

Don't pretend I haven't read pretty much every post you've ever made in this thread.

 

[Christopher7]

No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

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



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

 

[twinstead]

And again, instead of bringing any new insight into the debate, you simply reiterate your position one more time, ad infinitum, in hope THIS time it actually makes it relevant.

Until you actually bring to the table some tangible evidence of CD, your little fantasy is just your layman's opinion. What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence of CD.

That would indeed be helpful.

 

[Christopher7]

Come on Chris. You believe with all your heart that CD brought down WTC7. ANY anomaly or anomalous testimony you find, real or imagined, can and will be used by you to 'prove' your point.

I have quoted statements from the government reports you claim support DD/F.
There is nothing in those reports to support the official hypothesis.

 

[Christopher7]

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence of CD.

This thread is about the evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence that DD/F caused the collapse.

 

[Gravy]

No one can site any evidence to support the official hypothesis, so you all ignore this and talk about other things.


There were fires on several floors, at different times, in the area of the initiating event.
[the failure of core column 79, 80 and/or 81]

Fires in east half of WTC 7

NIST:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12, moved toward the east face
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on east face Floors 11 and 12 at the southeast corner

As of 2:30 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that the initiating event was caused by fire.

In order for fire to cause a core column to fail, 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, and it would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F.

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



That's the evidence.

Debris damage to the other end of the building,

and fires that a burned on a few floors, for a few hours, in the area where the collapse began.

Someone should look into this.

 

[twinstead]

I have quoted statements from the government reports you claim support DD/F.
There is nothing in those reports to support the official hypothesis.

NO. Don't pull that crap. What you need is to not spin the official reports to match your theory, what you need is EVIDENCE OF YOUR THEORY.

You can't claim the official story foul, then insert your unfounded theory as default. The only thing you can even half honestly claim is that you have found some inconsistencies in the 'official story'.

Your attempt at turning the official story against itself is transparent.

Real investigators know that inconsistencies exist in every complex event, no matter how well-explained.

What we need now, and have asked since page one of this thread, is for some compelling evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7.

A reasonable explanation as to why the hell they would do it isn't necessary, but worth extra credit.

 

[twinstead]

This thread is about the evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

What you REALLY need is some kind of physical evidence that DD/F caused the collapse.

It's all about burden of proof, my dear. You are accusing people of some major crimes.

I could care less about what this 'thread is about'

 

[Christopher7]

Someone should look into this.

You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

 

[twinstead]

You have nothing of substance to offer this debate.

A little hint: you can't just say that to make it true. It actually has to be true to...well...be true.

 

[Christopher7]

NO. Don't pull that crap. What you need is to not spin the official reports to match your theory,

I have debunked the 'spin' about:
the 10 story gouge
diesel fires in the area of the initiating event
all the firefighters thought WTC 7 was going to collapse
WTC 7 was leaning
it toppled over
it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint
the debris damage was a significant factor in the initiating event

You can't claim the official story foul, then insert your unfounded theory as default.

You keep saying that.
I have never made that claim.

The only thing you can even half honestly claim is that you have found some inconsistencies in the 'official story'.

Wrong
There is NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.
If you know of any, post it.

What we need now, and have asked since page one of this thread, is for some compelling evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7.

A reasonable explanation as to why the hell they would do it isn't necessary, but worth extra credit.

You have NO evidence to support the official hypothesis so you try to subject shift.

Evidence for CD is a separate subject and can be debated here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2784655#post2784655


[FONT=&quot]


[/FONT]

 

[twinstead]

I could care less what thread we are on; you are wrong, and your theory is wrong. That means you are accusing innocent people of a crime.

Chris I don't HAVE to present evidence of the official story; it is out there for everybody to see. Evey wrinkle of the 'official story' is available for anybody in the world to scrutinize.

So. I am not arguing FOR the official story. You are arguing AGAINST it.

Finding anomalies in the official story doesn't cut it. SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

 

[Christopher7]

I could care less what thread we are on; you are wrong, and your theory is wrong. That means you are accusing innocent people of a crime.

IYO

Chris I don't HAVE to present evidence of the official story; it is out there for everybody to see. Evey wrinkle of the 'official story' is available for anybody in the world to scrutinize.

That is precisely what i have been doing.
I have found NO evidence to support the official hypothesis.

Have you found any?

So. I am not arguing FOR the official story.

Many here are.

You are arguing AGAINST it.

Correct

Finding anomalies in the official story doesn't cut it.

I found no evidence to support the official story.

SHOW SOME EVIDENCE.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2902751#post2902751

 

[MaGZ]

This is supposedly an air-to-air missile right MaGZ?
Funk has asked you several times the type/model of missile and you have yet to answer him.

FACT is that an air-to-air missile contains relatively little explosive. It is designed to track and catch fighter aircraft which can do mach 2, it is designed to turn in at least the g's that the fighter can. In order to acheive this the mass of the missile must be kept to a minimum.
Secondly, aircraft actually are rather fragile machines and it takes very much less to disable them than for instance, an armoured personel carrier. A few shards of metal up the tailpipe or severing a hydralic pipe and down she goes. Some aircraft are actually hardened for damage such as the A-10 but you will also notice that the A-10 is meant for close support of ground forces and ,slooow.
Thus air-to-air missiles are designed with only a large enough warhead to kill an aircraft.

On the other hand you have this a2a missile hitting WTC 7, entering the building and damaging a steel and concrete structure.
Not bloody likely pal.

I have never made any claims the missile contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. It started the fires in the building. A recent History Cannel documentary on 9/11 has an individual stating the fires started in WTC 7 around 9:30 that morning. This was before the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Yes, it was an air to air missile.

 

[MaGZ]

I had thought that we had decided that they were in the east stairwell but recently Christopher 7 placed them in the west end.

west or east the structure took an extreme insult when the SW corner was gouged out a couple of dozen feet deep and for more than a dozen floors and photos that show the other multistorey gouge further east indicate another heavy shock to the structure, each of which would occur within a second or two at most. Such a shock could easily cause damage to non-proximate structural components including the stairwell supports. As I have pointed out, a bird (last one was a crow IIRC) hitting my front window shakes the entire house without breaking the window.

If I remember correctly Jennings and Hess tried to access a service elevator but was unable to do so. Then building security personnel showed them a stairwell. Perhaps the stairwell Jennings and Hess used was not the publically accessible stairwells. Perhaps it was a stairwell close to the service elevator.

 

[MaGZ]

There were people in the lobby of WTC 7 when WTC 2 came down. Their statements say that the glass in the lobby shattered (one man describes having it embedded in his back as they exit through a door to the loading dock) and thick choking dust came in through the broken windows. they do not mention the building being rocked by any explosions prior to the collapse of WTC 2.

yet according the interpretation of Jennings statements WTC 2 was still standing when he got to the 6th floor. Does he ever mention WTC 2 coming down? WTC 1? Surely he and Hess did not simply go back and wait in the hall for 1 1/2 hours nor notice when the two towers did fall. In any case it is quite obvious that the towers were NOT standing when they were rescued and that the destroyed lobby was then not neccessarily the result of any explosion that no one else noticed occurring before either tower collapsed

It is interesting to note that the individual had to exit the building from the loading dock and not the lobby. Before the collapse of WTC 2 the lobby of WTC 7 was being used as a triage to help the injured from the missile explosion that occurred at 9:03.

 

[MaGZ]

,,,, but no one noticed an explosion that damaged the east stairwell. Do you suppose that Catalano and the others all left WTC 7, the explosion occured, and then they all came back to WTC 7, and then WTC 2 collapsed?
Catalano says they felt WTC 7 shake when WTC 1 got hit. Do you not suppose they would have felt an explosion strong enough to cause structural damage occuring within the building as well?

NDBoston, a forum member here and one who evacuated WTC 7 that day, said he felt debris hit WTC 7 when the second plane hit WTC 2. What NDBoston really felt was the missile hitting WTC 7 a few seconds after the plane hit WTC 2.

 

[MaGZ]

If he was in the building for 1 1/2 hours before reaching the lobby AND he had arrived at the OEM after it had been ordered evacuated at 9:44 then he was in that lobby well after ( after 11 am) both towers had collapsed.

Jennings arrived at OEM just before the crash of the second plane into WTC 2. He found the offices had just been evacuate with hot coffee still smoking on the desks. Those at OEM knew another plane was heading to NYC but did not know which building it was destined to hit. Jennings made a few calls and was told the get out immediately. Jennings experienced the missile explosion later in a stairwell. After the return of the people on the 23rd floor, the OEM was officially evacuated at 9:44 (before either Tower had collapsed) because of the fires that were started by the missile explosion.

 

[MaGZ]

It is possible that the 'explosion' they experienced then is the collapse of WTC 2, not WTC 1.

He says the stairwell was impassable and damaged by the explosion, or at least he says the landing 'gave out'.

You are saying the collapse of WTC 2 damaged the internal structured of WTC 7. No one believes this.