10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Sure, Chris. Sure.

Do you dispute the time and progression of the fires in WTC 7 as listed in post 3380 ?

 

[Gravy]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.

You mean that building that burned for 7 hours? It's a mystery...

 

[Christopher7]

Someone should look into this whole WTC 7 thing.

That's what i have been doing.

Originally Posted by Christopher7
I have read a few quotes from the NIST report and as i remember they couldn't say for sure what caused wtc7 to collapse.
I have dial-up (50kbps) and downloading the whole report is not practical. Is it possible to find just the part about wtc7?

Originally Posted by Gravy
As a contractor, you should know the value of reading plans. This now the fourth time you've been asked to read the NIST interim report on WTC 7. It's 5 megs.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

Let us know when you do.


I have read the report and discovered that

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis


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


Do you dispute this time line and progression of the fires in WTC 7 ?

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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 p.m., there were fires on floors 11 and 12 in the area of the initiating event.

Some time later, fires on floors 8 and 13.

The fires burned for less than 2 hours in any location as they progressed.

 

[leftysergeant]

The long gash is nowhere near the area of the initiating event.

It looks like the gash we are discussing here was directly below the kink in the roof, which is directly under the area where falling debris damaged the parapet on the roof, and the mechanical tower toward the same end of the building sank out of sight there first, so what on earth do you mean by the idea that it was not near the initiating event?

 

[Disenchanted]

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

What? Outside of your imagination, you haven't debunked anything.

A particularly astonishing claim is that WTC 7 landed or mostly landed in its footprint. If it landed in its own foot print then why did a little debris from it fall on a building across the street? If it landed in its own foot print that would not have happened.

Also astonishing is saying that you have shown the debris damage wasn't a significant factor. You have not offered any credible evidence for this.

 

[twinstead]

I have read the report and discovered that

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis

You can't just SAY that in order for it to be true. Many people who know what they are talking about more than you disagree.

The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one, even though you even think you've debunked that 'spin'. You're going to have to do better than making sweeping declarations and then put your fingers in your ears when others point out why they aren't true.

You owe it to all the lurker converts you must be getting from reading this thread. You know, the ones swelling the ranks of the truth movement as we speak.

 

[jaydeehess]

Long weekend, little time so just a quick response.

There is a reason it has been delayed again.

yeah, they are hoping the "truth movement " will dry up and go away.

Now there's a stupid response.

Try to inmagine my thoughts on the question

Quote:
As opposed to your compelling "looks like" and "sounds like" evidence. Fact remains Chris, there was debris damage and there were fires. The details of those would go to showing how they contributed to the collapse. Some of those details may never be known though.On the other hand you not only have no compelling evidence that explosives were used, you also have absolutly no details about where, when, who and how much was used.

and the subject shift

.
I hardly think so

[/I]And you don't find it strange that they published pictures of every side and angle except the most important part.

None are so blind .......

No I don't, and Biblical quotes will not sway me.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd like to see Chris respond to the video footage showing the huge gash going down the whole building. But what's the point, he will just keep denying everything he doesn't want to accept. And all this to hide the fact that he has absolutely nothing to back up his claims for the cause.

 

[Christopher7]

It looks like the gash we are discussing here was directly below the kink in the roof, which is directly under the area where falling debris damaged the parapet on the roof, and the mechanical tower toward the same end of the building sank out of sight there first, so what on earth do you mean by the idea that it was not near the initiating event?

The long gash was west of center.

The east penthouse collapsed first.

 

[Christopher7]

What? Outside of your imagination, you haven't debunked anything.

A particularly astonishing claim is that WTC 7 landed or mostly landed in its footprint.

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

If it landed in its own foot print then why did a little debris from it fall on a building across the street?
If it landed in its own foot print that would not have happened.

WTC 7 was 576 feet tall.
There was too much of it to fit in the original footprint.
The north facade buckled out and hit the building across the street.

Also astonishing is saying that you have shown the debris damage wasn't a significant factor. You have not offered any credible evidence for this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2598347#post2598347

The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant effect on the area of the initiating event.


NIST Apx. L pg 36

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The report then talks about possible damage to core columns and fires in the area of the initiating event.

pg 37

" I2.1 South facade damaged
> I3.1 Perimeter moment frame redistributes loads around damage
> I4.1 Local failure only"

PG 41

"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

pg 42

" Initiating event scenarios from I4.4 to I4.6
> V1.1 Any perimeter column fails
> V2.1 Collapse does not progress vertically"

The report makes no further mention of the damage to the south face.

They site core damage and fires as the possible causes of the initiating event.

 

[Drudgewire]

I'd like to see Chris respond to the video footage showing the huge gash going down the whole building.

The guy from CHUD proved that was caused by terrorist arrows.

 

[Christopher7]

there is no evidence to support the official hypothesis

You can't just SAY that in order for it to be true.

I have listed the facts of what happened.

Many people who know what they are talking about more than you disagree.
The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one,

You can't just SAY that in order for it to be true.

even though you even think you've debunked that 'spin'. You're going to have to do better than making sweeping declarations and then put your fingers in your ears when others point out why they aren't true.

No one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.


I have answered all challenges to these statements, with facts from the many govt. reports listed in post 3372.

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

If you have something of substance to offer, post it.

You owe it to all the lurker converts you must be getting from reading this thread. You know, the ones swelling the ranks of the truth movement as we speak.

True

 

[Pardalis]

Chris, why don't you wait for...

Nah, nevermind.

 

[twinstead]

No one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.

This is utter BS.

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

No, you have not.

If you have something of substance to offer, post it.

Right back at you. As long as you labor to post your evidence in a relatively obscure discussion forum on the internet you are not doing your movement any favors.

Bring your evidence to any law enforcement agency or media outlet anywhere on Earth and start the ball rolling. Do it now.

Call my bluff, because I don't think you have a case. Could you support your case in a court of law?

BTW, you aren't getting ANY converts. That was sarcasm. But I'm sure you realize that.

 

[Christopher7]

This is utter BS.

So far, no one has offered any evidence to dispute the facts listed in post 3384.
That's because the FACTS are from the NIST report Gravy insisted i read.

Right back at you. As long as you labor to post your evidence in a relatively obscure discussion forum on the internet you are not doing your movement any favors.

I have learned a great deal debating here.
The summaries of the evidence have been edited and refined to take into account the legitimate criticism of jaydeehess, Belz, cloudshiprule and others.

You and Gravy have nothing of substance to offer this debate, just a lot of sarcastic remarks, insults and unsupported claims like "The consensus of the world's scientific community stands against you on this one".

Bring your evidence to any law enforcement agency or media outlet anywhere on Earth and start the ball rolling. Do it now.

Thank you for the suggestion. I'm on it.

Call my bluff, because I don't think you have a case. Could you support your case in a court of law?

This thread is about the lack of evidence to support the official hypothesis.
Could you support your case in a court of law?

BTW, you aren't getting ANY converts. That was sarcasm. But I'm sure you realize that.

You haven't got a clue what the lurkers are thinking.
You haven't got a clue what the world scientific community is thinking.
All you have is arrogance and sarcasm.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes people have indeed offered evidence. But you simply disagree and do nothing but offer your own speculation. What you are doing Christopher is preying on the fact that no one can or ever will be able to know the exact details and the exact specifics. So each time there is an area or making educated guesses, which is inevitable, you assume they are wrong or impossible.

The whole reason you started this thread is because you know that your own believes have not a single drop of credibility or evidence to back them up, so your only way or presenting your theories is by taking advantage of the inevitable holes in what so far it the most plausible one. And you do this by cherry picking information and throwing out what you don't want to see.

And the most important part is that you take advantage of the NIST report not yet being released. But we can certainly say that YOU definitely have no clue as to what the scientific community is thinking because none of that community agrees with you. You take the few oddballs which are simply statistical, and try to use them to dismiss the vast majority of the scientific community. And the criteria used to dismiss is based on whether the person suggests a conspiracy or not. Likewise if the roles were reversed and the 99.999999% of the scientific community supported a conspiracy and just a single person idn't, you would be more than happy to to use the majority to say it's likely the oddball is wrong. But since the majority does not support your pre-determined conclusion, you conclude that anyone, no matter what the credentials or work is that disagrees overrules everyone else for no other reason than because it's what you want to hear.

You can continue to try and dress it up all you want, but that's all you are doing. A nice little song and dance that will only last until the official results are published.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OH and as for the court of law comment, it HAS been presented in a court of law and it HAS held up. You unfortunately could not say the same.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes people have indeed offered evidence.

What evidence?

But you simply disagree and do nothing but offer your own speculation.

Some here have speculated about 'lateral stress' but NIST made no mention of 'lateral stress' because it played no part in the collapse. If lateral stress was a factor, NIST would have included it in their analysis.

What you are doing Christopher is preying on the fact that no one can or ever will be able to know the exact details and the exact specifics. So each time there is an area or making educated guesses, which is inevitable, you assume they are wrong or impossible.

The only educated guess i have made is that the fires were not sufficient to cause the failure of a column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

The whole reason you started this thread is because you know that your own believes have not a single drop of credibility or evidence to back them up,

You simply deny the evidence and say there is none.

As the name of this thread indicates, i started this thread because:

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L, doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

I argued that many people here thought it existed.

so your only way or presenting your theories is by taking advantage of the inevitable holes in what so far it the most plausible one. And you do this by cherry picking information and throwing out what you don't want to see.

You keep saying that.
What have i 'thrown out' ?

And the most important part is that you take advantage of the NIST report not yet being released.

If we are to disregard the NIST progress report until the final report comes out, then stop saying it presents the most plausible explanation.

But we can certainly say that YOU definitely have no clue as to what the scientific community is thinking because none of that community agrees with you.

So very wrong

Stephen Jones is a PROFESSOR of physics at a well known, very conservative university.

Yet you [and others here] arrogantly claim that you know more about the laws of physics than he does.

Many other scholars have joined him in his conclusion that WTC 7 could have collapsed the way it did, without the use of demolition devices.

Two PROFESSORS of structural analysis and construction came to the same conclusion.

The owner of a demolition company says WTC 7 was a CD.

There are now 155 architects and engineers that say WTC 7 was a CD.

You tell yourself that all these professionals don't know what they are talking about, and cling to a hypothesis [set of assumptions] that only 'appears possible'.

You take the few oddballs which are simply statistical, .

Let's face it, anyone, no matter how qualified, is an oddball in your book as soon as the say WTC 7 was a CD.

and try to use them to dismiss the vast majority of the scientific community

You keep saying that.
You haven't got a clue what the vast majority of the scientific community thinks.


Once again, many words, no evidence to refute anything in this list of FACTS from the NIST report:


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 Floors 11 and 12, at the southeast corner, progressing north.

As of 3:00 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.

A core column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, would have to be uniformly heated to about 1,000 F,
and 3 or 4 floors would have to collapse all around that column, before it could break at 3 splice joints and buckle.


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 for a few hours, on a few floors, at different times,
in the area where the collapse began.

​

 

[Christopher7]

OH and as for the court of law comment, it HAS been presented in a court of law and it HAS held up. You unfortunately could not say the same.

What court?

What case?