10 story hole in WTC 7

[funk de fino]

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

Some of Barry Jenning's testimonies

 

[Disenchanted]

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

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.

Buildings are routinely brought down into their own footprints, many bigger than WTC 7, and in doing so don’t hit buildings around them. That WTC 7 hit the building disproves the claim it fell into its own footprint.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you try to spin what the NIST has said or you say that you have debunked “it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint”. The fact that it hit another building shows it did not land in its own footprint.

 

[jaydeehess]

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 does NOT say that.

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,"

All that states is that the initiating event did not originate on the perimeter frame. It says nothing at all about how much stress was on any core column or floor span due to the loss of perimeter columns.

What you are quoting here is a flow chart method of determining WHERE the initial failure that led to the collapse occured. It says very little about what caused the inital failure.

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

You then quote more of NIST's flow chart concerning the perimeter.

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.

Yes they do cite such a senario and this does indicate that the collapse was initiated in the core of the building. The flow chart says nothing at all about the contribution of the various damages done to the building to that collapse. You misrepresent the NIST flowchart(or misunderstand it)


Let me harken back to that garage you repaired. I asked you to imagine what would have occured if you had simply hooked a chain around the offending studs and used your truck to rip them out all at once. That however would not transfer much of the impulse to the rest of the garage because the studs in question were termite damaged and would give way quickly. A better comparison would be to take a pristine garage and again rip out a corner stud and several studs along the adjacent walls. You may need a bigger truck to accomplish this as the fasteners (screws, nails, bolts) holding the wood together will be pulling through good wood rather than termite gutted wood.

Now the garage would not fall completly, at least I would not expect it to BUT the entire structure is now weakened. A garage has no internal column structure but we can now go through a thought experiment as to what would now happen if this garage, and an identically built one that is still in whole condition, were subjected to a realtively high wind. I daresay that the damaged garage would fail at a much lower windspeed than the undamaged one. What is the initiating cause of the collapse of the garage? Not the damage to the studs. The wind is the initiating cause of collapse.

This analogy breaks down at some point,(as all analogies do), but illustrates how you misinterpret what NIST is saying.

Whether you do this because of a misunderstanding or a prejudice that requires you to do so is not clear in my mind. It may be clear in the minds of others here though.

 

[Christopher7]

Some of Barry Jenning's testimonies

On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

ETA: Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."

 

[Christopher7]

Buildings are routinely brought down into their own footprints, many bigger than WTC 7,

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]TALLEST EXPLOSIVELY DEMOLISHED BUILDING
Hudson’s Department Store
Detroit, Michigan USA[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At first, protesters objected loudly to the razing of this 26-story, 439-foot tall structure located in the heart of Detroit’s commercial district. But years of neglect and decay precluded an economically viable alternative, and the building was brought down in 1998.[/FONT]​

There were large spaces on two sides, yet:

Pile up of debris during the fall of Hudson’s pushed four steel columns against and two columns over the post-tensioned concrete elevated People Mover Tramway near the south west corner of the structure.

and in doing so don’t hit buildings around them.

Much preparation goes into assuring surrounding buildings are not damaged, but it still happens.
No such preparations were made for WTC 7.

That WTC 7 hit the building disproves the claim it fell into its own footprint.

It's not a claim, it's a FACT. WTC 7 was 576 feet tall.
There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.

So it doesn’t matter how many times you try to spin what the NIST has said

Spin? This is a direct quote.
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building."

“it did not land [mostly] in it's footprint”.

You are denying the obvious and the clear statement in the NIST report.

The fact that it hit another building shows it did not land in its own footprint.

The Hudson building did not land entirely within it's own footprint.
It damaged a Tramway near the south west corner.

 

[twinstead]

Chris you still haven't shown that WTC7 should have fallen any different than it did whether it was CD or not.

I'm sure you are preparing another 50 pages on the definition of 'mostly', but during your lull time from that perhaps you could explain, with the math, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris 7 is quite right when he says that WTC 7 fell mostly within its own footprint.

The CT claim that it fell entirely within the footprint is obviously erroneous.

However all that means is that the collapse was initiated within the building rather than at the perimeter.
In that there is no dispute with Christopher 7, the collapse started roughly along the centerline (E-W). Did something else occur in the few seconds before the columns under the penthouse gave out? We do not know, neither does Chris and neither did NIST, at least as of the printing of the prelim report. THUS, the initiating event is said to be the visible event, that of the failure of the support under the penthouse.

The fact that in tall structure controlled demolitions the building is designed to come down in its own footprint as a much as possible is given as weighty evidence that indeed WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, BUT what can be accomplished by man certainly can be accomplished naturally. What is in evidence on Sept 11, 2001 is that three very tall buildings collapsed and that they did so basically straight down.

The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!", but the truely scientifically minded looks at this and wonders if it means that a straight down collapse is somehow predisposed in buildings of the scale of these structures.
The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!" ,but the truly scientifically minded looks at the fact that all three structures had somewhat unigue engineering (tube-in-tube for the towers and the cantilever system over the pre-existing Con-ed building, as well as the engineered ability to change ceiling heights in the building at WTC 7) and wonders if that played a role in the manner of collapse.
The CT then says "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!", but, all three structures failed after being subjected to major structural damage and then major fires.

The CT cries "controlled demolition!! controlled demolition!!, that explains it all", but truly scientific thing to do is to investigate how the conditions that ARE KNOWN to have occured could have contributed to the end result of a global collapse.

So far all the CT, including Chris, has is a few people who say they heard an "explosion" as the building began its collapse and two others who experienced an "explosion" at about the same time as WTC 2 (or perhaps WTC 1) fell. They also have the relatively straight down collapse. That's it for KNOWN conditions that they can use to determine that it was a controlled demolition.

Further to this Chris points out that the damage to the area nearest the (visible) initiating event was not damaged as much as the western end of the building and thus he says the debris damage could not have contributed to the (visible) collapse initiation. He acknowledges that the fires in the area of the (visible) initiating event were indeed large fires that moved about that area over the course of the day but that, in his opinion, the fires could not have caused enough weakening to cause the (visible) initiating event.

There is no need. Chris says, to read the final report, his mind is made up.
By choosing the NIST prelim report to say what he thinks it says and combining that with the paltry amount of KNOWN conditions for controlled demolitions he has come to his conclusions.

The truly scientifically minded would at least wait for the final report to see what the people with relevent education and experience, as well as the time and funds to do the research, come up with.

Of course there are a lot of unknown details concerning the collapse of WTC 7. The most likely senario will be that NIST will come up with a probable collapse sequence that is more detailed than the one outlined in the prelim report. They may include a couple of other collapse sequences and give a probability for each of them. This may include the possibility of a controlled demolition. In the case of a controlled demolition one could deduce where the charges would have to be and how large they would have to be and in what sequence they would have to go off. If there is no empirical evidence to match that, then the probability of this being a controlled demolition would be set as very low.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.

That's an interesting conclusion. Can you show us the calculations by which you arrived at it?

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was too much of it to be contained entirely in it's own footprint.

That's an interesting conclusion. Can you show us the calculations by which you arrived at it?

Dave

It is true that even if the material was carefully placed in a large pile that it would extend to the Verizon and Post Office buildings.
that does not explain the damage to 30 West Broadway or the parts of WTC 7 lying on WTC 6 (accross the much wider, Vesey Street).

However, as I said above Chris 7 does not say it was all within the footprint of WTC 7. He just says that there is too much of it there, in his own opinion.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris you still haven't shown that WTC7 should have fallen any different than it did whether it was CD or not.

Correct

However, the evidence shows that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

It imploded

It collapsed in stages

It fell at a speed consistent with a CD*

It landed mostly in it's own footprint


These FACTS are obvious in the videos and pictures.

These FACTS are verified in the FEMA and NIST reports.

*NIST time line stops at 8.2 seconds.
[West penthouse and screenwall submerged]
Students at BYU calculated the fall of the north and west faces at 6.6 seconds.
The entire collapse took about 15 seconds.

I'm sure you are preparing another 50 pages on the definition of 'mostly',

Hopefully, we have put that puppy to bed.

The qualifier 'mostly' is irrelevant because building implosions sometimes have debris fall outside the original footprint and damage nearby structures.

but during your lull time from that perhaps you could explain, with the math, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.

I could not explain, with math or any other way, how the building 'should' have fallen if the official story is true.

Can you?

NIST determined the above FACTS by analyzing the evidence and tried to get those FACTS to fit the official story.

As of yet, they have not been able to do so.


The evidence shows that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a building implosion.

WTC 7 looks like a professional building implosion

No high rise building has ever imploded that was not a CD.

Therefore, WTC 7 could have been a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

The fact that in tall structure controlled demolitions the building is designed to come down in its own footprint as a much as possible
is given as weighty evidence that indeed WTC 7 was a controlled demolition,

So close, yet so far away.

Will you acknowledge that it is evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition ?

BUT what can be accomplished by man certainly can be accomplished naturally.

Natural?

There is nothing natural about a high rise building imploding in 15 seconds.

 

[GT/CS]

There was no other way for that building to fall. It could not have tipped over, it could not have squashed like a water balloon. It had to fall straight down. It's called gravity. Gravity pulls things down. All buildings of this size and construction type will fall the same way. And they will all look like a cd, they have to, since there is no other way for them to fall.

Get it Chris? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR THEM TO FALL.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, it fell in a manner consistent with Gravity. Just because it reminds you of a CD, which is also the result of Gravity does not mean it is consistent with a CD.

Ships sailing off into the distance and disappearing out of view is consistent with a flat earth. Just as it's consistent with a round earth. One is explained by the ship falling over the edge of the flat earth or going out of view of the round earth. Chris, you're simply making assumptions based on a scenario for which there isn't a single piece of evidence for. And NIST has promised that they will mathematically show what would have been needed to create a scenario with explosives. But no point in waiting for that since your mind is already made up and your argument again is based on taking advantage of everyone not having all the information from the final report which is what is needed to make a proper argument.

 

[Christopher7]

There was no other way for that building to fall. It could not have tipped over, it could not have squashed like a water balloon. It had to fall straight down. It's called gravity. Gravity pulls things down. All buildings of this size and construction type will fall the same way. And they will all look like a cd, they have to, since there is no other way for them to fall.

Get it Chris? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY FOR THEM TO FALL.

Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

 

[MaGZ]

On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.

Do we know that? Where is Michael Hess’ statement concerning the explosion ?

 

[Belz...]

Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

[qimg]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3192/taiwansixslc1.jpg[/qimg]

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

[qimg]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg[/qimg]

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.

For the "professional building implosion" bit, you might've wanted to compare 7 WTC with ANOTHER building, not itself.

I just love circular reasoning.

 

[funk de fino]

On 911
Both Barry and Michael said they "made it to - walked down to, the 8th floor".
Michael was not as rattled as Barry.

"Blew us back into the 8th floor" was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

He probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO.

In any case, i'm goin' with the 8th floor and i'm not believin' anything after "We reached the 8th, or the 6th floor ........" without solid confirmation.

ETA: Even more troubling is the direct contradiction.
"Blew us back into the 8th floor."
and
"There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging. I had to climb back up, and now i had to walk back up to the 8th floor."

its in his own words, in interview, how solid do you want it?

so you have thrown this out at the moment cause it does not suit you?

 

[jaydeehess]

So close, yet so far away.

Will you acknowledge that it is evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition ?

Natural?

There is nothing natural about a high rise building imploding in 15 seconds.

I acknowledge that when buildings fall apart from the center outward the collapses will all look similar no matter the cause.

The "looks like" CD, is barely a blip on any evidentiary radar.

As for 'natural', I am of course refering to forces other than deliberatly and purposefully causing the building to collapse.

Your pictures of earthquake toppled buildings is instructive. each of them failed at or very near the base of the building where the forces generated by the building swaying much more than designed for would cause the most stress. Each of thoe buildings were in pristine condition prior to their toppling (while experiencing lateral forces at ground level) and, there was NO vertical progression of failure.

 

[jaydeehess]

MaGZ, how's it going in finding that mysterious stairwell with windows or determining how a A2A missile could cause major damage to a stairwell(let alone penetrate 20 feet or so into a building)?

 

[funk de fino]

is there a video of this cd?