10 story hole in WTC 7

[Galileo]

Comparing a garage to a 47 sory building is ridiculous. The forces at WTC7 scale are so much greater.

Let say you could magically scale your garage up making all the wood and studs bigger in the process. You could go twice, three or four times bigger, maybe more but as you reached a certain scale you would find the garage would collapse under it's own weight. You would need to build in a different way, using stronger material like steel, reduce the weight and increase the number of supports to distribute that weight.

It's a big time misconception to think you can judge something that is built at one scale to something much bigger, even if they are exactly the same right down to the last scaled detail. As a kid you would have thought that building with Tinker Toys but it can't be done.

That is the reason computer modeling has to be done, real models even at half scale will not be accurate. And is the big reason the guys who build models of the WTC out do chicken wire are such a joke, their concept is all wrong.

The WTC building CRUMBLED the way they did because that is how something on that scale would fail. If you understand this concept the videos you see of the collapse make sense and don't require explosive to explain it. They CAN'T fall over, If you could grow to 1500 feet tall you would not be able to push them over, they would break apart under your hands. Expecting them to behave like a house or garage or even a 10 story building is down right silly.

The NIST scientists have not determined that WTC 7 came down from fire.

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

 

[jaydeehess]

The NIST scientists have not determined that WTC 7 came down from fire.

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

That is a mischaracterization of what NIST is doing ,AFAIK.

NIST is investigating several senarios for the collapse of WTC 7 , one of which is that of the use of explosives, and others are the effects of the various fires in the building.

 

[notheist]

Rather, they are now investigating blast events, possibly caused by explosives planted inside the building.

No. A "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a backdraft or Smoke Explosion.

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"?

Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. All the oxygen had been used up from fire and you need oxygen for an explosion (rapid burning). Now at some point a small section of the building fails opening a hole fro air to get in, oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!. Weakened hot steel structure can't take the overpressure and they fail. Down come WTC7

A much more logical scenario then someone planting bombs that are not discovered and that leave no tattletale trace in the rubble.

 

[Galileo]

You Put The Cart Before The Horse

No. A "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a backdraft or Smoke Explosion.

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"?

Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. All the oxygen had been used up from fire and you need oxygen for an explosion (rapid burning). Now at some point a small section of the building fails opening a hole fro air to get in, oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!. Weakened hot steel structure can't take the overpressure and they fail. Down come WTC7

A much more logical scenario then someone planting bombs that are not discovered and that leave no tattletale trace in the rubble.

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

But NIST has not completed their investigation, so please let them finish before you declare what happened, OK?

 

[notheist]

If says they are investigating the use of explosive it won't be because they actually believe such a scenario could have happened. It will be because a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorist have made enough noise and NIST feels it need to pacify the inside job children with a pat on the head and a "Yeah we will look into it"

A mistake it think because with 9/11 conspiracy theorist it inside job or nothing. At what point is a conspiracy theory too loony to warrant investigation, mini nukes, space beams?

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

Do you have a link to an article that states that?

All I know is that NIST will investigate possible collapse senarios, ONE of which will be the use of explosives, NOT that NIST is specifically investigating supposed "blast events".

 

[Galileo]

?

Do you have a link to an article that states that?

All I know is that NIST will investigate possible collapse senarios, ONE of which will be the use of explosives, NOT that NIST is specifically investigating supposed "blast events".

States what?

 

[notheist]

But NIST has not completed their investigation, so please let them finish before you declare what happened, OK?

I am not telling them to NOT continue. Neither am I telling them to waist time going down a rat hole of mini nukes, space beams and the oh so popular urban legend of a controlled demolition.

Best to spend that time and money on reality issues like how do we make buildings safer in fires, which FYI was the subject of PBSs NOVA program two nights ago, And NIST has already made some big recommendations in the areas of fire proofing and better wider hardened stair wells.

Building on Ground Zero
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

 

[jaydeehess]

States what?

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

That they are investigating a "blast event(s)" rather than a collapse senario that includes the use of explosives.

You do understand the distinction right?

 

[Galileo]

That they are investigating a "blast event(s)" rather than a collapse senario that includes the use of explosives.

You do understand the distinction right?

How do you know the blast events weren't caused by explosives set by terrorists?

 

[jaydeehess]

How do you know the blast events weren't caused by explosives set by terrorists?

As I explained twice now, as far as I know NIST is investigating various collapse senarios including one that has explosives as the cause of the collapse. This does not mean that NIST is looking into specific "blast events".

I want you to provide some reference that states that NIST is investigating "blast events". Do you or do you not have such a reference.
If not say so, if you do then please provide it.

 

[Galileo]

Those blasted NIST scientists.

As I explained twice now, as far as I know NIST is investigating various collapse senarios including one that has explosives as the cause of the collapse. This does not mean that NIST is looking into specific "blast events".

I want you to provide some reference that states that NIST is investigating "blast events". Do you or do you not have such a reference.
If not say so, if you do then please provide it.

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

....

"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."

....

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

 

[Reality Believer]

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7
"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=67

Make sure you include NIST's entire paragraph that contained that statement:

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST exploring 9/11 conspiracy theory for WTC-7

....

"In its latest press release (29 June 2007), NIST acknowledges that NIST is “considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse . . . (and) led to (WTC-7’s) structural failure”
(http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html)."

Galileo wrote:

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

The blast event?? Your words convey a connotation that refers to a specific event known to have occured. NIST makes no claim that there truly was a "blast event".
You do know the definition of "hypothetical" right?

In classic CT fashion you have completely twisted the statement by NIST to mean something it most certainly does not mean. Hell, you even twisted what fetzer wrote and he had already twisted the NIST statement to the breaking point. Fact is that NIST is investigating the senarios that would have explosives used to attempt to mollify the CT movement. They found "no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event" and are doing the study purely as a thought experiment. Most assuredly there is a placement of explosives that could fail structural members to cause a collapse as seen. If debrisand fire can do it so can explosives. HOWEVER, there is no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, but there IS ample evidence of severe debris damage and major fires.

Jennings' description fits well into his "explosion" being the collapse of WTC 2. Dust and smoke entering the stairwell as the building shook from the vibration of WTC 2 collapsing (not hitting WTC 7. The collapses felt like an earthquake to those nearby.) They were in WTC 7 for 90 minutes afterwards, according to their account. Thus when they were in the lobby both towers had already collapsed.

I should also note for G. that I suspected that the "blast events" he was refering to were the hypothetical kind which he and Fetzer have made real by some magical process.

 

[notheist]

Nowhere in the NIST statement is the word explosive or explosives used. An as I pointed out a "Blast Event" if it happened would most likely be from the build-up of explosive gas from the fires, what firemen call a Backdraft or Smoke Explosion, you do know this sort of thing is common in large fires.

This is the same the desperate silly word play as saying "Pull" means "Implosion by Explosives"

 

[Christopher7]

,,,, and again this paragraph refers to perimeter columns. The columns known to have been damaged were perimeter columns, the most significant load to redistributed would be the load normally on those columns and that load is what is refered to as having been redistributed. However, some of the load would have to have been transfered to the core as floor pans sagged near the lost perimeter columns. Those floors were still attached at the core. This puts a cantilever load on the core at that point. The fact that there was a bulge indicates that a lot of shear stress was on the core.

Good point

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors.[FONT=&quot][NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[between columns 5 and 6 [Spak#] - Apx. L pg 31]
[/FONT] This composite photo shows that hole was at least 20 floors.

This would put stress on core columns 67 - 69 [NIST#] on those floors.
[see below]

***********************************************

This photo shows:
Damage to the right of column 1 [Spak#] on floors 14 and 15.
Damage to the left of column 5 on floors 12 and 13.*
*confirmed below

***********************************************

This photo shows damage to the left of column 5 on floors 11, 12 and 13.*

This damage, and the damage on floors 14 and 15 to the right of column 1*, would put stress on core columns 58 - 66, as they are all tied together with girders at every floor.
*possibly going higher and lower

It also shows a: [FONT=&quot]Large debris hole near center of the south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[/FONT] This damage is centered on column 7 and would put stress on core columns 67 - 75 on floors 16 - 10[guess]

The broken floor beams and floors would be pulling these columns to the south.
The cantilever effect would be countered by the girders and shear members between the south row of core columns, and the middle row.
[there were no moment frames in the core so the cantilever effect would be minimal]

This building was built to withstand its normal load and the lateral force of a hurricane [100 mph winds]
It was overbuilt to allow for the removal of floors for tenants wanted two story accommodations.

The collapse began with core columns 79, 80 and 81.

 

[GT/CS]

Chris, it's been a while since we last spoke! I see that you are ignoring my questions but since you insist that others answer your questions I'm afraid I need to insist you answer mine.

1. Are you saying that WTC7 could not have fallen without a cd or should not have fallen without a cd?

2. What is the point of all this? Do you want this group to peer review your facts? If so, just ask.

Have you considered writing up your evidence, theories, and calculations and sending the package to NIST. I'm sure they'd love to use your information since that would reduce their workload

 

[Galileo]

The blast event?? Your words convey a connotation that refers to a specific event known to have occured. NIST makes no claim that there truly was a "blast event".
You do know the definition of "hypothetical" right?

In classic CT fashion you have completely twisted the statement by NIST to mean something it most certainly does not mean. Hell, you even twisted what fetzer wrote and he had already twisted the NIST statement to the breaking point. Fact is that NIST is investigating the senarios that would have explosives used to attempt to mollify the CT movement. They found "no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event" and are doing the study purely as a thought experiment. Most assuredly there is a placement of explosives that could fail structural members to cause a collapse as seen. If debrisand fire can do it so can explosives. HOWEVER, there is no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, but there IS ample evidence of severe debris damage and major fires.

Jennings' description fits well into his "explosion" being the collapse of WTC 2. Dust and smoke entering the stairwell as the building shook from the vibration of WTC 2 collapsing (not hitting WTC 7. The collapses felt like an earthquake to those nearby.) They were in WTC 7 for 90 minutes afterwards, according to their account. Thus when they were in the lobby both towers had already collapsed.

I should also note for G. that I suspected that the "blast events" he was refering to were the hypothetical kind which he and Fetzer have made real by some magical process.

In typical OCT fashion, you have completely twisted what I wrote.

 

[Galileo]

Chris, it's been a while since we last spoke! I see that you are ignoring my questions but since you insist that others answer your questions I'm afraid I need to insist you answer mine.

1. Are you saying that WTC7 could not have fallen without a cd or should not have fallen without a cd?

2. What is the point of all this? Do you want this group to peer review your facts? If so, just ask.

Have you considered writing up your evidence, theories, and calculations and sending the package to NIST. I'm sure they'd love to use your information since that would reduce their workload

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

 

[GT/CS]

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

Thank you for the reply but Chris needs to speak for himself. Oh, sorry, maybe he just did.