10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

One on right has lots of smoke and flames showing there is an obvious fire which you can see from the windows on the west side

The one on the left does not have this fire or smoke on the left side but has evidence of such fires that have obviously gone out

The one on the left is later than the one on the right therefore any extra damage could have occured in this time

Unless you have accurate timings for the pictures you cannot cry fake.

Shadows are very unreliable for working out time especially in cropped photos like you are using

Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.

NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

 

[funk de fino]

Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.

[qimg]http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2955/copyofsw11th7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg[/qimg]


NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

[qimg]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3488/copyofsw1mf1.jpg[/qimg]

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp, if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakery

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?

Is it easier just to ignore stuff you cannot reconcile? At least we try to answer your questions and points, you made the claims about explosives that no-one could hear you have to back it up?

 

[Christopher7]

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?

The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp,

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakery

It definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?

NIST or the other photo?

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

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2932754#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]

The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

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

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

 

[GT/CS]

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters. You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no difference since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.

Chris, I sincerely hope that you know it is impossible for someone to rig the building for a CD while the building is on fire, using explosives that make no noise and do not flash when ignited.

 

[Christopher7]

Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.

You demand something you know doesn't exist

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters.

and insist that's all that matters.

You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no difference

The shadows show what time of day the two photos were taken.
This is important because:
The NIST photo shows the fires in floors on floors 17, 18, 19 and 22 had burned out.
The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the photo was taken around noon.
The other photo shows the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning around 3 p.m.

Therefore, eather
The WTC 7 portion of the NIST photo was taken after the fires had burned out, sometime after 3 p.m.
or
the fires on 17, 18 and 22 started up again and the windows next to the corner on floors 14 and 15, and the fascia between them, magically reappeared.

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

since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.

The evidence for CD is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

When boxed into a corner, you try to change the subject.

 

[respublicus]

Destroying or Self-destroying evidence?

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters.

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

 

[respublicus]

Explosion vs. Deflagration

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. ... oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Furthermore, 'things falling' does not mean collapse.

Just one point I have to take issue with. Things falling, have to fall from somewhere. After the debris from the WTC towers had all fallen, the only source of things falling was for them to be pieces falling off buildings. If you want to argue that there's a fundamental difference between a partial collapse and pieces falling off a building, you'll lose credibility very fast.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

Go and read this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_bomb

 

[funk de fino]

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.
But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

Show us the videos and recordings of these explosions from WTC7. Exactly the same as the ones contained on the Implosionworld site videos that C7 so kindly supplied for us.

There were thousands of onlookers that day, where are there reports of the very loud and huge explosions that should have been present?

C7 cannot answer the above question can you?

When was it rigged?

 

[Belz...]

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

There was a blast event ?

 

[Belz...]

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

Actually, there are reports of a clap of thunder, but a controlled demolition, even an uncontrolled one, would have to be much, much more than that.

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?

How do you manage to ensure that the entire assembly is destroyed to the point of non-recognition ? Explosives tend to explode -- that is, they send stuff flying outwards -- so how do you make sure that nothing escapes the destruction ?

Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

Asking questions is not evidence ?

 

[GT/CS]

The evidence for CD is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

Sorry Chris but I didn't see any evidence for a CD at the link you posted.

Try this link, and be sure to check out the video of the CD. Watch it go boom, boom, boom and flash, flash, flash.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94079&highlight=barn

 

[funk de fino]

The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

OK, not fakery then?

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

Its not the oldest way as you have claimed though is it? It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law. Especially as it looks likeNIST may have made a mistake when they used this method

It definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Ok, but I would say possibly at the moment

NIST or the other photo?

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

No, you made the claim about the lack of noise from the explosive and then ran from the question, we are just trying to get you to explain

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2932754#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]
The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

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

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

I am quite happy to disregard all of his tesimony as would happen in court due to inconsistencies, you must also though

 

[Christopher7]

OK, not fakery then?

[FONT=&quot]In the NIST photo, the fires on the west face had burned out.

The other photo shows the fires on 17, 18 and 22 were still burning at about 3 p.m.

The WTC 7 part of the NIST photo was taken sometime after that.

The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the NIST photo was taken around noon.

The NIST photo is a FAKE

[/FONT]

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law.

Shadows are conclusive evidence of the time of day [+ or - 1/2 hour]. They would stand up in a court of law.

Especially as it looks like NIST may have made a mistake when they used this method

Police photos have a time stamp.
NIST did not use shadows to determine the time.

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage

The damage to floors 14 and 15 is not obscured by smoke.
The NIST photo shows a ragged edge, stuff hanging, the corner windows missing and damage to the second window on 14.

 

[Galileo]

you have to disregard everything jennings says and not just cherry pick the bits you think support you, this is very dishonest

he states that the lobby looked like king kong had trashed it and he was taken out a hole in the wall

this would say to me there was lots of damage in the lobby

you either use all his testimonies or you disregard it all

i notice you are running away from someone else when asked about your silent explosives

please tell me where i can get some

The 'king kong' remark is not specified by Jennings as to have occurred before WTC 1 fell.

sorry.

 

[GT/CS]

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank you

 

[GT/CS]

Chris, you may want to see post #65 from the attached link before you get too deep into your shadow theory. Using shadows to tell time among buildings is extremely difficult and you will need to provide some pretty serious geometry calculations for us to accept your findings.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=20056&st=50&p=408373&#entry408373

 

[Gravy]

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank you

From the NIST report:

At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 collapsed, and debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7. At 10:28 a.m., WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7. A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped a part of the southwest corner off from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside of WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs. In addition, a security officer for one of the businesses in the building was also was trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor and firefighters escorted him down the stairs. Other firefighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlight through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8 floor saw the flashlight beam and heard the firefighters calling and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building. NIST NCSTAR 1-81 p.109-110

An abbreviated version. Article dated September 11, 2001:

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

I see that Christopher 7 is claiming that a NIST photo is fake. He's a real good photo analyst. One of the best. I wonder what happened to him ordering the copies of photos from NIST, which he said he would do long ago.

Maybe someone can explain why people are still attempting to talk sense into him. Has he shown that he's open to reason in the past year?

 

[GT/CS]

Thank you for the information, Gravy.