10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

Good find.
The bowing out occurs over about 30 feet.
This is quite different from a wall bending in over a few feet.
WTC 7 had a stone facade that would have broken and fallen off if the wall was bent in.

"Good find" ? The thing's been used for two years against truthers. Haven't you been paying attention ?

 

[Christopher7]

Judging from photographs of the rubble heap of the collapsed WTC 7 building, it seems very likely that the exterior walls could tolerate some bending without the granite panels breaking and falling off, as Chiristopher7 claimed they would.

Point made, well done.

Prove me wrong with evidence, and i will alter my position accordingly.

The wall could have bent at the joints where the stone facade panels meet.

Thank you

Chris

 

[Norseman]

If the wind was strong enough to blow the smoke out the south facing windows, as you suggested.
That would eliminate refraction as a factor.

Please go on and pretend that the clearly visible smoke, including the gray haze, between WTC 7 and the Verizon building in figure L-22a in the NIST report is not smoke. The sources of that smoke is clearly visible in figure L-22a and L-22b in the NIST report and in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report. That includes both broken windows on the lower floors of WTC 7 and the debris pile between the two buildings.

And the smoke between WTC 7 and the Verizon building was shielded from the northwesterly wind by several buildings.

 

[Norseman]

Prove me wrong with evidence, and i will alter my position accordingly.
Chris

Did you read my post, I only made some suggestions regarding the possibility of pull in, I do not need to prove anything.

You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.

 

[Christopher7]

Did you read my post, I only made some suggestions regarding the possibility of pull in, I do not need to prove anything.

You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.

On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

 

[Christopher7]

Please go on and pretend that the clearly visible smoke, including the gray haze, between WTC 7 and the Verizon building in figure L-22a in the NIST report is not smoke. The sources of that smoke is clearly visible in figure L-22a and L-22b in the NIST report and in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report. That includes both broken windows on the lower floors of WTC 7 and the debris pile between the two buildings.

And the smoke between WTC 7 and the Verizon building was shielded from the northwesterly wind by several buildings.

This photo was taken about 2:00 p.m. There is very little smoke rising from the street.
[shadow of Verizon bldg. about even with north side of WTC 7]
L-22b was taken a few minutes earlier.
[shadow of Verizon not hitting WTC 7]

The breeze is stronger higher up but it still blows between the buildings at street level.

Refraction is just an attempt to explain away the obvious differences.
You can see these differences or you would not be trying to explain them with refraction.

 

[funk de fino]

On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

I cant believe you just posted that

The overwhelming evidence points to this scenario

You have to prove the DD/F did not bring the building down and explosives did

You have nothing except a few very bad attempts at photo analysis, claims of fakery and contradictory witnesses. Nothing else.

No recordings of explosions, no proof of the building being rigged, you are unable to find hundreds of witnesses who would have heard these explosions

Cant you see why you are in the minority?

Why avoid your claim of explosives that could not be heard?

 

[twinstead]

Chris I would have thought artificially shifting the burden of proof was a tactic beneath you.

Sigh. I'm so disappointed in you.

 

[Matthew Best]

Back to school, with you!

Your use of a comma in that sentence has given it a rather unappetising element.

 

[Belz...]

Thanks, Matthew. Now I feel dirty.

 

[twinstead]

I was hoping you were just talking about carrying his books Belz

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm back. power supply in the 'puter fried and all I could do was look at this forum at work and it blocks most photos and all video then the idiots 'updated' to IE7 and most pages simply won't load at all.

Now I just tried to view, on my newly repaired home 'puter, the quicktime link that Chris posted of a video of the WTC 7 lobby at http://loosechange911.com/download/wtc7_lobby.mov but all I get is the audio portion, no vid.
Any one able to help me out

 

[jaydeehess]

On the contrary, you must provide some proof that DD/F caused the collapse before claiming that it did.

There is only inference and innuendo, no evidence to support the failure of a core column weighing over 4 tons per floor.

Debris damage and fires in the building are well established as having occured. There is no evidence at all to establish, to anywhere near the same degree, that explosives were used in this building. Your personal incredulity at the idea that the building could have been brought down as a result of debris and fire damage is your most compelling 'evidence' (meaning it is compelling to you, not to others) that explosives were involved.

In short you start with personal incredulity then assume that since debris and fire damage could not cause the collapse that explosives must have.
You are a creationist too aren't you Chris? You use the same logic at any rate. Personal incredulity leads to a casting about for a magical total explanation.

 

[Caustic Logic]

14th post deleted - see below for my first JREF post with pictures possible. Hooray!
Too bad I'm taking the debunker within thing beyond the Pentagon. Am I trying too hard here?
see below

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay guys - not enough time to read 90+ pages, but it seems we're arguing no NIST photo fakery as aleged, that Zafar's and NIST's show the same minus some illusion hocus-pocus. I'm getting no response at LCF and ATS, but I've done my own inexpert photo analysis and found that there really seems to be a fake photo: Zafar's. No one seems to agree but no counter-arguments at all, just silence.

And nothing I've seen here yet to back me up either. So I guess I'm missing something, so please help!

Here I outlined the NIST damage edge, de-skewed:
Yes it's rough. Floor 15 is iffy, but 14 and below seem clearly gone as if torn away.

Here's an analysis of Zafar's image.
15 and 14 seem intact to the edge, probably 13, and 12 too for all we can tell. All that's visible seems intact. Hmm...

Put together with other images of lower damage, the contrast is interesting. Borrowing Arie's graphic from his corner controversy PDF, which excluded NIST's for being suspicious, I put it like this (even excluding floor 13's apparent intactness just for good measure):

His is to the left, what I think it should have looked like center, and what it'd look like with NIST's swapped in for Zafars at right. It seems obvious to me... what am I missing?

So if we turn this around so the "truther source" might be accused, is anyone willing to see a difference? Or is this just smoke illusions?

This photo shared above shows what may be the only other logical answer:
Perhaps the outer wall was pushed in in such a way that it was invisible from the northeast and far above (NIST helicopter shot) AND below (Cirone and Miller shots) but when seen more level, from the southeat and far away (Zafar's), it looks perfclty intact even though it's two different planes that happen to line up perfectly from that angle. This seems a stretch to me, as NIST's image shows a jagged edge, not a curve.

Confused and baffled and awaiting thoughts

 

[Caustic Logic]

Still nothing? The thread keeps ticking on until I appear and then... Nobody will help me see how I'm wrong here. If I'm an idiot just please explain it, someone!

 

[GT/CS]

Still nothing? The thread keeps ticking on until I appear and then... Nobody will help me see how I'm wrong here. If I'm an idiot just please explain it, someone!

I'm sure you will soon be hearing from Chris.

 

[Norseman]

Put together with other images of lower damage, the contrast is interesting. Borrowing Arie's graphic from his corner controversy PDF, which excluded NIST's for being suspicious, I put it like this (even excluding floor 13's apparent intactness just for good measure):

His is to the left, what I think it should have looked like center, and what it'd look like with NIST's swapped in for Zafars at right. It seems obvious to me... what am I missing?

You are missing the fact that also the Aman Zafar photo clearly shows that the corner plates are gone on floor 15 and 14 together with the corner column, both on the west side and the south side of the corner. This is more evident when you compare floor 15 and 14 with the floors above.

What I guess is confusing you, is the fact that the broken edge of the south side wall appears to be closer to the corner than it really is, since the Zafar photo was taken with a telephoto lens (explained here). This becomes more evident if you go to figure 5-16 in the FEMA report, and zoom in, but this is also a telephoto. In the photo you can see what looks like the corner column a bit below the red rectangle. While on floor 15 you can se the edge of the south side exterior wall, a bit receded compared with the column below.

Therefore you should have colored the corner red on floor 14 and 15, in the interpertation of the damage you did in the center figure above.

Aagain the conclusion is, as I have stated earlier in this thread, that all the avialable photos of the SW corner are consistent with each other, they show the same damage details.

I also note that Arie, a truhter, in his analysis agrees with me on this fact. But he should have added and considred the effect of refraction due to hot smoke and heated air from the fires as the most plausible explanation for this effect:

Floors 12-17 bend towards each other with 5 floors bending upwards. It would be hard to
explain this as damage from falling debris of the Twin Towers since falling debris would
have pushed the floors downwards, not upwards. This anomaly is not found anywhere else
in the photo. Also, the Zafar photo shows that floor 15 and 16 were straight.

The effects of refraction I have discussed in earlier posts in this thread.

Otherwise he is quit sensible, but I think he is overstating the damage below floor 14 and on floor 18. On floor 18 it looks as though it is only a granite plate that is broken off, not the complete corner. Below floor 14 none of the photos show enough detail to draw any sure conclusions in my view, beyond the fact that there is damage down to floor 8.

In this YouTube video we can see the effect of refraction on the SW corner area of WTC. Pay attention to area below the text in the picture when the camera is zoomed in on WTC 7. It is helpfull to pause the video frequently. Compare the area with the area above. The effects we see in the SW corner area of WTC 7 is not evident when zoomed in on the other buildings in the area with a different smoke situation.

Hope this helps. Otherwise I am reluctant to participating in keeping this thread alive, since it has been going in circules for a long time without C7 making a convincing case for his theories. And since it is now off the orginal topic.

 

[Christopher7]

I cant believe you just posted that

The overwhelming evidence points to this scenario

Here is the evidence:

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, 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 8 and 13


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

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, at different times, in the area where the collapse began.

You have to prove the DD/F did not bring the building down and explosives did

This thread is about the lack of evidence for the DD/F hypothesis.
Evidence for CD is a separate subject and is being debated here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

You are asking me to prove a negative.

I can only show that the evidence does not support the NIST hypothesis.


*Column failure
NIST Apx. L pg 38 [42 on pg counter]
I4.2 Unbraced Columns: If floor systems failed, one or more columns may have lost lateral bracing. At a floor where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. The column is not very sensitive to the number of stories of unbraced. This column would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500 °C.
I4.6 Uniform High Temperatures: .......
uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570 ºC would result in column failure.

570°C = 1058°F

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.


http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/m...a_lessons.html
12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

NFPA 921:
A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris I would have thought artificially shifting the burden of proof was a tactic beneath you.

You, Christopher7 is the one who has the burden of proving that the collapse of WTC7 involved anything else than debris damage and fire.

We were discussing the evidence of damage to the south west corner.

Before you accuse me, take a look at Norseman.

ETA: and jaydeehess and funk