Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[funk de fino]

Wrong
I guess you missed this:

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why
the building imploded

5-31
the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why
the building imploded

Wrong

Wrong again

The question at hand is:
Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

Jowenko is qualified to make the call, you are not qualified to say what he needs to determine that WTC7 imploded.

Jowenko can see it, FEMA can see it, i can see it, 234 architects and engineers can see it, millions of others can see it, why can't you admit the obvious?

WTC7 IMPLODED.

NIST do not call it an implosion though do they Chris?

one trick pony

 

[Totovader]

Clearly, i was right.
Hayden's quote is from another source.

It's from Firehouse magazine.

Do you know what a transit is?

 

[Totovader]

No

No?

Christopher7- Are you sure you can't find a single example of a building CD that was similar to the collapse of WTC7?

If you can't- then what is the point in berating everyone over what it "looked like" to you? You can't find anything that it was even close to.

 

[einsteen]

Not wrong- and that link proves it. Every single building there over 10 stories was not the technique we're talking about.

Remember how you were saying that a CD implosion is difficult work? Well, Jowenko doesn't do it. In every case he's simply bringing the building down- and nothing close to the size of WTC7.

Toto, we don't have those giant buildings here, but what you are saying is blatant nonsense. It is the purpose to blow up columns simultaneously and size doesn't matter in that case. If random debris impact and an intense fire can do it a licensed blaster with 30 years experience can do it.

Toto, do you think Jowenko couldn't implode a building like wtc7 ?

 

[Totovader]

Then you are accusing FEMA of equivocation.

Nope- accusing Christopher7 of an equivocation. FEMA is not saying that the building was imploded in the sense of a CD- they're saying that the building collapsed rapidly. FEMA- again- did not do an in-depth study on the collapse of WTC7.

The fact does remain that FEMA, in their professional opinion, specifically stated the collapse of WTC7 was an implosion using language that is not in the least vague on that point.

Which is why FEMA is not the one committing the equivocation.

If anyone is equivocating it's you Toto.

That doesn't even make any sense. Do you know what an equivocation is?

Since when do controlled demolitions normally result in no debris falling outside of the collapsed building's natural footprint?

Since that has been the conspiracists claim since day 1- including you:

Read my words GStan and you'll observe that I specifically referred to the "style of collapse". I did not suggest for a moment that debris damage played no part in the collapse.

The WTC7 collapse was very unusual in style unless it was a controlled demolition.

• It was a high speed collapse.
  
  It was a symmetrical collapse.
  
  It maintained a relatively level roofline all the way to the ground.
  
  It landed for the most part in it's own footprint.
  
  NIST has been so stymied in their ability to provide a final WTC7 draft for public consumption that they are now delaying until July, 2008, almost 7 years after the event!

Yes the 10 story gouge thread is not recommended as a full read. It would be a much better thread if the membership had been more interested in discussion.

MM

*Emphasis added

Up until 9/11, no building as tall as WTC7 had been subjected to controlled demolition so how is it proven to be odd that nearby buildings were impacted by some of it's debris?

Because that's the point of a controlled demolition / implosion.

Again, you contradict yourself: if it looked like a CD / implosion- why would you reject the very characteristics of that and claim that it "was unusual" unless you're moving the goalpost to fit your predetermined conclusion?

 

[funk de fino]

WTC7 has similarities to a professional building controlled demolition

The differences are the following

1. No sounds of demolition charges
2. No signs of demolition charges going off (bottom of tower obscured)
3. No motive for CD'ng this building
4. No time to prepare building
5. Lack of capable persons to carry out a CD on this building
6. Building on fire
7. Building extensively damaged previously

Similarities are the following

1. The speed of the collapse
2. The look of the top part of the collapse

To implode the building means to purposely bring it down this is not proved, so it is a collapse, but Chris already knows this.

 

[Totovader]

Hold the phone, Chuck- your pal Miragememories claims to be more of an expert than Jowenko...

Do you completely agree with Jowenko's expert opinion?

Well, do you Christopher7?

You are desperately trying to defend Jowenko's "expertise" and at the same time you're saying he's wrong.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

 

[Christopher7]

I'll play.

Although I object to the use of the word "implosion", I will admit that to my layperson's eye, the collapse of WTC7 did look like a CD. As did the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.

Thank you for your straightforward answer.
FEMA said that WTC7 imploded.

Now it's my turn.
Did WTC7 sound like a CD?

The critical seconds where the "clap of thunder" and the "shock wave ripping thru the building" occurred, have been edited out of the only 2 videos with sound.

Furthermore, do any of the professionals that were on scene think that the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? Why or why not?
Please answer the questions honestly.

Who were the professionals on the scene?

 

[Totovader]

In fact, let's number these so you can much more easily address them and stop dodging questions which are inconvenient to your irrational claims:

1) Is it possible that the collapse of 1 and 2 could be legitimate, but the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? If so, how?

2) Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

3) Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

4) Tell me, what do you think of a person who freely admits that contradictions are present in their claims, but somehow still expects people to take them seriously?

My last post addressed why answering these questions is crucial to your credibility:




ETA: This is the 8th time I've had to post these questions. They are not going to go away simply because you don't like them, MM.

*Bump^11

 

[CptColumbo]

Do you mean this part?
[FONT=&quot]Stacy Loizeaux:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself. [/FONT]

No I was refering to the more technical ones provided by Totovader and Pardalis, as well as the NIST.

No, it is what it looks like.

So there is no need for a chemical analysis to determine if explosives were present? When a person falls over clutching their chest, we should assume it's a heart attack, because he fell like he had one.

Maybe they water boarded him.

Dude, he's an expert.

He saw the videos, after seeing one video he was certain.

A chemist who is blindfolded and asked to smell a substance that smells like almonds, can still be wrong when he says it's almonds. Jowenko wasn't even shown the complete collapse (as evidenced by his error in the order of the collapse), how can you find his analysis more credible than those who were there and have more experience in the field of high rise demolition?

They did not see the collapse because they were several blocks away like everybody else.

They saw the state of the building before and after, they could hear the collapse, they could smell the air after the collapse, and they could feel it in the ground. They had more senses working for them.

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?
Or will you continue to dodge the question?

I already explained to you why it is not a very good question, and therefore it won't be answered.

 

[Totovader]

Toto, we don't have those giant buildings here, but what you are saying is blatant nonsense. It is the purpose to blow up columns simultaneously and size doesn't matter in that case. If random debris impact and an intense fire can do it a licensed blaster with 30 years experience can do it.

Toto, do you think Jowenko couldn't implode a building like wtc7 ?

If what I am saying is nonsense- then you're claiming that Christopher7 is wrong: CD implosions are not difficult.

Clearly, you're wrong- and Jowenko does not have the skill set necessary to be an "expert" in this field.

No, Jowenko- based on his experience- could not implode a building like WTC 7. His knowledge of the techniques, required work, and characteristics is hardly better than that of a layman.

If he's the best you got because you don't have buildings like WTC 7- then the best you got ain't good enough.

Try asking some experts that actually do the kind of work you're claiming happened and guess what you'll find...

 

[Myriad]

The collapse of WTC7 does not look like a CD.

What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place.

That's because the blast wave from CD charges would shatter the glass and propel fragments at high velocities, causing injury and damage throughout a radius of a mile or more. A typical one psi peak blast overpressure acting on a 1m by 3m window would be the equivalent of throwing a two-ton load of bricks at the window (from the inside, of course) at the speed of sound.

Even if people and video cameras were out of harm's way at the time, every facing window near street level (or at whatever floor level you think the CD charges would have gone off) with line of sight to the WTC would have been shattered (not just the ones within range to be struck by falling debris), and every newspaper would have printed photographs of shotgun-like glass shard damage to street signs, mailboxes, cars, awnings, and any other penetrable barrier for blocks along Greenwich Street, Barclay Street, and West Broadway. Instead, we see only damage consistent with falling debris.

Since we don't see glass breaking until the collapse is already underway (and there's no evidence of such glass breakage even if it occurred out of immediate sight), it doesn't look like a CD.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Christopher7]

Not wrong- and that link proves it. Every single building there over 10 stories was not the technique we're talking about.
Remember how you were saying that a CD implosion is difficult work? Well, Jowenko doesn't do it. In every case he's simply bringing the building down- and nothing close to the size of WTC7.

Three of those were implosions.

and nothing close to the size of WTC7.

No one else has either.
Before 911, the tallest building implosion was 26 stories.

 

[Totovader]

Three of those were implosions.

You again dodged the point: those implosions were nowhere near the level of complexity of imploding a high rise.

No one else has either.
Before 911, the tallest building implosion was 26 stories.

Yet another reason it was nothing like a CD...

To you- all these contradictions don't matter, though... I wonder why that is?

 

[Christopher7]

NIST do not call it an implosion though do they Chris?

one trick pony

NIST do call it an implosion twice nicely and if this don't move your tail feathers you got a hole in your sole.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...140&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[Miragememories]

It's from Firehouse magazine.

Do you know what a transit is?

"Remember how you were saying that a CD implosion is difficult work? Well, Jowenko doesn't do it. In every case he's simply bringing the building down..."

Do you know what denial is Toto?

I'll give you a clue;

It's not a river in Egypt.

MM

 

[beachnut]

NIST do call it an implosion twice nicely and if this don't move your tail feathers you got a hole in your sole.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...140&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

So, you can call it what you want when a building burns and falls. Does it fit? But as for explosions, you have none. So proven wrong by events on 9/11, there were no explosives set to destroy any building on 9/11; just a fantasy of a few people who are 9/11 truth believers with no facts or evidence. 6 years, no facts. Like a perfect record.

 

[johnny karate]

Thank you for your straightforward answer.
FEMA said that WTC7 imploded.

Noted. I will acknowledge FEMA's use of this term, as long as you acknowledge that FEMA also determined that the collapse was not a CD. Agreed?

The critical seconds where the "clap of thunder" and the "shock wave ripping thru the building" occurred, have been edited out of the only 2 videos with sound.

I can see three problems with this assertion:

First, you will have to provide evidence that these videos had their audio edited.

Second, you will have to provide evidence that a building as tall as WTC7 can be collapsed via CD with only a single round of detonation charges.

Third, you will have to explain why no witnesses on the scene reported hearing the very distinctive "clap of thunder" sound that you describe, or provide testimonies of witnesses explicitly describing experiencing such an event.

If you fail to meet these three conditions, then I will consider the answer to my original question to be "No".

Who were the professionals on the scene?

The multitude of seasoned and high-ranking firefighters, whose job dictates they must assess the stability of buildings that are on fire.

 

[Miragememories]

Jowenko- based on his experience- could not implode a building like WTC 7. His knowledge of the techniques, required work, and characteristics is hardly better than that of a layman.

It's arrogant, unsupported replies like that, which make it pointless attempting to carry on a discussion with you Toto.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

The collapse of WTC7 does not look like a CD.

What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place.

That's because the blast wave from CD charges would shatter the glass and propel fragments at high velocities, causing injury and damage throughout a radius of a mile or more. A typical one psi peak blast overpressure acting on a 1m by 3m window would be the equivalent of throwing a two-ton load of bricks at the window (from the inside, of course) at the speed of sound.

Even if people and video cameras were out of harm's way at the time, every facing window near street level (or at whatever floor level you think the CD charges would have gone off) with line of sight to the WTC would have been shattered (not just the ones within range to be struck by falling debris), and every newspaper would have printed photographs of shotgun-like glass shard damage to street signs, mailboxes, cars, awnings, and any other penetrable barrier for blocks along Greenwich Street, Barclay Street, and West Broadway. Instead, we see only damage consistent with falling debris.

Since we don't see glass breaking until the collapse is already underway (and there's no evidence of such glass breakage even if it occurred out of immediate sight), it doesn't look like a CD.

Respectfully,
Myriad

So you are suggesting that a ground floor core removal would necessarily send this blast wave through the whole 47-story WTC7?

MM