10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

It collapsed because someone added 7 stories on top of a building designed to hold up 4 stories.

That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egytian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire!

The Windsor Plaza was a hybrid design.

The weight of the building was carried by the reinforced concrete frame. [/QUOTE]

The core of a building with long span trusses is carrying basically half the gravity load. Certainly it is carrying half the floor span load, the extra it carries is the core equipment and floor loads(ie elevators). The exterior columns would be carrying 1/2 the floor span loads.
You are a carpenter. If you built a deck supported on two ends and you made the supports at one end 6X6 and on the opposite side 4X$ would you be avble to load the center of that deck with more weight than if both ends were 4X4 supports or would it fail at the same loading?

As for the Windsor being a hybrid, so was WTC 7 in that it was a building constructed over an existing, much smaller , building. This required some unigue load carrying members to be incorporated.

Why is NIST still investigating how WTC 7 collapsed completely?

The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediatly after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building.

However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help.

 

[Christopher7]

The building fell down and all CD's fall down(if done properly) and that is the extent of a CD being 'consistent' with the video and photographic records of the collapse of WTC 7.

Pure denial.

WTC 7 fell in a manner entirely consistent with a professional building implosion.

1) It IMPLODED.
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.
Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.
This alone is enough to qualify the videos as evidence of a CD.

2) It fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's own footprint,
as is evidenced by the FACT that the center of the debris pile is just west of the center of the original footprint.
FEMA said the north face fell straight down.
NIST said it landed mostly in its own footprint.
We can see that it did not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not land entirely in their original footprint.
A reasonable person would not nitpick and argue these points.

3) It fell at a speed consistent with a CD.
Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

However, there is no video or photographic record that is consistent with any blast event having occured. Since a blast event is required for CD then looking for a blast event, even one, would seem prudent and given that no record of one is in evidence then such a senario must be refered to as hypothetical.

The official story is also hypothetical.

any CD would have to include a "blast event".

So your position is:

It fell like a dead duck.

It looked like a pile of dead duck.

However, I did not hear it quack.

Therefore, it was not a duck.



Where is the blast event [clap of thunder]?

The sound in this video is from the hand held camera recording people several blocks away. It is not from the tripod mounted camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

The sound has been deleted from the camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ


It critical seconds when Daryl heard a clap of thunder have been edited out of the only two videos that have the sounds of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926V_0C3pdQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktiwbkPEYlU&feature=related

 

[LastChild]

That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egytian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire!

Oh brother. So now the WTC towers upper floors are the equivalent of after thought floors added on that followed absolutely no building codes or standards? I guess we'll be throwing this lame comparison on to the fail pile with the rest of the third world toy factories and highway overpasses. Keep trying though maybe someday you'll have something but I doubt it.

The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediately after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building.

If they want to claim it's a fact they do. Because it just doesn't happen. Ever. That's why it's just a highly speculative theory that can't even be modeled.

However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help.

Nice contradiction there. You claim to know exactly how it collapsed without even seeing the NIST report yet and then claim it needs more investigation from NIST. So what we have for the first time in history is three global collapses to two different designs for two different reasons that have never caused a steel constructed high-rise to suffer complete global collapse before and never will again.

 

[applecorped]

LostChild, you are stundilicious.

 

[Christopher7]

LostChild, you are stundilicious.

When your comparisons are shown to be ridiculous and you are reminded that NIST did not even attempt to explain 'your theory' of how the towers collapsed beyond the point if initiation, all you can do is post out one of your stock insults.

There is NO BASIS for the claim "airplane/debris damage brought down the Trade Towers and WTC 7"

 

[Drs_Res]

There is NO BASIS for the claim "Controlled Demolitions/therm*te/DEWS/Pods/
Holograms/Nukes/Mini Nukes/Missles/C4 Coated 3" rebar on 4 foot centers brought down the Trade Towers and WTC 7"

Fixed that for you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Pure denial.

WTC 7 fell in a manner entirely consistent with a professional building implosion.

1) It IMPLODED.
Building implosion is a fine art. It cannot happen by chance.
Every high rise building that has ever imploded was a CD.
This alone is enough to qualify the videos as evidence of a CD.

It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.

2) It fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's own footprint,
as is evidenced by the FACT that the center of the debris pile is just west of the center of the original footprint.
FEMA said the north face fell straight down.
NIST said it landed mostly in its own footprint.
We can see that it did not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not fall perfectly straight down.
CD's do not land entirely in their original footprint.
A reasonable person would not nitpick and argue these points.

That's really no different than your point 1)
It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.

3) It fell at a speed consistent with a CD.
Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

No, actually the north face fell in 6-7 seconds, at the very most the north half of the building fell in 6-7 seconds.
You know how long the entire building fell and you understand that the interior of the building likely had already failed/collapsed when the north face fell.

The official story is also hypothetical.

I believe NIST says several times that their senarios are hypotheses, so your point is what?

So your position is:

It fell like a dead duck.

It looked like a pile of dead duck.

However, I did not hear it quack.

Therefore, it was not a duck.

An odd way of putting it. I would revise your analogy and say that ;
You see it fly
It has wings
Therefore it is a duck.

Where is the blast event [clap of thunder]?

The sound in this video is from the hand held camera recording people several blocks away. It is not from the tripod mounted camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo

The sound has been deleted from the camera recording the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ


It critical seconds when Daryl heard a clap of thunder have been edited out of the only two videos that have the sounds of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926V_0C3pdQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktiwbkPEYlU&feature=related

How nice, you wish to prove that there are sounds of explosives matching those used by demolitions experts and so you post 4 videos with no sounds of explosives matching sounds of explosives used by demolitions experts and the ones you do post that have sound all have people making comments that they thought the building was going to collapse and there it was collapsing.
Thus the only way you can shoehorn these into your senario of explosive demolitions is to concoct a vast conspiracy to hide the sounds of explosives leaving only a very few eyewitness accounts describing 'explosions'.

Once again then, for you, a lack of evidence equals evidence.
I need more than that Chris, even though I do so dislike GWB, and his administration and even though I have a healthy muistrust of gov't pronouncements.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh brother indeed

That refutes the notion that if a building withstood initial insult then it should remain standing indefinatly as is often stated about the towers. The Egyptian building stood after being built, then it caught fire and collapsed because it was weaker than it should have been designed for. In the case of the WTC buildings they too were weaker than they should have been because either a bloody big and fast aircraft hit them or because a bloody big building rained large, heavy, dense material down on it. Then they caught fire!

Oh brother. So now the WTC towers upper floors are the equivalent of after thought floors added on that followed absolutely no building codes or standards? I guess we'll be throwing this lame comparison on to the fail pile with the rest of the third world toy factories and highway overpasses. Keep trying though maybe someday you'll have something but I doubt it.

The towers do indeed resemble that Egyptian building in one way. After the aircraft impact they were no longer as robust as required. That was my point LC, too bad you cannot comprehend that. In both cases then you start with a sturcture that is not as robust as it should be. In that case of the Egyptian building this was due to bad construction practises, in the case of the WTC towers it was due to having a bloody big and fast aircraft ram into them.

Then each building caught fire.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The towers collapsed completely because the mass of the upper, falling debris overwhelmed the capacity of lower structural members. Show that occured immediately after initial collapse and one need not calculate it for the entire building.

If they want to claim it's a fact they do. Because it just doesn't happen. Ever. That's why it's just a highly speculative theory that can't even be modeled.

Did you have a point there somewhere?
It cannot be modeled because after initial contact and first intact level failure the variables become too large to precisely model. It was not until this century that the three body problem of gravitationally interacting bodies was solved to any great detail. The collisions involved in the tower collapses would be vastly more complicated.
On the other hand you would be correct if you stated that given enough explosives you could replicate the destruction of the towers even without ramming a bloody big and fast aircraft into them.

You could also agrue that if one dropped a bloody big enough mass on the towers that you could replicate the destruction of them.

It seems that the only calculations for either of these was done by Bazant et al using the mass and speed of the upper section as it impacted the lower portion of the building and their calculations do corresspond with the lower floors being completely and utterly incapable of arressting the collapse.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
However in WTC 7 this was not the mechanism that led to global collapse. Instead one or two columns failed giving rise to a local vertical collapse which led to a horizontal progression of failure that prompted global collapse.. If you cannot see why this needs more study than the tower's full collapse then you need professional help.

Nice contradiction there. You claim to know exactly how it collapsed without even seeing the NIST report yet and then claim it needs more investigation from NIST. ..

I did not claim or detail "exactly" how WTC 7 collapsed. I simply pointed out what is fairly straightforward if one watches how building 7 collapsed. First the east penthouse structure kinks and sinks into the building followed, a few seconds later, by the screenwall and eastern rooftop structures indicating that the core portion of the building started failing from east to west after the initial failure under the east penthouse. If you characterize that as "exactly" how it collapsed then you need professional help. Hell Chris 7 agrees in that characterization of the progression of collapse and I'd hardly say we agree on much, but that would where the "exactly" part would really come into play.
What needs more study is how a local vertical failure became a horizontal progression of failure. In the towers it started as a vertical failure which impacted the lower portion of the building and propigated all the way down still as a vertical failure.

There is no contradiction.

So what we have for the first time in history is three global collapses to two different designs for two different reasons that have never caused a steel constructed high-rise to suffer complete global collapse before and never will again

That's pretty much correct. Never before in history has a bloody big and fast aircraft rammed a large office tower and never before in history have large parts of a collapsing office tower fallen on another tall office building, none of which had, at any time, effective firefighting measures underway against the major fires in them.

 

[Christopher7]

It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.
That's really no different than your point 1)
It fell down and you characterize the manner in which it collapsed as similar enough to what one might expect of a CD to conclude that it was CD. I would need much more than that.

How thou dost dance around
"It looked like a CD"
CD's, especially implosions, are as recognizable as a rocket, if ya know what i mean.

No, actually the north face fell in 6-7 seconds, at the very most the north half of the building fell in 6-7 seconds.

I beg to differ.

Most of the core area*
The north exterior wall
The west exterior wall including the south west corner
The east exterior wall including the south east corner
and possibly the south wall
[most of the building]
collapsed in about 7 seconds.

*[screenwall and west penthouse - 18 of 24 core columns]

I believe NIST says several times that their senarios are hypotheses, so your point is what?

The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]
The CD scenario scenario explains the collapse of ALL 24 core columns.
The NIST scenario does not explain the collapse of columns 58,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.

An odd way of putting it. I would revise your analogy and say that ;
You see it fly
It has wings
Therefore it is a duck.

[FONT=&quot]Touché[/FONT]

How nice, you wish to prove that there are sounds of explosives matching those used by demolitions experts and so you post 4 videos with no sounds of explosives matching sounds of explosives used by demolitions experts

Wrong

and the ones you do post that have sound all have people making comments that they thought the building was going to collapse and there it was collapsing.

You missed the point, which was:
The critical seconds when the "clap of thunder" would have occurred* are missing from the only two videos with the sound of the collapse.
What a coincidence. There are so many coincidences.

*After the east penthouse started falling and a couple seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

Thus the only way you can shoehorn these into your senario of explosive demolitions is to concoct a vast conspiracy to hide the sounds of explosives leaving only a very few eyewitness accounts describing 'explosions'.

That appears to be the case.

Once again then, for you, a lack of evidence equals evidence.

It's like the 17 minute gap in the Nixon tape.
It's evidence of a cover up.

I need more than that Chris, even though I do so dislike GWB, and his administration and even though I have a healthy muistrust of gov't pronouncements.

Yet you accept an incomplete hypothesis in a gov't report from an administration known to systematically distort scientific documents.

 

[Major_Tom]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?

 

[GStan]

How thou dost dance around
"It looked like a CD"
CD's, especially implosions, are as recognizable as a rocket, if ya know what i mean.

'Looked like' is not evidence of a CD. The collapse looked like a building whose structural supports failed. Whether the mechanism by which that failure came about is debris and fire or shaped charges, it will still fall in the general direction of DOWN. Gravity takes care of that. Arguing 'looks like' as evidence for a CD is the equivalent of conceding the argument.

I beg to differ.

Most of the core area*
The north exterior wall
The west exterior wall including the south west corner
The east exterior wall including the south east corner
and possibly the south wall
[most of the building]
collapsed in about 7 seconds.

*[screenwall and west penthouse - 18 of 24 core columns]

The building collapsed over seven hours, not seven seconds. Firefighters confirmed early in the afternoon that it was bulging/leaning/creaking/groaning. The building was collapsing all day. Even ignoring that, your argument is still disingenuous. You've conveniently left the penthouses out of your collapse time.

The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]
The CD scenario scenario explains the collapse of ALL 24 core columns.
The NIST scenario does not explain the collapse of columns 58,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.

[FONT=&quot]Touché[/FONT]

Except for the fact that it is known irrefutably that the building was damaged and on fire all day. There is no evidence of any explosives at ground zero, anywhere, at any time. (Except for looks like of course; hang on tight to that rock solid piece of evidence.)

Wrong

You missed the point, which was:
The critical seconds when the "clap of thunder" would have occurred* are missing from the only two videos with the sound of the collapse.
What a coincidence. There are so many coincidences.

*After the east penthouse started falling and a couple seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.

That appears to be the case.

It's like the 17 minute gap in the Nixon tape.
It's evidence of a cover up.

Yet you accept an incomplete hypothesis in a gov't report from an administration known to systematically distort scientific documents.

You have been quoting this same government report for more than 100 pages as the gospel for things like the fire progression and damage assessment.

 

[GStan]

Dupe, deleted

 

[DGM]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?

Read the first and the last 10 pages. That should get you up to speed.

 

[jaydeehess]

The NIST scenario is just as hypothetical as the CD scenario. [and no where near as parsimonious]

Parsimonious :

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Parsimony is the taking of extreme care at arriving at a course of action; or unusual or excessive frugality, extreme economy or stinginess. The word derives from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimonious

Stingy. Although in normal language, this has a negative connotation, when applied to a model or an explanation in economics it tends to be positive, meaning that it relies on as simple a structure as possible.
www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/p.html

Economical or frugal, condensing large number of things into smaller groups
www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~aged885/Glossary/GLOSSARY.htm
NIST is being very unparsimonuous in its investigation of the collapse of WTC 7

The TM however is quite stingy on details. Pretty much anecdotes and handwaving with a smattering of arguement from incredulity and politically motivated accusations;

"It looks like an implosion"
"Some people said they heard explosions"
"Explosives had to be placed somewhere in the building"
"It couldn't have just been fire"
"Don't trust anyone paid by the gov't"

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, you have develpoed quite a lot of ideas in this thread.

It is not easy to read through so many pages. Do you have a website or some link at which you summerize and condense the main issues you have raised into a more readable form?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/forum/45287/

 

[Christopher7]

Parsimonious :

excessively unwilling to spend; "parsimonious thrift relieved by few generous impulses"; "lived in a most penurious manner--denying himself every ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
<snip>
Economical or frugal, condensing large number of things into smaller groups
www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~aged885/Glossary/GLOSSARY.htm
NIST is being very unparsimonuous in its investigation of the collapse of WTC 7

That was sarcasm. Par(simonious) posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2613056#post2613056

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2614115#post2614115

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2615162#post2615162
Perhaps this stems from you not having understood the term “parsimonious,” which is why I have linked to a definition of it for you. Generosity, or the lack thereof, in the prosaic sense at least, has nothing to do with it. I am saying that, irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2617320#post2617320
I’ll try a forth time: Irrespective of whether or not it is supported by evidence, it is still by far and away the most parsimonious explanation. Don’t you think?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?

 

[DGM]

While we're at it, can someone summarize the physical evidence for a controlled demolition?

Here you go:

 

[Christopher7]

'Looked like' is not evidence of a CD.

Yes it is.

The collapse looked like a building whose structural supports failed.

It looked like a CD. The core columns failed first, it fell mostly straight down and it landed mostly in it's own footprint. The only known cause of this type of global collapse is CD.

Whether the mechanism by which that failure came about is debris and fire or shaped charges, it will still fall in the general direction of DOWN.

If the debris damage were a factor, WTC 7 would have fallen to the south west.

Fires could NOT cause all the core columns to fail.

NIST doesn't even have a hypothesis for the failure of columns 58,59,60,61,63,64,66,67,69,70,72,73 and 75.

The building collapsed over seven hours, not seven seconds. Firefighters confirmed early in the afternoon that it was bulging/leaning/creaking/groaning. The building was collapsing all day. Even ignoring that, your argument is still disingenuous. You've conveniently left the penthouses out of your collapse time.

Wrong
There were NO reports of collapses after the initial debris damage.

There were reports of creaking and bulging at the south west corner.
A guy who works nearby and a firefighter several blocks away thought WTC 7 was leaning.
No one at the scene reported that WTC 7 was leaning.
Fema and NIST did not say WTC 7 was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning.

Except for the fact that it is known irrefutably that the building was damaged and on fire all day.

They did not burn in the same place all day.

Using photographs and firefighters statements, NIST compiled a chronology of the fires in the east half of WTC 7.

NIST L 22–26
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side
2:00 to 2:30 p.m.
Fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg
About 3:00 p.m.
Fires on floors 7 and 12 along the north face
The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner
http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png

Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time.
[NIST did not publish this photo]


The fires on floors 7 and 12 appeared on the north side about 3:00 p.m. [second picture above]
In the third picture, there are no fires on floors 9 and 11, so it was taken before 4:45.
The fire on floor 7 had burned out.
The fire on floor 8 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and had burned out the offices on the right.
The fire on floor 12 had burned out the area to the east end and 20 windows to the west of where it had first appeared.
The fire on floor 13 appeared sometime after 3:00 p.m. and it had already burned out much of the east end.

The fires did NOT burn more than about an hour in any location.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Here you go:

No really, what about the list of physical evidence that supports a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding any evidence of a CD?