10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

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

Well, according to Chris NIST didn't mention that the building was 'leaning', so it wasn't. So, NIST didn't say anything about finding any evidence of CD, so I can only assume there WASN'T.

There ya go

 

[Christopher7]

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

There are no pieces of framing that can be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the physical evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

New York Penal Law Section 215.40 - Tampering With Physical Evidence.

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0215.40_215.40.html

§ 215.40 Tampering with physical evidence. A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when:
1. With intent that it be used or introduced in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, he (a) knowingly makes, devises or prepares false physical evidence, or (b) produces or offers such evidence at such a proceeding knowing it to be false; or
2. Believing that certain physical evidence is about to be produced or used in an official proceeding or a prospective official proceeding, and intending to prevent such production or use, he suppresses it by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, or by employing force, intimidation or deception against any person. Tampering with physical evidence is a class E felony.


An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.

The only way to determine how the Trade Towers and building 7 collapsed is to examine the physical evidence.

 

[Drs_Res]

Been done. NO cd. It was fire and damage from the planes hitting them. WTC7 fell due to damage from the tower falling on it and outfought fires.

It's really pretty simple if you have no agenda other than the truth about what happened.

 

[Christopher7]

Been done. NO cd. It was fire and damage from the planes hitting them. WTC7 fell due to damage from the tower falling on it and outfought fires.

You are entitled to your opinion but NIST has NOT explained how the Trade Towers and WTC 7 collapsed.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

But I am confused. So there IS physical evidence of a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding evidence of a CD? Can someone list that evidence?

 

[jaydeehess]

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?

Ahhh, parsimonious in not adding complexity in an unneccessary fashion.

In that way , yes, the damage/fire hypothisis is parsimonius.

Your contention of CD most certainly adds a level of complexity that goes well beyond any evidence for its requirement to be. You have no physical evidence of a CD except for , in your mind, the fact that there is a lack of physical evidence to support the contention of CD. This means you not only violate Occam's principle but also employ a circular arguement.

I have seen it argued that CD is the most logical explanation because it is the least complex explanation. That reminds me of two things; first it is invoking magic as the obviosly simple solution given that no one saw the planting of the explosives. A slight of hand , if you will. Second, it is not unlike the creationist arguement that a Creator who simply called into being all things is much simpler than the complex theory of evolution. Its only simple because a proponent of such a theory chooses to ignore the complexity involved in postulating an omnipotent being, or the placing of unseen explosives for some unknown reason.

Chris, who, exactly, is guilty of tampering with evidence?

 

[Christopher7]

There are no pieces of framing that can be positively identified as being from WTC 7 because the physical evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

But I am confused. So there IS physical evidence of a CD? Did NIST say anything about finding evidence of a CD? Can someone list that evidence?

What part of "no" don't you understand?

What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

 

[Christopher7]

You have no physical evidence of a CD

because the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed.

Chris, who, exactly, is guilty of tampering with evidence?

Whoever ordered the physical evidence to be removed and/or destroyed.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So the proof of a controlled demolition is the lack of existence of proof? Chris is saying the evidence was illegally removed with the implication that he knows it showed a CD. How does he know this?

I have to ask why Chris doesn't bring up a lawsuit against this crime if it was illegal.

And again, despite this, Chris knows it was a CD. So where is the physical evidence he uses to back up this claim?

 

[Christopher7]

So the proof of a controlled demolition is the lack of existence of proof?

No

Chris knows it was a CD. So where is the physical evidence he uses to back up this claim?

It was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

 

[Drs_Res]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?
Who planted the non-existent explosives that no mics or video cameras picked up?

 

[Christopher7]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?

You know the answers to those questions.

Who planted the non-existent explosives that no mics or video cameras picked up?

Subject shift.

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

First... wow is this thread still going?

Second. Evidence Christopher7?

The 600 NYPD and 55 FBI repsonse teams might sort of disagree with you. Are they all lying and breaking the law when they claim to have investigated all the materials coming to the storage areas?

What about NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman who says

At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.

Is he lying or are you wrong?

 

[Drs_Res]

You know the answers to those questions.

Actually, I don't. I do not follow every thread on this sub-forum, so why don't you inform me? Just a link or two.

Subject shift.

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

How does that relate to the lack of explosions recorded?

These would have been VERY loud, especially since prepping the building beforehand to weaken the structure was impossible. Since it was not possible to prep the building, the explosives used to cut the supports would have to have been very powerful, more powerful than what you would use to bring it down if you did pre weaken it.

So where is the Seismic and audio evidence? It does not exist. And looking at steel won't make it show up somehow.

 

[Christopher7]

The 600 NYPD and 55 FBI repsonse teams might sort of disagree with you. Are they all lying and breaking the law when they claim to have investigated all the materials coming to the storage areas?
What about NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman who says:

"At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.
Is he lying or are you wrong?

Neither
He was describing the search and recovery of human remains and identifying personal effects.

They were NOT inspecting steel.

There were no bodies to be recovered at the WTC 7 site so that debris was probably not sifted for human remains.

Furthermore, it isn't the people doing the work committing the crime, it's the persons who ordered the illegal removal of the physical evidence of what caused the collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

It would be nice if you would tell us why neither you, or S.Jones, or A.Jones, or Griffin or someone else, has bothered to file suit if it is so very obvious that such an illegal act took place.

Let me guess, it would not stand up in a court of law, right? It would not because the evil government would take orders from the secret government to make sure that the decision went against the petitioner, and not because the suit would have no merit, right?

 

[Christopher7]

How quickly was it removed? Was it inspected before it was removed? Where is the lawsuit / legal case about the removal?

You know the answers to those questions.

Actually, I don't. I do not follow every thread on this sub-forum, so why don't you inform me? Just a link or two.

Subject shift.
The question was:

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

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . .

How does that relate to the lack of explosions recorded?

. . subject shift, . .

Since it was not possible to prep the building, . . .

. . subject shift, . .

So where is the Seismic and audio evidence? It does not exist. And looking at steel won't make it show up somehow.

. . subject shift.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

It would be nice if you would tell us why neither you, or S.Jones, or A.Jones, or Griffin or someone else, has bothered to file suit if it is so very obvious that such an illegal act took place.

You cannot admit, nor can you deny, that the physical evidence was illegally removed and destroyed, so you . . . subject shift.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So your evidence of a CD again, is the evidence that ou don't have and the reason it is evidence is BECAUSE you don't have it. Is that correct?

 

[PhantomWolf]

There is NO physical evidence of CD or anything else because the evidence was quickly and illegally removed and destroyed.

So when FEMA claims that 151 engineers made 63 trips over the space of 53 days and searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from the WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7 checking for:

• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.

They were lying because all the WTC 7 steel was gone? And that when three follow up trips were made 8 months later they are lying because it was all gone?