10 story hole in WTC 7

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by C7
The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

Wrong again.

There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

You are a liar. It clearly states this

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Now I have bolded the important part here. It means that it could have been debri damage or it could have been fire or it could be both. In cases where they mention the debri damage contributing it was significant.

You have been caught again with your dishonesty and quite frankly it stinks

Just admit your claim is incorrect and try to redeem your character here mate, I get a sense of frustration and desperation in your recent posts. Maybe you are getting close to the relization you are completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

No, Chris. I am addressing the erroneous POINT that you asserted at least a dozen times, i.e., that the steel was destroyed illegally, and the erroneous POINT you asserted repeatedly, i.e., that the removal and eventual destruction of the steel constituted a felony.

You repeated these erroneous assertions over and over again, and you are quite wrong. I would suggest that you retract your repeated assertions of illegality and felonious actions.

You are doing both.

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

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...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.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
Without the physical evidence they cannot properly investigate, they can only speculate.

How can you say that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

 

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Christopher7 [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
You are entitled to your opinion, however, you are ignoring to POINT, which is:

There is no physical evidence of CD or DD/F because the physical evidence was destroyed.

You are doing both.

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

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal...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.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
Without the physical evidence they cannot properly investigate, they can only speculate.

How can you say that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

How it going with the NY state DA office Chris? Get them to hand out any felony warrants yet?

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

It clearly states this:

Originally Posted by NIST current working hypothesis for WTC&
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

What part of

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.

don't you understand?

The NIST hypothesis requires several floor systems to fail before a column could fail.*

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

*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. . . . . 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.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

How it going with the NY state DA office Chris? Get them to hand out any felony warrants yet?

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

 

[DGM]

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.

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

Yes. The way your interpreting that law it would be illegal to throw anything away. Everything has the potential to be used in an investigation some day. Now all you need to do is show the crime where the steel would be used in evidence. That's why you need to talk with the DA, this is a "penal" code.

 

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
There was NO debris damage to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 or 81]

They are talking about debris [floors] falling as a result of fires.

The core columns were 2 stories high with splices 3' above the odd numbered floors.
Several floors would have to collapse around a column before it would fail.

What part of

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.

don't you understand?

The NIST hypothesis requires several floor systems to fail before a column could fail.*

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

*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. . . . . 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.

Therefore debri damage was significant. You claimed different, you are wrong

You have debunked yourself

well done Chris

They clearly say and/or, what part of that do you not understand. It means that it could have debri damage alone that caused it. If it was not fire that caused the debri damage from falling floors then it must have been debri damage from WTC towers. You are being more obtuse than normal. I know you can admit you are wrong sometimes, this is one of those times

 

[funk de fino]

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

You are saying that this law applies in this case, you must show it does, not just show it exists.

 

[Christopher7]

Therefore debri damage was significant. You claimed different, you are wrong
They clearly say and/or, what part of that do you not understand. It means that it could have debri damage alone that caused it. If it was not fire that caused the debri damage from falling floors then it must have been debri damage from WTC towers.

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]

 

[Christopher7]

You are saying that this law applies in this case, you must show it does, not just show it exists.

I did already.

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.

The physical evidence was destroyed.
An official proceeding into how these unprecedented building collapses occurred was inevitable.
FEMA and NIST have conducted investigations.
The destruction of the physical evidence that would no doubt be used in a prospective official proceeding is a violation of this law.


DGM: There need not be a crime, only a prospective official proceeding.
The FEMA and NIST reports are official proceedings.

 

[DGM]

DGM: There need not be a crime, only a prospective official proceeding.
The FEMA and NIST reports are official proceedings.

Wrong!

Call the NY state DA. Do you want me to give you their number?

 

[LashL]

Are you saying that the removal and destruction of the physical evidence is not a violation of this law?

Yes. I am saying that the removal of the debris from the site and the eventual sale of some of the steel from the site was not a violation of this law. And, by the way, NY state law is not even applicable in this matter.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Has anyone asked a demolition company if they could get a 47 story building to take 18 seconds to collapse?

 

[funk de fino]

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]

A man shouting is in desperation

The debris damage referred to in the initiating event must be debris from the floors collapsing.

The debris damage was not a significant factor in the initiating event.

The current NIST hypothesis for collapse of WTC7 quite clearly uses the words AND/OR, you explain to me why Chris? You have not showed that NIST has claimed the debri damage from the WTC tower was not a significant factor in the collapse. Just because it was not near the columns you posted does not mean it was not a significant factor in the collapse. You cannot claim it because you do not know and you do not have all the evidence they have.

You contradicted the current NIST working hypothesis, you are incorrect. Continuing to post large, bold character, cherry picking quotes, means nothing.

 

[funk de fino]

I did already.

No, you never, you just repeated the fact that this law existed. You must show why it applies in this case. Does NY state law apply in this case and if so why?

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Ok, so you say its not a Federal responsibility even though the case involves aircraft hijacking.

Wrong, i said:
"I don't know the federal statute that would apply here so i don't know if they [FBI] would have to sign off."

I did not specify FBI. However since the case did involve an aircraft hijacking I believe that the FBI would have jurisdiction. If explosives were involved then the ATF also have jurisdiction. I am quite sure that Federal law includes evidence tampering statues. however you have chosen to concentrate on NY law and have been asked many times now why there is no hint even of a case concerning the evidence tampering you claim is so very much in evidence.
no Federal case, no NY State case, no NYC case, no private citizen petitioning the court, none,nada,zip,zilch

On the point of the evidence that is available for both DD/F and CD being the videos and eyewitness statements there are no unambiguous videos(or audio for that matter) that bolster the contention of explosives. There are many instances of video in which major office fires are quite evident.
There are dozens of examples of FF's stating that the building was unstable even early on in the day and that the building was expected to suffer some form of collapse. There are a few examples of statements of explosive sounds and one statement in which one person claims to have heard a countdown, over a radio, from a distance.

It is therefore quite obvious that the available evidence points very strongly in only one direction, that of DD and fire having caused the collapse of WTC 7.

 

[GStan]

There was NO debris damage from WTC 1, to or near the area of the initiating event.
[columns 79, 80 and 81]

[qimg]http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg[/qimg]

Do you believe that increasing the font size can make a weak argument stronger? While no damage was directly observed and then reported in the area of the initiating event, you cannot unequivocally state that it was not there the way you do. Look at your picture from this post. The orange area showing known damage is right next to the red area, the area of the initiating event. It is certainly possible that there was additional damage not readily visible from the exterior of a badly damaged burning skyscraper, or, as Funk pointed out, from failing floors. Increasing the font size to scream "the absence of evidence in one area of your theory is rock solid evidence for mine" only makes you look foolish, particularly after 4500+ posts.

 

[Christopher7]

While no damage was directly observed and then reported in the area of the initiating event, you cannot unequivocally* state that it was not there the way you do.

The hypothesis is based on column 79, 80 or 81 failing first. [see NIST WTC 7 summary 07-12-18 pg 6]
*I can say "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

Look at your picture from this post. The orange area showing known damage is right next to the red area, the area of the initiating event.

The large orange area is not close to columns 79, 80 or 81.
Furthermore:
The Orange area is the '10 story gouge' [floor 10 to the ground] as described on NIST L-18.
There are 4 statements that refute that single statement.
The larger area [1/3 the width] would have taken out taken out part of the 9th floor wall, part the atrium [ground to floor 5] and left a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby. It would have been noticed by the Chief in charge of operations.

Funk and i agreed earlier in this thread that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage further west.

It is certainly possible that there was additional damage not readily visible from the exterior of a badly damaged burning skyscraper,

Anything not visible from the exterior would not be debris damage from WTC 1.

or, as Funk pointed out, from failing floors.

I agree. Several floors would have to fail around column 79, 80 or 81 [the initiating event].

 

[funk de fino]

The hypothesis is based on column 79, 80 or 81 failing first. [see NIST WTC 7 summary 07-12-18 pg 6]
*I can say "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

No, "in my opinion" would be better

The large orange area is not close to columns 79, 80 or 81.
Furthermore:
The Orange area is the '10 story gouge' [floor 10 to the ground] as described on NIST L-18.
There are 4 statements that refute that single statement.
The larger area [1/3 the width] would have taken out taken out part of the 9th floor wall, part the atrium [ground to floor 5] and left a great deal of heavy debris in the lobby. It would have been noticed by the Chief in charge of operations.

Funk and i agreed earlier in this thread that the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of damage further west.

Just because the gouge from top to bottum was further west does not mean there was not damage where the red and orange parts are.

Barry Jennings seemed to think there were many many debris and damage in the lobby.

Anything not visible from the exterior would not be debris damage from WTC 1

This is a terrible claim. How can you possibly tell what damage was done internally to the building because it could not be seen from the exterior. Does this mean that there was no damage to any lifts because it could not be seen from outside?

I agree. Several floors would have to fail around column 79, 80 or 81 [the initiating event].

Wait for the full report Chris

 

[LashL]

Christopher7,

Are you conceding that you were wrong in your repeated assertions that the removal and eventual sale and/or destruction of some of the steel from the site was illegal?