WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[NoahFence]

Gerrycan...

Are you of the opinion that explosives or incendiaries were responsible for WTC 7s failure?

If so, can you come up with a REASONABLE explanation on how it was done?

 

[ozeco41]

Yes, I agree that what NIST say after the event does not cange reality. Did I misunderstand that question?

Thank you. The above quoted point noted and all the others you interposed in the quote of my post.

It can be difficult to find some common ground for discussion and we now have a starting point. We could probably discuss these matters further but I will leave you to discuss with tfk so you are not overloaded with too many active discussions.

 

[gerrycan]

Gerrycan...

Are you of the opinion that explosives or incendiaries were responsible for WTC 7s failure?

If so, can you come up with a REASONABLE explanation on how it was done?

I am of the opinion that thermal expansion and the failure of the girder from 44-79 is not the cause, and that explosives/incendiaries should have been considered as a reasonable alternative cause for the buildings destruction.

 

[NoahFence]

I am of the opinion that thermal expansion and the failure of the girder from 44-79 is not the cause, and that explosives/incendiaries should have been considered as a reasonable alternative cause for the buildings destruction.

I'm asking you to consider them. How could it possibly be done. One would think that due to it being impossible, we should safely be able to rule them out. I want your opinion, not the ” we need a new investigation” company line.

 

[tsig]

The 12" versus 11" argument is the one C7 is ostensibly pushing BUT watch for the trap he is setting by getting debate to focus on that single issue.

As I stated clearly in several earlier posts his real error is that he is treating the "girder falls off the seat" issue as if it was caused by a single factor - that single factor being linear expansion/contraction caused by temperature. There are multiple factors contributing to the girder falling off the seat - not just that single factor.***

He then claims falsely that: That is an "untruth by partial truth" and Chris7 is aware that I have already "called" him on that untruth - to no avail he continues to repeat it. It is untrue because the NIST hypothesis is set in the context of all the factors impinging on the critical bits of structure - not only the temperature.

So by continuing to engage in debate of the single factor - temperature expansion - C7 is managing to avoid discussing the real situation.

Can everyone be aware of the trap which he is setting.




(*** I am aware that he has made some token references to twisting as if that was a an unrelated separate factor. It doesn't invalidate the thrust of my criticism.)

You make your posts and I'll make mine if it's all the same to you.

 

[ozeco41]

You make your posts and I'll make mine if it's all the same to you.

Sorry - your post provided a convenient step forward. No offence intended and certainly I was not being critical of you or your post.

 

[gerrycan]

I'm asking you to consider them. How could it possibly be done. One would think that due to it being impossible, we should safely be able to rule them out. I want your opinion, not the ” we need a new investigation” company line.

impossible? The initiating event claimed by NIST is impossible.
That someone could get access to crucial parts of the building is not impossible. That the alarm could be set to test for 8 hours a day in the week or so before 911 is not impossible. (this would cause it to register any trigger as happening in one big single zone). These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts, to be dealt with.

 

[tsig]

Sorry - your post provided a convenient step forward. No offence intended and certainly I was not being critical of you or your post.

OK.

 

[tsig]

impossible? The initiating event claimed by NIST is impossible.
That someone could get access to crucial parts of the building is not impossible. That the alarm could be set to test for 8 hours a day in the week or so before 911 is not impossible. (this would cause it to register any trigger as happening in one big single zone). These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts, to be dealt with.

That someone could melt steel with laser beams from the eyes is not impossible. This is not an opinion but a fact to be dealt with.

 

[carlitos]

Hi Carlitos, i guess success looks like people debating the destruction of this building, whilst taking into account the drawings that have been released. We wanted to draw attention to the fact that nist did not take into account all the elements that they should have, and appear to have 'misfudged' the dimensions of some and the existance of others, in a way that suits their conclusions. Are you asking, 'why are you bothered, you're not american'?

No, I'm not asking "why are you bothered; you're not American."

Really - your success = "people talking about stuff." That is a pretty impotent definition of success. It's a weird goal, that progresses mankind in no meaningful way.

If I made a youtube video about the after-action analysis of pressure washing the roof of the Seattle Kingdome, I would do it for a reason. I wouldn't do it to get people debating why the ceiling tiles of the kingdome fell in. I would have a goal, a reason. Action in the real world, not just youtube conspiraspanking.

So, given your answer above, I conclude that either:

1 - Your goals are pointless and you are wasting time. Your hobby is to be impotent as it interacts with the real world. As George Monbiot noted, the great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing. What you are doing is indiscernible from nothing in terms of real world impact.

or

2 - You are being disingenuous and you really seek to prove some conspiracy theory. You believe in some silly evidence-free explosives / thermite / fantasy theory and you are just playing coy.

If there is an alternative to my above top-of-mind dichotomy, please enlighten me. Arguments from incredulity and "just asking questions" are not impressive.

 

[gerrycan]

That someone could melt steel with laser beams from the eyes is not impossible. This is not an opinion but a fact to be dealt with.

so, is it impossible that charges were placed in wtc7?

 

[gerrycan]

No, I'm not asking "why are you bothered; you're not American."

Really - your success = "people talking about stuff." That is a pretty impotent definition of success. It's a weird goal, that progresses mankind in no meaningful way.

If I made a youtube video about the after-action analysis of pressure washing the roof of the Seattle Kingdome, I would do it for a reason. I wouldn't do it to get people debating why the ceiling tiles of the kingdome fell in. I would have a goal, a reason. Action in the real world, not just youtube conspiraspanking.

So, given your answer above, I conclude that either:

1 - Your goals are pointless and you are wasting time. Your hobby is to be impotent as it interacts with the real world. As George Monbiot noted, the great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing. What you are doing is indiscernible from nothing in terms of real world impact.

or

2 - You are being disingenuous and you really seek to prove some conspiracy theory. You believe in some silly evidence-free explosives / thermite / fantasy theory and you are just playing coy.

If there is an alternative to my above top-of-mind dichotomy, please enlighten me. Arguments from incredulity and "just asking questions" are not impressive.

OK, maybe i put it wrong. I am seeking to raise awareness of the shortcomings of NISTs investigations into the collapse of wtc7.

 

[carlitos]

so, is it impossible that charges were placed in wtc7?

Given observed events, it is impossible that "charges" detonated, so it's a moot point.

 

[carlitos]

OK, maybe i put it wrong. I am seeking to raise awareness of the shortcomings of NISTs investigations into the collapse of wtc7.

For the purpose of ___________________?

 

[gerrycan]

For the purpose of ___________________?

validating the call for a new investigation.

 

[tsig]

so, is it impossible that charges were placed in wtc7?

Yes.

 

[tsig]

validating the call for a new investigation.

Which you'd dismiss just like you've done all the others.

 

[gerrycan]

Which you'd dismiss just like you've done all the others.

So you think that NIST got the initiating event right in their report? That the beams expanded enough to cause the girder to fail? How far did the girder have to walk in order to fail in your opinion?

 

[tfk]

gerry,

Sure, i would welcome the discussion.

"…discuss…"
From Latin "dis quatere": to shake apart.

You can't simultaneously "discuss" & "sit back & say nothing".

I am not a structural engineer, but i do have some engineering qualifications.

"… some engineering qualifications …"

And the guy that picks up the trash calls himself a "sanitation engineer", and the guy that replaces the rolls of toilet paper at work calls himself a "facilities engineer".

Stop blowing smoke up my skirt. You know exactly what your field is (big hint, it's exactly what someone gives you a paycheck to do), and exactly how long you've been doing it.

"Honesty. It's good for what ails ya!"

What I suggest you do is just have the discussion, and if i cannot talk to you on your level you can end it, there's no problem.

"Me, having a discussion while you sit silent" is called a monologue.

I don't do monologues on this subject anymore. It ain't my job to spoon feed kids who don't want to put in any effort.

If you want to have a discussion, you are OBLIGED to participate.

It would be interesting to discuss your take on these drawings and wtc7 in general sometime.

I don't have any problems with NIST's assessment of this failure.

You, on the other hand, do have a problem which prompted you to produce multiple videos on Youtube about this issue in which you asserted that NIST's massively experienced engineers were either incompetent or fraudulent.

And now you want to sit back & just listen…?!

I don't think so.

And I'd definitely say that "you're up first".

As for the other guys, i cannot speak for them. You can ask them for yourself if you like.

Nowhere in those videos did I see a disclaimer that "we're just a bunch of kids who don't have a clue what we're talking about,"

You collaborated on a presentation, producing conclusions, which clearly asserts (incorrectly) that you do know what you were talking about.

So you damn well better know what your collaborators' backgrounds are.

Or else that is another massive blunder on your part.
___

And, now you're AGAIN making baseless assertions, undaunted by ignorance.

You said:

The initiating event claimed by NIST is impossible.

You have zero qualifications to make this assertion.

And it is simply wrong.

This is from the BBC documentary "Conspiracy Files" from around 2008, before NIST's final report was released.
(BTW, BBC reporters & graphic animators are amateurs at structural engineering. I am taking my information only from experts, such as Sunder & Barnett.)

Please listen until the 3:20 point.

Pay close attention at the 2:50 mark.
"And there is HARD PHYSICAL EVIDENCE from another building at the WTC which helps explain how fire could have caused Building 7 to collapse."

Pay close attention to Jonathan Barnett starting at 2:59.

"... we were stunned. We saw a major collapse (in WTC5). We saw an interior section of the building that had collapsed simply due to fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxj8qaLUDPU&t=1m57s

Now listen to this guy (Richard Rotanz). He was in WTC7 after WTC1 collapsed, trying to assess the state of the building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-j792vehaU&t=8m55s

Please listen for 1 minute until the 9:44 mark.

"Building creaking … thing falling … gaping holes in floors … Columns hanging … and elevator car thrown out of the shaft & down a corridor."

According to building drawings & shop drawings, that elevator would never have fit thru the elevator door opening. The elevators were in the core of the building, NOT where the falling WTC1 debris hit WTC7.

Do you realize now that things AFTER the impact from WTC1 debris may not have been exactly like the drawings showed in the "as built" condition? Even far away from the debris impact sites?

Your assertion that the girder could not have fallen "simply due to fire" is proven false. You may, or may not be able to figure out the ultimate cause, but it is demonstrably possible.
___

A small diversion...

For contrast, here is Richard Gage LYING THRU HIS TEETH about the smoke coming from WTC7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnjKAciMvaI

Listen to Gage's slimy, lying comments at the 1:00 mark, & contrast them to the videos of the motion of the smoke that show his comments to be lies.

Tell me again, please, why you put stock into the opinions of this proven liar.


tomk

 

[tfk]

so, is it impossible that charges were placed in wtc7?

It is 100% impossible that any explosives detonated, causing the collapse of WTC7, and were NOT recorded on dozens of video tape audio tracks.

It is impossible that explosives were placed, did NOT detonate, and were not subsequently detected in the debris.

So, yes, it is impossible that charges were placed in wtc7.