10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[R.Mackey]

Mackey - you are quite the physicist, my man. You trumpet Bazant (who's been debunked at least twice since his paper came out - come to think of it, many times since ALL his rewrites began), and you deny the easiest answer to the phenomenon witnessed (Occam's Razor and all that jazz).

No, it hasn't, and no, I don't. Gravity is the winner of Occam's contest, not some unspecified method of a huge number of explosives.

Is it really so hard to imagine that the towers were obliterated with explosives? That WTC 7 really WAS imploded? The most obvious cause is usually correct.

It only appears "obvious" to you because of your comprehensive lack of expertise.

Now, are you going to answer my questions, or not? I'll be happy to Ignore you if you're afraid to answer.

 

[KreeL]

Interesting that you could get hung up on the sound.

"It sure looks like obliteration with explosives, but but but it just doesn't sound right!"

 

[lapman]

Interesting that you could get hung up on the sound.

"It sure looks like obliteration with explosives, but but but it just doesn't sound right!"

Amazing what a missing absolute requirement does to a theory.

 

[twinstead]

KreeL, believe it or not, a crap load real experts who actually know what they are talking about and have REAL expertise and experience in the relavant sciences have actually STUDIED the WTC collapses in minute detail. Things like that interest people, espicially people who study buildings for a living.

It's not like nobody paid attention and all the experts in the world just yawned and said, "Well, let's just believe what the government tells us and get on with life"--and then along comes these investigooglers with the 'real' truth ready to rock their worlds.

 

[KreeL]

If I understand you correctly, twinstead, they shouldn't have missed anything then, correct? They would have seen those towers blowing up just like the rest of us. WTC7 would have looked just like an implosion, just like it did to the rest of us.

So what is their problem? OHHHH...the official story doesn't allow for you to believe what you know...

I get it now.

 

[funk de fino]

If I understand you correctly, twinstead, they shouldn't have missed anything then, correct? They would have seen those towers blowing up just like the rest of us. WTC7 would have looked just like an implosion, just like it did to the rest of us.

So what is their problem? OHHHH...the official story doesn't allow for you to believe what you know...

I get it now.

Except they did not blow up and it was not imploded.

 

[HyJinX]

Why do some people insist on using the words "official story"? It's nonsensical. There is no "official story". Stop saying this.

 

[twinstead]

If I understand you correctly, twinstead, they shouldn't have missed anything then, correct? They would have seen those towers blowing up just like the rest of us. WTC7 would have looked just like an implosion, just like it did to the rest of us.

So what is their problem? OHHHH...the official story doesn't allow for you to believe what you know...

I get it now.

What are you talking about? What exactly is the "official story", anyway? Do you think that everybody in the world who has studied the collapses just accepted a 'story' from the government with no independent verification? Do you even know what the "official story" is, or what kind of evidence exists to support it?

This thing has been studied to death. For Christ's sake building codes are being changed around the world because of this study. Do you really expect me to take the word of some dude on an internet forum who thinks that because he thinks the buildings looked like they were a CD they just MUST be? Pardon me if I get a second opinion.

 

[GlennB]

... it's no use denying nano-technology. The delivery mechanisms for such, as you can imagine, are varied and clever. Unless we catch the ones responsible for imploding and exploding the WTC, we will likely not know EXACTLY how they did it beyond mere speculation.

You are coming across here as a complete idiot. Please stop. It's embarrassing for everybody. Next thing you'll be telling us all you believe we live in "The Matrix".

 

[A W Smith]

Mackey - it's no use denying nano-technology. The delivery mechanisms for such, as you can imagine, are varied and clever. Unless we catch the ones responsible for imploding and exploding the WTC, we will likely not know EXACTLY how they did it beyond mere speculation.

You can argue speculation all day long. I've seen you do it.

You are promoting something akin to vaporware, You are attempting to support an argument for technology that does not exist solely by the premise the technology that did not exist in one era, does exist in another era, that is the argument of a fool. Are you a fool Kreel?

 

[tanabear]

The fraudulent statement was in the 2004 Appendix L "progress report".
It was corrected in the 2008 "Final draft".

The reason for the debate was Gravy and everyone else here were siting the 10 story gouge as a major contributing factor in the collapse. It was not.

They also sited diesel fuel fire as a major factor. They failed to grasp the simple logic that disproved the existence of a diesel fuel fire in the north east generator room when I presented it. NIST finally admitted that diesel fuel fires did not play a part in the collapse in the Dec. 18, 2007 Approach Summary but they did not admit that the hypotheses was baseless in the first place.

Exactly, the idea that a certain portion of the building was "scooped out" was frequently cited by "debunkers" to explain the collapse of WTC7. The Popular Mechanics article states,

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

I am also reminded of the exchange between Charles Goyette(CG) and Davin Coburn(PM) regarding this issue,

CG: ...Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics...say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

PM: When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was...about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it... Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower...

CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true... I go, oh that's interesting...if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: ...We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate....

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ....What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

PM: ....I can't answer that question.

CG: I know you can't.

PM: (is speechless)....

This brings up an interesting point. Did Davin Coburn actually see pictures that showed what he described or was he just making stuff up? Or did they show him fake pictures, unbeknownst to him. Why would these "pictures" need to be kept from the public?

The Popular Mechanics article and book were the most well-known attempts at debunking 9/11 Truth. The fact that so much of it has been exposed as propaganda should be disturbing.

But to the "debunkers" it isn't. Their 9/11 philosophy has always been, "Believe whatever you want to believe, as long as it agrees with the official story."

 

[funk de fino]

Exactly, the idea that a certain portion of the building was "scooped out" was frequently cited by "debunkers" to explain the collapse of WTC7. The Popular Mechanics article states,

Except you have failed to grasp that there was a large section of the building scooped out and C7 justb has an issue about where it was approximately reported by Sunder in an interview. As it is called approximate or possible in the prelim report then the report is not wrong.

Sunder also says "on about" and "approximately"

The Final report is out now, I guess you could try reading it?

 

[Sunstealer]

Then you have admitted that the fires were not hot enough to keep the metal molten

No

you have said that the fires were not hot enough to melt the metal.

Yes

These two answers contradict one another.

In order for the temperature of the steel to remain above it's melting point then the surroundings must be above the melting point otherwise the steel will solidify.

Can you answer this C7. Take a piece of A36 steel, put it in a crucible, place that in a furnace who's temperature is 1500°C. The steel will melt.
What happens to the steel if I reduce the furnace temperature to 1000°C?

 

[Christopher7]

In order for the temperature of the steel to remain above it's melting point then the surroundings must be above the melting point otherwise the steel will solidify.

You fail to recognize this simple concept: Elevated temperatures around the molten metal will slow the cooling of the molten metal.

 

[Christopher7]

Except you have failed to grasp that there was a large section of the building scooped out and C7 justb has an issue about where it was approximately reported by Sunder in an interview. As it is called approximate or possible in the prelim report then the report is not wrong.

It's FRAUD because the damage did not exist. They have photos of the south side. They told me so when I filed a FoIA request for them.

The "scooped out" remark referred to non-existent damage. Sunder did not say "on about" or "approximately", he stated it as a fact.

[FONT=&quot]"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [/FONT]

The Final report is out now, I guess you could try reading it?

The 10 story gouge that Sunder stated as a fact in PM isn't in the Final Report because it did not exist. He lied in the PM article. Then PM lied about seeing a photo of it.

 

[beachnut]

Interesting that you could get hung up on the sound.

"It sure looks like obliteration with explosives, but but but it just doesn't sound right!"

Sounds like there is a 10 story hole in your evidence. No sounds of explosives, yet you persist in claming the delusions of 911Truth are true. Faith based delusions live on, what form is the Kool-Aid of 911Truth.

911Truth fails to grasp the reason 911 buildings falling due to gravity looks like CD is that CD is mostly a gravity driven event. 911Truth has fallen for lies due to their ignorance. You have been fooled by 911Truth.

 

[KreeL]

It's really quite simple. The towers were called 'twins' because they were really pretty close to identical, but not quite. What if I were to tell you that the north tower was 10 times heavier than the south tower? Funk di fino would yell, "You ignant twoofer! The think da gubment is out to get you?!" (yeah, I've read some of the other threads).

Fact is, look up both obliterations of the towers on the richter scale. Are they similar? Twins even? Not hardly....

Now we take into account your wonderful huge gash in WTC 7. What made that gash? Some huge piece of the north tower, wouldn't you agree? Afterall, it wasn't just a few beams and a bunch of ash striking it, if you believe it existed (and judging by your posts you all think it was monstrous!). Of course WTC 7 just happened to be the furthest property left in the WTC from the north tower, and something so huge that it left at least a ten story gash managed to fall off the north tower due to gravity and landed all the way over on poor old WTC7.

Save it for the retail, guys. Intelligent people aren't buying it.

 

[beachnut]

It's really quite simple. The towers were called 'twins' because they were really pretty close to identical, but not quite. What if I were to tell you that the north tower was 10 times heavier than the south tower? Funk di fino would yell, "You ignant twoofer! The think da gubment is out to get you?!" (yeah, I've read some of the other threads).

Fact is, look up both obliterations of the towers on the richter scale. Are they similar? Twins even? Not hardly....

Now we take into account your wonderful huge gash in WTC 7. What made that gash? Some huge piece of the north tower, wouldn't you agree? Afterall, it wasn't just a few beams and a bunch of ash striking it, if you believe it existed (and judging by your posts you all think it was monstrous!). Of course WTC 7 just happened to be the furthest property left in the WTC from the north tower, and something so huge that it left at least a ten story gash managed to fall off the north tower due to gravity and landed all the way over on poor old WTC7.

Save it for the retail, guys. Intelligent people aren't buying it.

Only 0.001 percent of all earth's engineers support your failed delusion and those of 911Truth.

You missed the fact the WTC impacts were 7 to 11 times greater than Robertson's design for a 707 impact energy.
(clue; hint; the impacts were different, means different responses)

At 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT, flight 11 and 175 were not the same energy levels or did they make similar impact paths. Failure is the normal for people supporting the lies, hearsay, and delusions of 911Truth, you are not different than the entire 911Truth movement. Completely evidence free.

Plus you are off topic, I doubt you have clue what the thread topic is as you spew 911Truth delusions.

 

[KreeL]

Impacts? Greater? Hahahahaha.....

The towers absorbed the impacts just as designed. They didn't fall over, they didn't crash to the ground after impacts. They j u s t s t o o d there.

They would still be standing there if it wasn't for the 'shock and awe{tm}'. Shock being the south tower exploding, and AWE being the super impressive demolition of the north tower.

BTW...have you looked up the richter readings yet?

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

The only "deluded" and "crazy" people here are those that choose to believe the Propaganda in the Nist and Fema reports. I am no scientist--but I know better than to be a True Believer of anything. I don't "believe" all 911 Truthers, especially those that promote anti-semitic theories. But the evidence pointed to by physicists and engineers who have examined the evidence that wasn't or couldn't be carted away (illegally impeding a proper criminal investigation I might add) is far more convincing than the Fema and NIST reports that to this day claim to admit they don't know what really happened.