10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[BigAl]

NIST is withholding ovet 7,000 the video clips.

You cannot say for sure that there were no sounds of explosions until you have heard all the video clips.

Any man-made explosion powerful to to do any damage would have been heard by everyone and recorded on the sound track of every camera in operation at the time. There were lots of cameras in operation. There is no sound track consistent with man-made demolition.

The 1993 bombing was loud enough to be heard for blocks and yet did no structural damage that came close to a catastrophic collapse that we saw on 9/11.

The idea that the NIST is withholding video is silly.

 

[twinstead]

Knowing all the hundreds if not thousands of video cameras that could possibly have been running when the buildings collapsed, how can anybody suggest that NIST could even consider they could simply 'hold video clips' and prevent the release of a video where you could hear CD explosions? It's absolutely ludicrous. Every single video taken from Manhattan that day would have those sounds in them.

Chris is falling into the all too familiar CT cop out of using no evidence as evidence. You can't hear any CD sounds in any video of the collapse? Well, it must CERTAINLY be in one of the videos that NIST must CERTAINLY be withholding to cover up the CD, right?

Ludicrous.

 

[funk de fino]

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 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.

You have just proved yourself a liar by posting that Sunder did indeed say "on about" and "approximately". Well done I have nothing further to add.

Except there was a huge gash in the building approx 10 storeys high. The approx location was incorrect thats all.

 

[funk de fino]

Beachnut, you lied when you said 'no sounds, and this is supported by witnesses'.

Now you are trying to qualify your mistake by saying 'let's don't count the 160+ guys and gals you just called me on'.

LOL -- even mackey will have to get a grin out of that!

Except NIST interviewed those witness and found no evidence from their testimony that showed a CD was the cause of the noises.

Please bring a video from that day with the explosion sounds, it should be easy there are hundreds of them to choose from.

And despite what C7 says NIST are not witholding 7000 clips.

 

[GStan]

Just to let you know. Debunking is not a group of guys sitting in a forum saying things like 'how does a fireman know what an explosion sounds like?' or 'what the heck does a female ambulance driver know about explosions?' ...or 'bodies hitting concrete sound like explosions'....or any crappy stuff like that. THAT is NOT debunking squat -- just so you know.

We here at the JREF are energy efficient debunkers. We try not to spend more energy on claims than is necessary. You have not even come close to presenting any claim that would require more energy than "a group of guys sitting in a forum saying things like" why your claims are stale and have been mathematically and scientifically demonstrated to be without merit years ago. It is your lack of information that makes debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories as simple as it has become. We're just playing down to the level of our competition.

There are many other sites on the interwebs besides truther-friendly sites. Proceed to them with caution because they contain information that will conflict with your fantasy, however, if you can pay attention long enough, you might, uh, learn stuff.

 

[GStan]

The sand falling in an hourglass is not falling through itself.

Stack 10 grains of sand on top of one another, and drop one grain through the rest.

See the difference? I think you don't....and that's sad.

I'm convinced. As a matter of fact, I think you should build a research paper around the wonderfully relevant comparison between 10 grains of sand and the World Trade Center. (Are you Heiwa in disguise?) Here is a link to the procedure for submissions to the Journal of Building Physics. Please keep us posted on any feedback they provide to your analysis.

 

[lapman]

NIST is withholding ovet 7,000 the video clips.

You cannot say for sure that there were no sounds of explosions until you have heard all the video clips.

That's a lie. No court or scientist would agree with you. There are more than enough videos available to determine if there were sounds of explosives. Since the number of currently available videos from all angles and distances from the towers that have the sound of explosives numbers exactly zero, statistically speaking, that would be true for all videos.

WTC 7 fell at free fall for 105 feet. The NIST computer model does not.

Here you go applying a standard to NIST that you refuse to follow. You absolutely require NIST to be absolutely correct in every single minute detail, yet you can be completely wrong as much as you want. NIST has to prove everything including what's outside the scope of their investigation while you don't have to prove anything at all. Hypocrisy at it's most extreme.

 

[twinstead]

Here you go applying a standard to NIST that you refuse to follow. You absolutely require NIST to be absolutely correct in every single minute detail, yet you can be completely wrong as much as you want. NIST has to prove everything including what's outside the scope of their investigation while you don't have to prove anything at all. Hypocrisy at it's most extreme.

This blatant double standard is not lost on anybody, even third-string debunkers like myself.

 

[Sunstealer]

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

ROFLMAO - O'RLY? Cooling rate is one of the fundamentals that a metallurgist must understand in order to understand material properties and how to tailor them. Ofcourse I understand that the cooling rate would be slowed hence the question in bold!

You have numerous problems to solve:

How much liquid steel (at 1400°C) was produced by thermite?
How long would this liquid steel remain liquid assuming no rubble pile and the liquid open to the air at 25°C?
How long would this liquid steel remain liquid assuming the temperature in the rubble pile was 1000°C and 500°C.

Run along dear boy and do the calculations for us. Show us how clever you are. Go on. I just want to see you attempt the calculations. You can use any method you like and state all assumptions. I know that you are not bright enough nor do you have the knowledge to even know where to start regarding such calculations. Show me the maths. You can't. Back in your box.

 

[GStan]

ROFLMAO - O'RLY? Cooling rate is one of the fundamentals that a metallurgist must understand in order to understand material properties and how to tailor them. Ofcourse I understand that the cooling rate would be slowed hence the question in bold!

You have numerous problems to solve:

How much liquid steel (at 1400°C) was produced by thermite?
How long would this liquid steel remain liquid assuming no rubble pile and the liquid open to the air at 25°C?
How long would this liquid steel remain liquid assuming the temperature in the rubble pile was 1000°C and 500°C.

Run along dear boy and do the calculations for us. Show us how clever you are. Go on. I just want to see you attempt the calculations. You can use any method you like and state all assumptions. I know that you are not bright enough nor do you have the knowledge to even know where to start regarding such calculations. Show me the maths. You can't. Back in your box.

($5.00 says Christopher will use common sense over math to totally pwn Sun on this one.)

 

[lapman]

($5.00 says Christopher will use common sense over math to totally pwn Sun on this one.)

Nah. Most likely his "belief."

 

[GStan]

Nah. Most likely his "belief."

Is that a bet?
GStan has "common sense" for $5
Lapman has "beliefs" for for $5
Anyone want to take "C7 will do the math" for $5?

 

[DavidJames]

Is that a bet?
GStan has "common sense" for $5
Lapman has "beliefs" for for $5
Anyone want to take "C7 will do the math" for $5?

The last one is a sucker bet, no thanks. I will split my $5 between "fact by assertion" and "circular logic"

 

[nicepants]

Wow,
More than 576,000,000,000 joules were released in both towers falling.

This was due to gravity alone.

[/quote]

Just to interject...if my calculations using scientific notation are correct...that's the equivalent of 144 tons of TNT.

(1 ton of TNT = approx 4,184,000,000 joules)

At 110 stories...that's 1300 pounds of TNT per floor (assuming we divide it evenly between the two)

But if you're a truther, I guess that's not enough.

 

[Sunstealer]

I'd give him enormous credit even if he attempted to do it. Truthers just don't seem to like to use a formula and put the numbers in.

What's so hard about working out the specific heat and adding it to the heat of fusion assuming an average specific heat capacity for Iron or Steel between 25-1500°C? (or you could go in steps say 200°C chunks and sum them because SHC varies with temperature). Once you have that figure then it's easy to work backwards per Kg of steel to work out the amount of heat lost to get down to 25/500/800°C. Once that's reached then it gets a bit more complicated because you have to make further assumptions, but all I'm after is a rough calculation to give a ball park figure of time. Those with more experience of heat transfer (Physicists) at JREF could then refine it or show what's wrong with any calculations but I'm sure most would accept the simplest approach.

 

[Bell]

The sand falling in an hourglass is not falling through itself.

Stack 10 grains of sand on top of one another, and drop one grain through the rest.

See the difference? I think you don't....and that's sad.

Try again, champ!

 

[ktesibios]

Oh, and in case you're wondering:

The Richter scale is defined using the logarithm base 10 as:
2 E
R = ——— log ———
3 Eo

Where, Eo = 104.8 Joules is the energy released by a small reference earthquake. The energy, E can be obtained directly from the Gutenberg-Richter magnitude-energy relation, here expressed in units of Joules:
log E = 1.5×R + 4.8 or equivalently:

E = 101.5×R + 4.8

This is stone cold wrong. Let's assume that this part:

log E = 1.5×R + 4.8

is correct. Then what you should have is:

E=10^(1.5R+4.8)
Either you haven't figured out how to do superscripts (you do it with the tags "sup" and "/sup" enclosed in square brackets) or you aren't aware of the conventional way of indicating the operation of raising to a power in text: "10^x" is rendered as "10^x".

Another possibility is that you haven't even mastered high school math.

Incidentally, while you were attending Google U. you might have noticed that the Richter magnitude of an earthquake is proportional to the common log of the amplitude of the motion, not the energy release, which scales approximately as the 3/2 power of the amplitude.

Whatever the source of your major malfunction, you've established pretty clearly that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[tanabear]

You have just proved yourself a liar by posting that Sunder did indeed say "on about" and "approximately". Well done I have nothing further to add.

Except there was a huge gash in the building approx 10 storeys high. The approx location was incorrect thats all.

Charles Goyette(CG) PM(Davin Coburn)

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: ...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.

Davin Coburn is stating that he saw pictures that show, "about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it." If there were pictures that showed this, why would there be so much confusion about where the damage was located? Why can't we see these pictures?

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7gash.jpg

 

[johnny karate]

Charles Goyette(CG) PM(Davin Coburn)

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: ...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.

Davin Coburn is stating that he saw pictures that show, "about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it." If there were pictures that showed this, why would there be so much confusion about where the damage was located? Why can't we see these pictures?

Who cares. Only conspiracy kooks are obsessed with the collpase of building that the world in genereal isn't all that interested in.

Now here's a question for you: Coburn states at least some of these "top secret" photos are in the possession of the NYPD. How deeply do you believe the NYPD to be involved whatever it is you think is going on?