10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

We have a HUGE group of experts who don't consider the collapse unnatural, and a small number of non-experts who think it was.

Hmmm. Who to believe? Who to believe?

MM your constant declaring that the building didn't collapse 'naturally' does NOT make it so. The reason why we are quoting firefighters and other experts who were AT THE SCENE that day is to show that your insistence that the collapse was unnatural is WRONG, and because you use that as a basis for your theory it makes your theory WRONG.

 

[jaydeehess]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.
They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

Because "un-natural" is a subjective phrase, not a scientific one. It is a phrase that suggests the use of 'common sense' (sometimes aka common ignorance) rather than the use of engineering and evidence based reasoning.

It's mind-boggling how JREFers refuse to use their lifetime of learned experience when considering this event.

From what I have seen most JREF's do actually use this. Its also known as education.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

You have to consider the rest of what happened as well.

I sense what is coming but will actually continue to see whether or not my inuition is correct(the scientifically correct thing to do.)

Supposing you folks are right and no controlled demolition was applied to WTC7.

Suppose your also right that the fires burned long enough and hot enough to introduce structural failure.

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

It is not reasonable to expect anything specific in such a case at all.

WTC 7 did not fail all at once, it was coming apart internally many seconds before the north wall fell.

The firefighters certainly prepared for a topple

Prudence is a virtue in such a case as a badly damaged and obviously weakened building so one plans for the worst case senario. In fact they prepared for a toplling by clearing out the area surrounding the building on both the north and south sides out to a distance equal to the height of the building. If I were to use only the 'common sense' approach I would be clearing out only
on the south side for that far since all the major structural damage was on the south side. However it would not make me a very good at the job of public safety.

BUT WTC7 didn't topple.

right, it collapsed from a point within the building

We didn't see WTC7 fall piecemeal.

yes we did, the roof structures first, core members, and possibly parts of the south wall, then the north facade. The western section fell towards the south while the eastern section fell more to the north east.

We didn't see part of WTC7 remain standing.

right!

We did see a simultaneous uniform structural failure leading to a high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint, COMPLETE collapse of WTC7.

No we didn't, as explained above.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Actually it would take a non-engineer to suggest that the possibility was so low as to be extrtemely unlikey. Have you many engineers that have stated that such a collapse was extremely unlikely. Ones who have studied the construction of this specific building?

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

Given the utter lack of any corroborating evidence of such a highly unlikely senario, yes it is unreasonable to suggest that these phantom explosives are a better explanation than the fact that the building had indeed suffered; major structural damage(the full extent of which is unknown); and fires on several floors each of which, on their won, would have been considered major fires on any other day(for which full details about them is not known) that were not fought by the NYFD.

The personal incredulity that you would characterize as 'common sense' is not evidence of anything.

 

[Christopher7]

Given the very different floor plans it is doubtful that a fire on the 7th floor or 5th floor would burn in the same pattern as on the 12th floor.

Good point. I was talking about floors 7 and up, [office space]. I will make that distinction from now on.

the fire would have been in the middle of WTC 7

You simply have no way of definitively stating this. I too put the probability of a fuel fire on the east side of the eastern most elevator shaft as fairly low but I cannot discount the possibilty completely.

I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building.

Using the information i have, i just postulated on what path it would have taken.

But it does not preclude a fire on the 7th floor in an area with no windows and a hole in the elevator shaft funneling smoke to the 12th floor or above.

I assumed that the debris 'bypassed floor 7' while in the elevator shaft, but this eliminates a fire next to column 73 [NIST #]
The problem with floor 8 is, when the elevators were ejected, they took the wall out. Smoke would be pouring out there as well as up the debris hole. Fuel oil makes a lot of smoke.

In this photograph.
We can see the 14th and 17th floors as far as column 12 [Steve's #]

Simply that the fuel lines do indeed run nearby the area under concern and that the building had suffered physical damage that in at least one place can be shown to have caused major damage and that similar damage occured to Banker's Trust from imapct from WTC 2 debris.

Bankers Trust was about 250' from WTC 2.
WTC 7 was about 350' from WTC 1.
The large piece of debris that hit Bankers Trust only penetrated about 20 to 30 feet.

 

[Dog Town]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.



MM

I wonder why, and what your definition, of " natural" is? Never mind...

 

[Belz...]

You never see the JREFers address the points made about how totally UN-NATURAL the WTC7 collapse was.

That's because it neither looks or is unnatural, no matter what colour you use to say it.

They ignore that issue and confine their rebuttals to firefighter quotes, debris damage and unfought fire.

Which is already far more reliable than a truther's "it looks fishy" kind of investigation.

Of course you have to consider the fire and debris damage. But counting how many bricks were broken is largely irrelevant when you consider the complete picture.

What complete picture ? Two large planes crashed into 1 and 2, both of them collapsed, and the debris from one of the towers damaged number 7. Fires, etc. What ELSE do you need to consider ? Plus we have admission of guilt by the terrorist leader and clear motive and ability to carry out the attacks...

Is it not a reasonable expectation to expect the structure to weaken and fail at one location first, rather than at all locations at the same time?

Perhaps, which is why that's what happened with 7.

Is it not reasonable to expect this first location structural failure to cause a lean or topple of part or all of the structure above?

Not necessarily. Ask an architect. Oh wait. We have several, here.

Is it not more reasonable to expect progressive structural failures resulting it a badly damaged partially collapsed WTC7?

"Reasonable" ? Again, ask someone who would know instead of trusting your own judgment in things you're not knowledgeable in.

Is it really necessary to be a structural engineer to suggest that this was extremely unlikely to occur without artificial assistance?

Bolding mine.

It is irrelevant if it's "necessary" to be a structural engineer to suggest this since no structural engineer suggests this.

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that the observed; high-speed, symmetrical, near-footprint collapse of WTC7 was better explained by preplanned controlled demolition?

In the complete absence of the evidence we should EXPECT to find, yes. It is.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think that debris could penetrate 90 feet into the building.

Well, perhaps you should trust the experts' knowledge on this, rather than trust your own layman's thoughts.

Using the information i have, i just postulated on what path it would have taken.

That's interesting, considering that no computer on earth could do this.

Bankers Trust was about 250' from WTC 2.
WTC 7 was about 350' from WTC 1.
The large piece of debris that hit Bankers Trust only penetrated about 20 to 30 feet.

Again, you're trying to simplify everything so that all things are equal. You're forgetting a great number of factors that might have come into play. Bankers Trust is NOT 7 WTC. 2 WTC's collapse was NOT 1 WTC's. Etc.

 

[Miragememories]

So let's see what kind of thoughtful response I received;

CHF "We didn't hear it." "It was leaning before it fell." "Demo charges survived fire?" "No seismograph evidence" "FDNY knew it would come down hours ahead of time." "Structural engineers disagree."

DavidJames "tin hatter..."

JimBenArm "there's a natural way for a building to collapse?"

twinstead "..HUGE group of experts..firefighter quotes.."

jaydeehess "..un-natural isn't scientific..it collapsed internally for many seconds..it did fall piecemeal..it did completely collapse..only engineers can draw conclusions..without proof will not use common sense.."

Dog Town "..wonders what un-natural is.."

Belz... "..collapse looks normal.." "..firefighters just know.." "..similar to WTC 1 & 2 plane crash vs debris damage".."Bin Laden's confession.." "..without proof to support was observed, we ignore what was observed.."




What amazingly blind obedience to a chosen belief.

Not a doubt. The Flat Earth Society has ruled again!

5.5 years after the fact, even NIST with all the resources available to them has a branch of the Federal Government, has not been able release an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Yet, it appears you folks could have produced an acceptable explanation overnight.

Experts in controlled demolition spend many man hours and great expense attempting the difficult achievement of making a building completely collapse into it's own footprint.

Supposedly, by random chance, debris and fire damage effectively achieved the same result at WTC7.



Regarding what's natural and what's not natural;

I think we all agree, experts and lay people alike, that GRAVITY is the natural force that ultimately governs a building's collapse.

Gravitational force was uniformly applied to the WTC7.

Videos of the WTC7 collapse, show it as bottom-initiated, dropping (not toppling) downward, at near freefall speed, while maintaining a relatively level horizontal roofline.

For such a level collapse to occur under gravitational pull, sufficiently widespread structural support would have to removed at the same moment in time to avoid an uneven collapse, as well as to assure a TOTAL collapse.

This difficult engineering accomplishment is achieved by the application of controlled demolition.

Without a doubt, you folks accept the premise that somehow, inspite of the fact that the majority of the ground floor structural supports were undamaged by WTC1 debris, that the fires were able, in a bizarre feat of masterful timing, simultaneously weaken enough of the foundational structure to induce gravity to perform a controlled demolition-like collapse of WTC7?

What an amazing bunch of critical thinkers you think you are!

MM

 

[DavidJames]

What an amazing bunch of critical thinkers you think you are!

MM

I called you a tin hatter because you refuse to support your claims with evidence, instead relying on your own gut feel. Should you change your method, I will change my opinion.

 

[twinstead]

MM since you are not in a position to decide if something is unnatural or not, who's word are you taking without question?

The gist of the thread is that YOU don't know what you are talking about. All you have is your disbelief, no further evidence. Even worse, it appears that anybody who doesn't agree with you is a blind sheep.

This is straight out of Paranoid Conspiracy Theory 101, chapter 1.

We don't agree with you. Even better, experts in how buildings fall down go boom disagree with you. Almost ALL of them.

Talk about being blind--why should we take your word for any of this?

 

[Gravy]

MM, you have 117 posts here. Can you name one claim that you've been able to defend with evidence?

Bet you can't.

 

[Gravy]

Christopher7, can you name some major events on 9/11 that were more severe in WTC 7 than they were at the Bankers Trust Building?

Bet you won't.

How are those CocoaPuffs today?

By the way, if you're looking for Jaydeehess, he's away for his semiannual Illuminati training.

 

[einsteen]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD.

Twin & James, what kind of evidence is in your opinion the proof that it was a CD? You prefer fireman quotes above video evidence?

If you make an archive of all buildings that were destroyed by natural collapses, fire, earthquakes and CDs then the category CD would fit the best for wtc7. Even experts will do that. And there is also video and audio evidence about people on the scene talking about 'first explosion to weaken the structure', 'building is about to blow up', 'keep your eye on that building, it is coming down'

No I hate to use the 'pull it' video although it is the industry term they pulled the firemen out of the building, that's fine for me.

I've mailed DemolitionDave, Dave if you are watching could you please give some clarification about building 7?

 

[The Almond]

5.5 years after the fact, even NIST with all the resources available to them has a branch of the Federal Government, has not been able release an explanation for the collapse of WTC7. Yet, it appears you folks could have produced an acceptable explanation overnight.

Ok, it's time to address this again. NIST's funding for 2006 was $581 million dollars and change. Compare that to:
National Institute of Health: $28.6 Billion
National Cancer Institute: $4.35 Billion

No, NIST does not have unlimited resources, nor is it a "branch" of the federal government. Those branches would be Executive, Legislative and Judicial. NIST is part of the Executive branch, under the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration.

Experts in controlled demolition spend many man hours and great expense attempting the difficult achievement of making a building completely collapse into it's own footprint.

That's an excellent point! Please produce the evidence showing that controlled demolition experts spent many hours and great expense in attempting to bring down the WTC 7 using a controlled demolition.

 

[Gravy]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD.

Er, you mean ALL except every expert who has studied the collapse, and except every expert who was right there when WTC 7 came down.

That's what you mean, right?

Or can you name an expert who

A) studied the collapse or
B) was there

who says it looked/sounded like a CD?

Well, go right ahead, einsteen. Present your expert testimony.

 

[Gravy]

I've mailed DemolitionDave, Dave if you are watching could you please give some clarification about building 7?

I didn't realize he was there. I'd be most interested to hear what he saw and heard.

 

[Belz...]

Belz... "..collapse looks normal.." "..firefighters just know.." "..similar to WTC 1 & 2 plane crash vs debris damage".."Bin Laden's confession.." "..without proof to support was observed, we ignore what was observed.."

What amazingly blind obedience to a chosen belief.

I take it you have no argument against the evidence I listed ?

 

[Belz...]

All experts agree it looks like a CD, it has the features of a CD.

Which features would that be ?

- Collapsing with gravity : check
- loud explosions : no check
- visible demolition charges : no check
- months worth of wiring reported by working employees : no check

It seems to me like the only thing that makes it look like a CD is the fact that the building fell down.

If you make an archive of all buildings that were destroyed by natural collapses, fire, earthquakes and CDs then the category CD would fit the best for wtc7.

If you make an archive of all bulidings that were destroyed by fire following the collapsed of an even bigger building in their vacinity following the intentional crash of a 767 into it, and that had a construction similar to 7 WTC, then the category "7 WTC" would fit the best for wtc7.

 

[Miragememories]

MM, you have 117 posts here. Can you name one claim that you've been able to defend with evidence?

Bet you can't.

Gravy..Mark Roberts you really should get that avatar hand treated...or find it a girlfriend.

117 posts? Your point? JREFers post here as casually as breathing.

Since when is evidence of real concern to you unless it bolsters your bigoted point of view.

This is a forum not a courtroom.

During a proper official investigation, I expect the rules of evidence and expert testimony to apply.

You folks aren't interested in a discussion unless you can restrict it to the limited official investigations that have previously occured.

I made a forum presentation that argued why the few semi-official explanations for the WTC7 collapse should be discounted and no one attempts to refute my logic.

You all escape to courtroom rules in order to avoid having to defend yourselves with logic.

A grand jury, comprised of lay-people, can submit a case for trial based on reasonable belief that a crime has occured.

I'm arguing that there is reasonable belief that the WTC7 collapse was caused by more than fire and debris damage.

Without the full official powers of a courtroom (evidence collection and expert witnesses testimony), it isn't possible for a public forum such as this to do anything else but discuss probabilities.

You can't limit the scope of the discussion just because you don't like the presentation. You have to prove the presentation is irrelevant to the argument.

If what I say is logically implausible, it should be possible to logically explain why the main WTC7 structure performed a controlled-demolition-like collapse.

If you can't eliminate reasonable doubt than there remains a good case for further investigation into what really happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

And no one seems to be able to answer why NIST, with all it's government resources has been unable after FIVE and ONE-HALF YEARS to offer an explanation that they feel will stand up to public scrutiny?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Ok, it's time to address this again. NIST's funding for 2006 was $581 million dollars and change. Compare that to:
National Institute of Health: $28.6 Billion
National Cancer Institute: $4.35 Billion

No, NIST does not have unlimited resources, nor is it a "branch" of the federal government. Those branches would be Executive, Legislative and Judicial. NIST is part of the Executive branch, under the Department of Commerce's Technology Administration.
That's an excellent point! Please produce the evidence showing that controlled demolition experts spent many hours and great expense in attempting to bring down the WTC 7 using a controlled demolition.

So your point is?

Has NIST claimed that even though their $581 million dollar yearly budget is sufficient for them to produce 10,000 page report on WTC1 & 2, it's not enough, 5.5 years after the fact, to provide a report on WTC7?

And now you are nit-picking about "branch". Maybe I should have said "twig" or "limb"? The point was that they were an organization affiliated with the world's largest organization.

My point about "hours and expense" to create a successful controlled demolition was to illustrate how difficult it was to intentionally create what you folks blithely accept as natural occurence on 9/11.

Your egos are so puffed, that just because you can't fathom "how they did the CD", you conclude it wasn't done, and proceed to dismiss everything that suggests it must have been CD.

MM

 

[twinstead]

This is a forum not a courtroom.

correct.

During a proper official investigation, I expect the rules of evidence and expert testimony to apply.

Exactly. (psst...those are courtroom rules) So when do we get that from you?

You folks aren't interested in a discussion unless you can restrict it to the limited official investigations that have previously occured.

Those 'limited' official investigations hare set forth in minute detail for all to see. It's what we have. Perhaps the fact you have NO investigations to report has something to do with that?

I made a forum presentation that argued why the few semi-official explanations for the WTC7 collapse should be discounted and no one attempts to refute my logic.

Your argument is you don't believe what happened is possible. You present no expert witnesses to corroborate what you say, nor do you offer any corroborating evidence at all.

You all escape to courtroom rules in order to avoid having to defend yourselves with logic.

???

A grand jury, comprised of lay-people, can submit a case for trial based on reasonable belief that a crime has occured.

Who gets to define what 'reasonable belief' that the US government murdered 3000 innocent people is? You?

I'm arguing that there is reasonable belief that the WTC7 collapse was caused by more than fire and debris damage.

And we're agruning that there isn't. Our word against yours, but YOUR claim. For God's sake all we are asking is that you provide your evidence to support it. We, or a jury for that matter, isn't simply going to take your word for it. You're accusing people of mass murder here!

Without the full official powers of a courtroom (evidence collection and expert witnesses testimony), it isn't possible for a public forum such as this to do anything else but discuss probabilities.

Duh

You can't limit the scope of the discussion just because you don't like the presentation. You have to prove the presentation is irrelevant to the argument.

This goes both ways

If what I say is logically implausible, it should be possible to logically explain why the main WTC7 structure performed a controlled-demolition-like collapse.

Dude. You forgot a step. You need to show that the WTC's collapse could only be caused by CD first.

If you can't eliminate reasonable doubt than there remains a good case for further investigation into what really happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

And if that investigation shows the official story is true? I submit that you are so ideologically biased that you would NEVER accept the results of ANY investigation no matter from whom that didn't support CD.

And just who by the way would perform and pay for this new investigation.

And no one seems to be able to answer why NIST, with all it's government resources has been unable after FIVE and ONE-HALF YEARS to offer an explanation that they feel will stand up to public scrutiny?

The NIST's preliminary report now, and soon the official report, spells out in minute detail an explanation that indeed has, and will, stand up to public scrutiny. Unless of course by public scrutiny you mean a couple of stark, raving ideologues scanning YouTube videos for anomalies. Then yea, you may be right.