10 story hole in WTC 7

[Dog Town]

Let me get this straight. Without evidence, we should concede to you the idea that the facts of 9/11 are in doubt. You want us to believe this because...?
Have you presented any evidence?
Have you countered any argument with facts?
Have you found any errors in the NCSTAR?
Have you found any errors made by Gravy?
Have you presented any reason to doubt other than your personal opinion and incredulity on the matter? Then why should we doubt?

Did you not read this, MM? What is it, with the CTers lack of comprehension?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Again with the evidence fallback! This is a discussion forum not a courtroom. I'm arguing reasonable doubt. Yes I need to provide evidence for reasonable doubt and I have.

Look, it's very simple.

In the courtroom analogy:
You are a witness who doubts that this building came down because of fire and damage. That's all fine.

People then point to expert testimony that states that it may seem that way to the untrained eye from one side of the building, but after doing the research, it turns out there really isn't anything strange about the way the building collapsed.

You then procede to dispute the expert testimony, therefore the ball is in your court.

 

[Miragememories]

Did you not read this, MM? What is it, with the CTers lack of comprehension?

Read it and replied.

What's with you JREFers inability to find space in your brains for what you obviously struggle to read?

MM

 

[Dog Town]

Read it and replied.

MM

You showed no sign, of understanding it, however!

 

[Miragememories]

Look, it's very simple.

In the courtroom analogy:
You are a witness who doubts that this building came down because of fire and damage. That's all fine.

People then point to expert testimony that states that it may seem that way to the untrained eye from one side of the building, but after doing the research, it turns out there really isn't anything strange about the way the building collapsed.

You then procede to dispute the expert testimony, therefore the ball is in your court.

Yes it is very simple H'ethethethethethethethethe.

This isn't a courtroom. I never drew a courtroom analogy. I said specifically, not analogously, that courtroom rules were not required in an open forum!

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

You are not as important as you like to think you are and your lame research isn't of much value until it's accepted in a courtroom. I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality. Logoff and your on your own again with no applause given to your smug replies.

My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

You showed no sign, of understanding it, however!

Give the dope some time to wear off Dog Town and maybe your ability to comprehend basic english will return..maybe not.

It's difficult replying to people who aren't interested in reading unless it's praise from the rest of the herd.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Yes it is very simple
My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

Oh for God's sake what an fool you are! You say your evidence is as usable as his? Bull, your post record shows clearly that you think your evidence is more compelling than any single thing that has been brought up on this thread, and you are a bastion of reason and logic in the midst of a rabble of blind sheep.

And you dare to try to pull this whole, "what, it's not like it's a court of law or anything. Who needs real evidence in a web forum"? What a bunch of crap!

You are nothing but an arrogant fool. You say you would defer to a court of law, but I doubt you would ever let your world view be overturned, even in a full-fledged court of law. You have the stone-cold, rock-solid, unshakable conviction in the face of contrary evidence that only one who is mentally ill or morbidly ideologically blind can possess.

Good luck with that.

 

[Christopher7]

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7

Please take your personal pissing match elsewhere.

Respond to this please.


No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
[about 1/3 down the page]


No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

************************************************************
A piece of debris would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor,
to get to the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

There is NO evidence that this happened.


Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.


The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

*****************************************************

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

******************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

 

[Miragememories]

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7

Please take your personal pissing match elsewhere.

Respond to this please.


No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
[about 1/3 down the page]


No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

************************************************************
A piece of debris would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor,
to get to the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

There is NO evidence that this happened.


Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.


The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

*****************************************************

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

******************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

Excellent work Christopher7.

I'm sorry if my posts have detracted from your efforts to explain WTC7 using strictly documented evidence. I thought my original post clearly addressed the issue of WTC7 debris damage and fire though my approach was obviously the same as yours.

Maybe the nay sayers will give your presentation the honest hearing they claim to give documented evidence.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

MM, Thank you.

Chris

 

[Dog Town]

It's difficult replying to people who aren't interested in reading unless it's praise from the rest of the herd.

MM

That is quite rich, coming from you. The person who wants to sequester criticism, of the twoof, to a secret "yes man" forum! Bravo!

 

[The Almond]

Well The Almond, you are oh so proud of yourself for having waddled through that forest of paper NIST created, you can't waste an opportunity broadcasting the fact.

Ad hominem, but why bother pointing that out?

You actually believed when I used the common expression of "find money" that I actually meant it was like "out lying on the street"..lol
Congress gave them the money, but I disagree with you that $20,000,000.00 wasn't a lot.

When compared to other institutes it is.

You are also obsessed about evidence and seem to have tunnelvision regarding it's meaning.

And this is where we disagree. I believe I am right to be obsessed with evidence. Were you accused of murder, you, too, would be obsessed with the evidence set against you. Why, then, should we not be obsessed with the evidence that our own government murdered 3000 citizens, and that hundreds of scientists at NIST covered it up?

The video evidence alone is sufficient to justify reasonable doubt. I'm sure you don't need the links.

According to whom?

Everyone here has no doubt seen the WTC7 collapse videos countless times.
Because you know your position is precarious when confined to the allowances of a forum discussion you keep trying to impose the more restrictive rules of a courtroom which this isn't!

For someone who rails so incessently against courtroom rules of evidence, you seem oddly fixated on reasonable doubt. I'm sure you're aware that reasonable doubt is used in the courtroom to prove someone innocent, not guilty. Perhaps you might consider that.

What does NCSTAR have to do with this WTC7 attempt at a discussion? Again you want to bragg about waddling through the 10,000 page NIST spoor.

Childish.

What's there to say about Mark Roberts, Gravy. Another legend in his own mind. He bases his WTC7 paper predominantly on; attacks on the credibility of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, voluminous firefighter statements, ridicule, and some NIST extracts.

So, in response to the question, "What errors has Gravy made," you respond as above. What I mean to say is, you respond, "I have found none, but I still hate him."

I have presented lots of reasons to doubt but apparently your mind is incapable of thinking outside the box. That's fine, I wasn't expecting anything but kneejerk reactions from you.

Ad hom 2 and 3 for this post. You're on a roll!

I never said I haven't read the report. It would be most surprising to hear that more than a few people here have attempted it.

And yet, you have not produced any criticisms of the report that are based upon a sound knowledge of the report's contents. You misrepresented Underwriters Laboratories, misrepresented the thermodynamic response and misrepresented the extreme case scenario. I would be surprised to learn that you've read any of the NIST report.

My knowledge of structural engineering has not been falsely stated and I have not demanded anything of anyone here.

Rather, not falsely stated, but severly overstated. After 4 pages of bluster, you produced no equations, no mathematics and no relevant knowledge of structural engineering to our little NIST discussion. Or perhaps you would care to produce said equations and said relevant knowledge right now?

By forum rules (lol..what a one track mind you have)

Ad hom #4.

, I was referring to the legitimate rules of discussion

Oh do tell! Where might those be written?

and not the official JREF rules of behaviour. Your insistence that my points aren't acceptable for argument unless supported by the kind of exacting evidence (clear proof) demanded in the courtroom is where you miss the point.

Reasonable doubt. Courtroom. Rules of evidence. Do you even see the contradiction there?

If people behave in a bigoted manner than it is accurate to call them bigots.

I'm glad the Emperor of Earth has crowned you king and judge over all you survey. It's good to know we have one person here who can call people names and be correct in applying them!

I do provide references to known evidence but you choose to ignore this in your typical lame fallback to courtroom criteria.

Courtroom criteria. Reasonable doubt. Rules of evidence.

I'd be happy to argue counterpoints if people actually argued against my position instead of constantly rehashing their fixed beliefs.

Ad hom #5 and we're still going!

I heard about floods, the toy factory collapse etc. etc. but they aren't examples of complete, high speed, symmetrical, fire and debris damage collapses.

Would you care to name other buildings that had the WTC towers collapse on them?

Again you harp on about corroborative evidence. It's the old; "no, no, no I don't like that evidence, show me something else." You don't like the evidence I refer to because you can't easily explain it away, hence; reasonable doubt!

Courtroom evidence. Reasonable doubt. Do you see any contradiction in your statement?

I don't demand anyone accept my speculations as true. What I do demand, is that if they think my speculations are so without merit, they show me the errors in my logical reasoning.

So you can claim something without evidence, and you demand that we prove you wrong? You're digging that logic hole awfully deep.

You do believe in an individual's right to logically consider the credibility of what they are told don't you? Or is that something you abdicate as well in favour of the priestly experts everyone worships here?

Ad hom #6 combined with a red herring. Logic was not your strong suit, eh? You probably didn't get as good a grade in Philosophy as you did in Structural Engineering.

A mocker mocks.

A mocked man can only be hurt by those who gain his respect.

It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.

MM

Ok, aside from ad hom #7, you've got nothing but rhetoric here. Sorry MM, I'm done with you. I thought you might be a challenge, but you fled from the NIST thread and crapped on this one. Sorry about that Christopher7, you split this thread off from another so that it wouldn't get junked up. I'll leave now.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Yes it is very simple H'ethethethethethethethethe.

This isn't a courtroom. I never drew a courtroom analogy. I said specifically, not analogously, that courtroom rules were not required in an open forum!

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

You are not as important as you like to think you are and your lame research isn't of much value until it's accepted in a courtroom. I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality. Logoff and your on your own again with no applause given to your smug replies.

Bah! What's with the broken record? You either came here to discuss something or you didn't. People here like discussing things.
You don't believe this or that. Professional researchers who have been on the case for five years say you're wrong. Their arguments are there for anyone to read who wants to.
You don't read their arguments but dismiss them anyway. That's fine and dandy but if you're here to convince anyone, it is your turn to come up with a story that is as good as the NIST reconstruction.
If you do not, you will not convince anyone here. I'm sure there are more amusing things for you to do than scream "LALALALALALA, you suck!!" with your fingers in your ears on a fairly obscure webforum.

My evidence is just as usable as yours for the basis of forum discussions so get over your inflated sense of self importance!

MM

No, your evidence is enough to make one wonder what actually happened to WTC7. The funny thing is: people who do this for a living looked into it, and it looks like you're wrong.
I fail to see how dismissing hundreds of man-years of expert research off-hand is not self important. Maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Condescending crap Dave Rogers.

JREF skeptics never concede a point. That would be a loss of face. They would be immediately ostracized by the rest of their 'back slapping gang' of bigots.

I've explained quite well what I thought about the unnaturalness of the WTC7 collapse. If you lack sufficient imagination to think for yourself, I'm certainly not going to attempt your conversion.

MM

OK, putting aside anything you might see as condescending:
You say the collapse didn't look right. What would it have looked like if it had looked right?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.

BINGO! I was wondering when the CTer would refer to a work of fiction to represent his twisted view of reality.

Congratulations.

 

[Belz...]

I'm quite prepared to defer to the results of a proper legal investigation bound by courtroom rules.

Meanwhile oh ignorant one, the ball is not in a courtroom, it's in a forum.

A forum dedicated to critical thinking and skepticism, both of which tend to use "evidence", a word you seem unfamiliar with.

This isn't a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles forum where you can speculate about genetic explanations for the various abilities of fictional characters.

I know the clique here makes you feel important but that's the nature of herd mentality.

What IS it with CTers and their obsession with sheep mentality ?

No, that was a rhetorical question. I know the answer: It's obvious to you guys that your opinions on reality do not reflect that of most people, and you probably realise that most of those actually have a real life, a job, etc. Naturally, it would seem as though your layman's opinions aren't worth much against those of experts or generally smarter people. But you CANNOT possibly be wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be mommy's special little boys. So, your conclusion ? Your opponents MUST be disagreeing with you on purpose. That's the only explanation, right ?

Nope. There's still the one where you're just nutcases.

 

[Miragememories]

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7

Please take your personal pissing match elsewhere.

Respond to this please.


No debris damage or fuel fed fire in the area of the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7.

References:

NIST Appendix L

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
[note: pg 18 is pg 22 on the page counter]

FEMA Chapter 5

http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

There was heavy debris damage to the SW corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
A large hole around the 14th floor just west* of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]
Upper floors and roof damage, just west of center [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]
Part of south wall gone on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
2 elevator cars in hallway north of elevator shaft on floor 8 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Explosion heard on floor 8
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage
Start at 6:20 min.
[Warning: audio very loud and distorted, turn down volume before viewing]

* Steve Spak photograph with location of perimeter columns added graphically.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
[about 1/3 down the page]


No debris damage to east 1/3 of south face was reported

************************************************************
A piece of debris would have to
take out 3 perimeter columns,
bust thru 5 - 5 1/2" steel and concrete floors,
including at least 1 floor support beam per floor,
knock 2 elevators out of their shafts,
thru a wall and into the hallway,
take out a core column,
break thru a concrete masonry wall
and a 6" steel and concrete floor,
to get to the fuel supply pipe, 90' inside the building.

There is NO evidence that this happened.


Fires:

There was no fuel fed fire in the east part of WTC 7 where the initial event, that led to the collapse, occurred.


The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7 on the 5th floor.
The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room, 90' from the south side of the building.

If the generators [and the pump feeding fuel oil to them] were running, the louver vents would be open.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/937/e5pt8.jpg

If there was a fire in this room, smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

*****************************************************

Fire on floor 12

Form 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. it burned west to east across the south side
From 2:00 to 3:00 p.m., the fire progresses north along east side
About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
A little later there was a fire on floor 8, spreading to east corner and moving to east side
By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out

Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
2:00 to 2:20 p.m.: fire on floor 11 at SE corner, progressing north
Around 3:00 p.m.: fire on floor 7 near middle of north side
Sometime later, fire on floors 8 and 13
Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face
[NIST Apx. L pg 13 - 16]

******************************************************

The reports of fire to the east part of WTC 7 are not going to change in the final report.
The reports given are clear, the times are accurate enough to track the progression of the fires.

So come on folks. Christopher7 provided this long detailed post about questionable WTC7 events containing the kind of evidence you acuse me of not providing.

No one has responded to it.

What's with that?

MM

 

[Belz...]

Oh, we have. Long ago. We just don't like repeating ourselves to the same people over and over.

Not too much, anyway.

 

[Miragememories]

Actual research takes time. But popcorn opinions like yours can be made in just moments.

As a whole ? Do you have anything to support this accusation ? Or do you base this conclusion on YOUR conclusion ?

Again with the tired, debunked arguments. You might have missed it, but several posters here are NOT Americans. Also, many of them have provided quite expert analyses of the various aspects of 9/11, proving that they can, indeed, think for themselves.

It indeed has not been settled: you have not provided any reason to doubt the current scenario about the collapses.

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3

Since you have no use for my opinion, try that of an expert who's had ample time to change his mind.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Oh, we have. Long ago. We just don't like repeating ourselves to the same people over and over.

That's why CTs always have an advantage. They can post long debunked claims over and over and over again, and when we finally get tired of debating this way and get a little cranky about it, they can claim we can't answer them and are relying on insults.

Whack-a-mole