10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

And what makes you believe that Americans are and less likely than any other people to murder their own, especially if they believe the end justifies the means?

Argument from bare possibility. Speculation.

Americans had no difficulty killing each other in the American Revolution and the Civil War.

And somehow that didn't stay secret.

American leaders had no problem using the Draft to send 50,000 young men to their deaths in Vietnam.

And we found out about that one.

I believe 9/11 was motivated by a political belief that it would provide the necessary public support for the ruling power structure to obtain the congressional and public backing they needed to pursue a course that they felt was critical to the future of the U.S.A.

Your speculation on the matter would be interesting, even debatable, if we had any sort of conclusive proof that the event was an inside job. Since this is not the case, it is simply pointless.

The U.S. is the world's No.1 military power. It's in a unique position in history and I'm sure those controlling those reins don't want to see them dropped.

Not so unique, considering past superpowers.

By securing the last remaining major oil reserves, the military's demand for oil is slaked and the economic engine of the U.S. is temporarily protected. It won't last but it will buy time..more time than the other major power threats (China, India, Japan, Russia etc.) will have.

Again, speculating on the motive of a non-event is fruitless.

Whether you believe that or not, the response to 9/11 provided the current administration with the mandate they desired and allowed them to seize control of the country with the oil assets they felt were critically needed.

Incorrect. Afghanistan was the target related to 9/11, not Iraq.

 

[Christopher7]

This thread is about debris damage and fire to WTC 7.
Please keep your comments relevant.


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]

NIST Final 4-5-05
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

FEMA Chapter 5
http:/www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
[copy and paste in URL bar]


Debris damage:

- Southwest corner damage extended over floors 8 to 18 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Damage starting at roof level....5 to 10 floors....near south west corner [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

- Large debris hole near center of south face around floor 14 [NIST Apx. L pg 18]
[just west of center*]

- South face damage, middle 1/4 - 1/3 width south face, floor 10 to ground [NIST Final 4-5-05 pg 15]

- Only damage to south wall on 9th floor at SW corner [FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20]

- 8th or 9th floor....2 elevator cars ejected into hallway north of elevator shaft, visible portion of south wall was gone....possible damage extended to the west [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://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9000/copyofwtc7holeanalysiscyk0.jpg


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

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

In order for debris to get to the fuel supply
pipe (located 90' inside the building), it 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.
[NIST Apx. L pg 3 - 6]

There is NO evidence that this happened.

Smoke from a fuel oil fed fire would be pouring out the hole made by the elevators.

12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
- No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8
[NIST Apx. L pg 18]

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

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
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg

About 3:00 p.m., it reached the north side, east of center, and spread in both directions
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/6500/n5pq6.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5236/n6oj1.jpg

By 4:45 the fire on floor 12 had burned out
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2337/copyofwtc716474jw7rf2.jpg
Video of north side after fires on floors 7, 12 and 13 had burned out
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539


Other fires:

11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side
About 12:15 p.m.: Fire on floor 7 at west wall, toward the 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.

 

[Belz...]

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."

 

[Christopher7]

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

My last post, using facts from the FEMA and NIST reports, clearly shows that there was NO debris damage or fuel fed fires in the area of the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7.

No one can dispute these facts contained in these reports.

No one here can bring themselves to admit that debris damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7.

 

[gumboot]

Christopher7,

What do you speculate was the reason behind the FDNY agreeing to go along with the demolition of WTC7?

-Gumboot

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

What do you speculate was the reason behind the FDNY agreeing to go along with the demolition of WTC7?

-Gumboot

I don't think they knew about the demolition.

Nice try at changing the subject.

Do you dispute any of the facts i listed or are you ready to admit that debris damage and fuel oil fed fires did not cause the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7 ?

 

[gumboot]

I don't think they knew about the demolition.

But they covered up the demolition with their "damage" cover stories.

The moment the thing came down they'd have known it was a demolition.

Firemen aren't stupid.

If WTC7 was a demolition job, the FDNY HAS to be in on it.

-Gumboot

 

[Christopher7]

Chiefs Nigro, Hayden and Fellini thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
They reported what they thought and what they did.
That's not a "cover story"

You can think what you want about FDNY, but it has no bearing on the facts in post #1082

Nice try at changing the subject.

Do you dispute any of the facts i listed or are you ready to admit that debris damage and fuel oil fed fires did not cause the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7 ?

 

[Belz...]

It seems that no one here has anything to add.

That's because you have nothing.

Chiefs Nigro, Hayden and Fellini thought WTC 7 was going to fall.
They reported what they thought and what they did.

And yet it was demolished ? What's your point ?

 

[stateofgrace]

Questions for Chris and other WTC 7 demo experts.

• Why did they wait for over six hours and for the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers to clear before demolishing WTC 7 ?
• Why did they not simply demolish WTC 7 under cover of the debris cloud?
• How did they know the damage from the collapse of the Towers would not completely destroy WTC 7?
• How did they know the Towers would not collapse on to WTC 7?
• How did they know the fires that were started would not cause WTC 7 to collapse?
• How did whatever explosives were used survive the fires inside WTC 7 ?
• How did they know where to plant these explosives so they would not be damaged by the collapsing of the Towers?
• Why did the fireman block off the area if the building was not in danger of collapsing?
• Why did the firemen pull the operation ?
• Why rely completely on innocent firemen to back your story and hope they would assume the damage and fires brought the building down?
• How did the press know WTC 7 was about to collapse?
• What would have happened had there been no damage and no fires to WTC 7, this would simply have blown the cover, would it not ?
• So why come up with a plan that relies completely on unknown amounts of damage from another building and unknown amounts of damage from fires to cover your tracks ?
• Why were there no clear audible sounds of explosive charges going off, in sequence as this building collapsed, beforehand or during ?
• Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

 

[Miragememories]

Regarding the likelihood of WTC7 collapsing from fire and debris damage, I thought this statements was quite interesting;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F948260

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.

That building was over-constructed if anything.

MM

 

[Pardalis]

You missed this part:

'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company.

Usually, the removal of floors is done with precision and alot of preplanning, not by scooping them randomly by a falling skyscraper nextdoor.

 

[Christopher7]

Why,Why,How,How,How,How,How,Why,Why,Why,How,What,
So why,Why,Why?

Why do you avoid responding to the indisputable facts about where the fuel oil tanks, supply pipes and generators were. These facts are NOT GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FINAL REPORT.

Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

The facts, about the location and progression of the fires are available NOW in the NIST Apx. L. report.
There are photographs to confirm what is stated in the report.

You can run away from the facts by asking a lot of questions but eventually you should read post #1082 and come to grips with the
fact that

THERE WERE NO FUEL OIL FED FIRES IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.

 

[beachnut]

Regarding the likelihood of WTC7 collapsing from fire and debris damage, I thought this statements was quite interesting;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F948260

That building was over-constructed if anything.

MM

Were you the press agent for the Titanic too?

You could be the press guy for the Titanic. The super fire proof steel, never fails in fire! MM says structural steel never fails in fire! Just as an ice berg doomed the Titanic, fire destroyed much of the WTC complex – there was some extra stuff going on, like lots of extra fuel and some impact damage from airplanes and tons of steel flying all over 19 acres of WTC complex and surrounding buildings.

Next time do not put nine diesel generators and tons of fuel in your steel building. Next time use concrete for insulation. It works better than spray on stuff that falls off after 2 hours of fire, or simple trauma from tons of steel.

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

All that junk must of crashed internally and caused the whole building to fail. Wonder if those automatic pumps kept pumping fuel to the generators. I think if I build a building I will put my fuel and generators in an extra building so it does not fall on me.

 

[stateofgrace]

Why do you avoid responding to the indisputable facts about where the fuel oil tanks, supply pipes and generators were. These facts are NOT GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FINAL REPORT.

Oh dear me well heaven forbid that I should have the nerve to question you, it is clearly not in the script that anybody should ask a civil question of you.

I have avoided nothing I have simply asked you some questions, questions you are unable or unwilling to answer. You put forward something that you call indisputable facts for what reason? Why? To prove what? That what you believe are indisputable facts simply override all the other know facts? That the FDNY are wrong and should not have cleared the area? What exactly are you suggesting? Why will you not answer simple questions to back up your indisputable facts?

So why produce a final report? If it is so clear-cut what on earth are NIST up to producing a report that confirms your suspicions?

For your thesis to go anywhere you must address the follow on questions, you must fully and completely demonstrate that your thesis is better than the one that is being produced by NIST. It must take in all the known facts including the testimony from those who were there. You clearly are not prepared to do this. You simply want to cherry pick what is available and disregard the rest.

The facts, about the location and progression of the fires are available NOW in the NIST Apx. L. report.
There are photographs to confirm what is stated in the report.

You can run away from the facts by asking a lot of questions but eventually you should read post #1082 and come to grips with the
fact that

THERE WERE NO FUEL OIL FED FIRES IN THE AREA OF THE INITIATING EVENT THAT LED TO THE COLLAPSE OF WTC 7.

Then if it is known fact why did the building collapse? What was used to bring it down? Why was it demolished? Why are NIST trying to cover it all up?
If it is so abundantly clear to you then it is also abundantly clear to NIST is it not? Are you calling them liars? Are you suggesting they are part of a cover?
Why would they even publish such a fact if they knew would give the game away?

No Chris I will not simply accept your FACTS and disregard all the rest, why? Because you will not answer my questions, instead you choose to believe that it is all one big cover up and you have discovered it. You think those who have worked on this are so stupid they have given the game away by releasing to you facts about this event that you have now twisted to suit your own agenda.

So Chris thanks for taking the time to fully answer all the questions, keep clinging to belief that you have discovered that NIST have actually given the game away. Once you really have a thesis, a correct working thesis, that fully involves ALL the know fact I may take some notice of you, until then. I will simply keep asking you more and more questions. Questions you are unwilling or unable to answer. Yet you expect me to answer your questions.

I don’t think so pal, because once you are questioned and your theories are put under the spotlight they simply dissolve.

Answer my questions or remain silent.

• [*]Why did they wait for over six hours and for the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers to clear before demolishing WTC 7 ?
  [*]Why did they not simply demolish WTC 7 under cover of the debris cloud?
  [*]How did they know the damage from the collapse of the Towers would not completely destroy WTC 7?
  [*]How did they know the Towers would not collapse on to WTC 7?
  [*]How did they know the fires that were started would not cause WTC 7 to collapse?
  [*]How did whatever explosives were used survive the fires inside WTC 7 ?
  [*]How did they know where to plant these explosives so they would not be damaged by the collapsing of the Towers?
  [*]Why did the fireman block off the area if the building was not in danger of collapsing?
  [*]Why did the firemen pull the operation ?
  [*]Why rely completely on innocent firemen to back your story and hope they would assume the damage and fires brought the building down?
  [*]How did the press know WTC 7 was about to collapse?
  [*]What would have happened had there been no damage and no fires to WTC 7, this would simply have blown the cover, would it not ?
  [*]So why come up with a plan that relies completely on unknown amounts of damage from another building and unknown amounts of damage from fires to cover your tracks ?
  [*]Why were there no clear audible sounds of explosive charges going off, in sequence as this building collapsed, beforehand or during ?
  [*]Why will you not wait for the final report from NIST before speculating and attempting to answer these questions?

 

[gumboot]

I am inclined to agree with Christopher7. I don't think WTC7 was brought down by diesel-fed fires. I think it was brought down by massive structural damage and fires fed by regular office contents.

-Gumboot

 

[jaydeehess]

"Hey, I'll just repeat that post since I have nothing to add."

Yah beat me to it.

________________________

I have been on vacation and have paid for only 30 minutes time on the computer here. Sent e-mails and checked in on this thread.

I have only looked at one page but seems to me that C7 still has offered up nothing more than 'it looks like it to me' to back up his contention that WTC 7 was a controlled dmolition.

nstead all he tries(and pretty much fails to do) is attack the theories of collapse built on the available evidence of debris impacts and fire damage inflicted on the structure.

Oh, well, see you all in a few days.

 

[Miragememories]

Excellent work Christopher7.

True to form, when presented with a thorough anaylsis of the conditions that actually existed at WTC7 on 9/11, the responders take shelter by avoiding the inarguable points raised in your post #1082.

stateofgrace your collection of questions are very nice but they are totally irrelevant. You are asking a whole pile of WHY questions in reply to a post that is about the HOW. If your questions are so pertinent to the issue of, HOW could the WTC7 collapse given the lack of sufficient damage and fire then you should be able to address Christopher7's post directly and explain how your WHYquestions scientifically negate his post!

MM

 

[The Almond]

You are asking a whole pile of WHY questions in reply to a post that is about the HOW. If your questions are so pertinent to the issue of, HOW could the WTC7 collapse given the lack of sufficient damage and fire then you should be able to address Christopher7's post directly and explain how your WHYquestions scientifically negate his post!

MM

This is a very telling statement. You have clearly not been exposed to logical positivism yet.

"Why" statements can show how a given theory is insufficient, incomplete or inferior to an alternative theory. Stateofgrace posed questions fully answered by the NIST hypothesis that are not answered by the controlled demolition hypothesis. Theories are evaluated based on which are capable of encompassing and explaining most of the available evidence. In the case of the controlled demolition hypothesis, a significant portion of the evidence is imaginary.

Given the positivist position, the NIST self-initiated collapse theory does encompass more of the available data and is the better theory.

 

[Christopher7]

This is a very telling statement. You have clearly not been exposed to logical positivism yet.

"Why" statements can show how a given theory is insufficient, incomplete or inferior to an alternative theory. Stateofgrace posed questions fully answered by the NIST hypothesis that are not answered by the controlled demolition hypothesis. Theories are evaluated based on which are capable of encompassing and explaining most of the available evidence. In the case of the controlled demolition hypothesis, a significant portion of the evidence is imaginary.

Given the positivist position, the NIST self-initiated collapse theory does encompass more of the available data and is the better theory.

Logical positivism?
I haven't heard that one before.

Do you know the difference between hypothesis [set of assumptions] and facts ?

There wee NO fuel oil tanks in the eastern half of WTC 7.

No damage to the eastern 1/3 of WTC 7 was reported.

These are not my facts, they are official government facts. They belong to all of us.