Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Mobyseven]

You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

How can you possibly say that you don't need any expertise to determine what caused the break? The difference may in fact be impossible to tell to the untrained eye.

It's like someone at LC once said: "Would you consider that a clean cut on a sheet of paper indicates the usage of scissors? Because I do."

Someone pointed out to him that a scalpel would do exactly the same thing.

A regardless of this, your hypothesis doesn't take into account that it may have been cut during the process of cleaning up debris.

I, however, will await the professional judgement of someone with the knowledge required to explain this.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut.

I cannot, no. Others may be able to though. And just because there is the remotest possibility that your claim may be true, that doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it is probably true.

It's possible that my neighbour comes into my room while I sleep and removes some socks, explaining why I have odd socks left over at the moment. However, it is a remote possibility, and the preponderance of odd sock can more probably be explained by the fact that my room needs a clean at the moment (just moved a lot of stuff in).

I can set up a test for this, and that would provide me with evidence to make a judgement one way or the other. But until (or if) I decide to do that, I will have to accept that while it is possible that my neighbour is sneaking into my room, it is probable that my room is just too messy to find anything right now.

See the analogy?

 

[Mobyseven]

Er... okaaaay...

That's not blue-discolouration due to to heating.

Frankly it looks like a water stain to me.

-Gumboot

I still think that it's something else, like white paint or a spot where the beam has been chipped, that just looks blue due to the poor white balance, over-exposure, and file compression.

Definately not blue-discolouration due to heating though.

 

[jaydeehess]

Where do you work?

I can imagine the importance of all cameras being balanced correctly with eachother...if only I had the chance to do a multi camera shoot. Guess I'll have to stick with my one-camera setup for the moment.

Having said that, I'm getting better results with this new camera than you generally see in this price range (AUS$1800 - Panasonic NV-GS500). Of course, it's rrp is $2199, but I got it through the shop I used to work for, so...

I work for a small TV station and the same company owns the cable tv business in this town. Thus I also help out in the cable tv access station's shoots which includes local hockey games. We have a remote production truck. For a hockey game we use 3 cameras, computer CG, and an instant replay for which we utilize an SVHS vtr left over from before we went to a digital recording system, it has a very good shuttle/jog system that makes it good for instant slo-mo replay.

All three cameras must look the same and the color balance(phase and saturation levels) from the vtr and the computer must be the same as the cameras as well. It would not do to have the replay display the team shirts off from true color otherwise some people might suggest we were faking the whole thing.

Our cameras cost about $25000^.00 each. A new high def camera can be purchased now in the range of $25,000 to $100,000 each. Frankly there are some of the lower cost ones which display an image that is as good as the $100K ones or at least it is difficult to see $75K worth of improvement. We may be getting two new hi-def capable cameras in the next year since the upper echelons of the co. have an eye to taking us to hi-def broadcast.

 

[LashL]

You guys are so in denial you can't even admit that WTC 7 fell at close to freefall speed.

Let's see. You want to redefine the meaning of the word "building" and you think that it is "[us] guys" who are in denial?

WTC7 most certainly did not fall "at close to freefall speed".

:eyes:

 

[Gravy]

I used your index, saw the pretty pictures and a comment by you.
If you want me to read your analysis, give me the page number

I showed you several exterior columns from WTC 7. I provided a description of how those columns had milled ends and were connected by welded splice plates attached to their flanges. I showed you a construction photo of those columns in place. I showed you photos that show that all of the broken exterior columns broke at their splices (I have many more such photos). I showed you splice plates that had fractured above column ends, below column ends, and columns that had lost their splice plates entirely. What is missing from every photo of the column ends? Torch marks where you claim the splice plates were cut (remember, such cuts would have left marks on the columns as well), and any sign of blast effects.

And by the way, I had showed you all of this last Summer.

Now it's your turn to explain.

• How did the conspirators, with all their equipment, gain access to all the exterior columns? This would have required tearing out the walls and removing the fireproofing, all around the building. So how'd they do it.
• Why did no one see such work being done?
• How did they cut the splice plates without leaving marks on either the plates or the columns?
• Why did they "cut" the splice plates in such random ways: sometimes above the column joint, sometimes below the joint, sometimes removing the splice plate entirely (not an easy job!)? Why not cut the splice plates at the logical location: the column joint?
• How can you show that the column joints didn't separate because of the collapse alone, without the help of torches or explosions?
• Why, if explosives were planted on exterior columns, do no explosions appear during WTC 7's collapse? Why was no exterior sheathing blasted off?
• Why did experts on the scene report that there were no sounds similar to demolitions charges during WTC 7's collapse?

I dread to read the tortured things that you are going to write in response, but have at it.

 

[Mobyseven]

I work for a small TV station and the same company owns the cable tv business in this town. Thus I also help out in the cable tv access station's shoots which includes local hockey games. We have a remote production truck. For a hockey game we use 3 cameras, computer CG, and an instant replay for which we utilize an SVHS vtr left over from before we went to a digital recording system, it has a very good shuttle/jog system that makes it good for instant slo-mo replay.

All three cameras must look the same and the color balance(phase and saturation levels) from the vtr and the computer must be the same as the cameras as well. It would not do to have the replay display the team shirts off from true color otherwise some people might suggest we were faking the whole thing.

Our cameras cost about $25000^.00 each. A new high def camera can be purchased now in the range of $25,000 to $100,000 each. Frankly there are some of the lower cost ones which display an image that is as good as the $100K ones or at least it is difficult to see $75K worth of improvement. We may be getting two new hi-def capable cameras in the next year since the upper echelons of the co. have an eye to taking us to hi-def broadcast.

For the moment I'll have to make do with making independant films on my camera.

Nowhere near as good quality as yours, but for Mini-DV it isn't bad...step up from the family-camcorder variety anyway.

True 16:9 widescreen, 3CCD, manual focus ring, Leica Dicomar lens...I'm pretty happy all things considered...

 

[Christopher7]

You don't need any expertise to determine if the steel ripped apart or was cut IMO.

How can you possibly say that you don't need any expertise to determine what caused the break? The difference may in fact be impossible to tell to the untrained eye.

The breaks are mostly straight and there is blue discoloration. This is clear evidence that they were cut IMO.
It would take an group of experts to say definitively but anyone not in denial would say "It does not look like the steel broke off".

A regardless of this, your hypothesis doesn't take into account that it may have been cut during the process of cleaning up debris.

No one climbed up there and cut this section of framework while the fires were still burning.

I, however, will await the professional judgement of someone with the knowledge required to explain this.

A single opinion would not be sufficient.
A professional organization like the Structural Engineers Association of New York would have sufficient credibility.

You may disagree but you cannot justifiably deny the possibility that they were cut

I cannot, no.

Thank you for your honesty.

Others may be able to though. And just because there is the remotest possibility that your claim may be true, that doesn't mean that it is true, or even that it is probably true.

 

[Christopher7]

I still think that it's something else, like white paint or a spot where the beam has been chipped, that just looks blue due to the poor white balance, over-exposure, and file compression.

Hogwash.
Your brief moment of honesty seems to have passed.

Definately not blue-discolouration due to heating though.

So now you're an expert?

 

[LashL]

So now you're an expert?

Ahem.

Says the guy who wrote:

The blue discoloration is a clear sign the metal was heated accross the mostly straight break.

Kindly provide your credentials and the expertise upon which you base that statements.

And, by the way, what is the definition of the word "building" in your world?

 

[Christopher7]

Let's see. You want to redefine the meaning of the word "building" and you think that it is "[us] guys" who are in denial?

WTC7 most certainly did not fall "at close to freefall speed".

:eyes:

You just keep tellin' yourself that.

It does not matter how we differ on the definition of building or freefall.

The speed of the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with a professional building implosion.

 

[LashL]

You just keep tellin' yourself that.

It does not matter how we differ on the definition of building or freefall.

The speed of the collapse of WTC 7 is consistent with a professional building implosion.

Au contraire. It most certainly does matter how you define "building" and how you define "freefall" when you repeatedly (and wrongly) claim that the "building" fell at "close to freefall speed" as you have done.

It appears that you now recognize how wrong you are and that you are now engaging in that time honoured Troofer sport called "moving the goal posts". At this rate, I suspect it will not take too long before the sport becomes a Troofer Olympic event.

 

[Gravy]

Chris, please respond to the questions in my post #205.

 

[Christopher7]

I showed you several exterior columns from WTC 7. I provided a description of how those columns had milled ends and were connected by welded splice plates attached to their flanges. I showed you a construction photo of those columns in place. I showed you photos that show that all of the broken exterior columns broke at their splices (I have many more such photos). I showed you splice plates that had fractured above column ends, below column ends, and columns that had lost their splice plates entirely. What is missing from every photo of the column ends? Torch marks where you claim the splice plates were cut (remember, such cuts would have left marks on the columns as well), and any sign of blast effects.

You did not show this photo

• How did the conspirators, with all their equipment, gain access to all the exterior columns? This would have required tearing out the walls and removing the fireproofing, all around the building. So how'd they do it.
• Why did no one see such work being done?
• How did they cut the splice plates without leaving marks on either the plates or the columns?
• Why did they "cut" the splice plates in such random ways: sometimes above the column joint, sometimes below the joint, sometimes removing the splice plate entirely (not an easy job!)? Why not cut the splice plates at the logical location: the column joint?
• How can you show that the column joints didn't separate because of the collapse alone, without the help of torches or explosions?
• Why, if explosives were planted on exterior columns, do no explosions appear during WTC 7's collapse? Why was no exterior sheathing blasted off?
• Why did experts on the scene report that there were no sounds similar to demolitions charges during WTC 7's collapse?

I dread to read the tortured things that you are going to write in response, but have at it.

How the f am i supposed to know any of that?

Let's look at the evidence and not waste time arguing the infinitely arguable.

You can't believe that anyone could pull it off, therefore, it didn't happen.

 

[LashL]

How the f am i supposed to know any of that?

Stundie material - The Troofers Refrain.

 

[Gravy]

How the f am i supposed to know any of that?

It's understandable that you feel overwhelmed. You constantly make claims for which you have no evidence.

Let's try a simple question: could the columns in the photos have separated without the use of explosives or pre-cutting of splice plates? If not, why? Be specific.

 

[Christopher7]

Au contraire. It most certainly does matter how you define "building" and how you define "freefall" when you repeatedly (and wrongly) claim that the "building" fell at "close to freefall speed" as you have done.

That sir, is a matter of opinion.

It appears that you now recognize how wrong you are and that you are now engaging in that time honoured Troofer sport called "moving the goal posts".

People outside this discussion couldn't care less about how we define building or freefall.

The essence of the building in freefall is that it looks like [is consistent with] a

professional building implosion.

The videos are the primary evidence.

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.

 

[Gravy]

Chris, I don't think you want to play the photo game with me. You cannot defend your claims because they are nonsensical. Rational people reject such nonsense. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times.

 

[Christopher7]

It's understandable that you feel overwhelmed. You constantly make claims for which you have no evidence.

I have presented evidence. You deny that it is evidence and then say that i have no evidence.

Let's try a simple question: could the columns in the photos have separated without the use of explosives or pre-cutting of splice plates? If not, why? Be specific.

There you go again.

You ask me to speculate so you can attack anything i say.

No thank you

You cannot justifiably dismiss the possibility that the splices were cut.

 

[Gravy]

That sir, is a matter of opinion.

Careful who you call sir.

If you say WTC 7 doesn't look like a building implosion then you are in denial IMO.

No, Chris, it is you who is in denial.

 

[Gravy]

You ask me to speculate so you can attack anything i say.

No thank you

You cannot justifiably dismiss the possibility that the splices were cut.

Chris, you are speculating on the splices being cut, without having the slightest evidence to support that claim, or any explanation of how that could have been accomplished by the conspirators.

Chris, could the splices have fractured from the collapse? Yes or no?