Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

But Chris, how do you know what the columns above those splices looked like?

Perhaps you believe that the columns above the splices were bent.
I don't.

You think the exterior columns were blasted.

Really? Show me where i said that.

 

[Kent1]

If he was around 600 feet away he should of had no problem hearing the 40 story collapse. It would of been VERY VERY loud at well over 600 feet.

 

[jaydeehess]

JD:

Instead what we know occured is that the after the east penthouse disappeared, then the screen wall, then the west penthouse also sank indicating a horizontal progression of failure in the core and not a simultaneous failure. Your senario would have produced failure of the entire core columns all within 1/100ths of a second(close enough to simultaneous for such things) not something that stretches out over a couple of seconds.

NiST Apx. L pg 33:
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse, ....."

Point taken, we have no reference as to the difference in time from the eastern most portion of the w.penthouse/screenwall falling and the west side. To my mind though the east end looks to tilt more than the west end indicating it went first.

JD:

So Darryl was 600 feet away. You are aware that the sight of anything he was observing took place 0.29 microseconds before he saw it, while the sounds he heard took place a full second before he hears them.

Good point
The very large explosion occurred about 2 seconds before the bottom floor caved out.

A very loud sound, a 'clap of thunder' is heard 2 seconds before he sees the bottom floor cave out. Which means that whatever produced the sound occured 3 seconds before he sees the bottom floor cave out.

We still do not know when, in the timeline of the collapse sequence this occured. It took about 5-7 seconds for the east penthouse to travel through the building. If Darryl's timeing is not absolutly correct(ie 'about 2 seconds') then what he heard could very well be that penthouse falling down or it impacting the 7th floor(which would be the loudest part of its fall)

JD:

None of them are silent!

40 floors collapsing under the penthouse would have made a lot of noise.
Daryl did not hear any of it. He was too far away.
He would not hear smaller single explosions either. IMO

Again with the definitive statements,"Daryl did not hear any of it". You have decided that what Daryl heard was an explosive going of and therefore he could not have heard the collapse startin.

JD:

Oh, I believe that I have said that it could have been a CD. You keep seeming to miss it when I do say things like that.

I did miss that, my bad.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
Daryl's statement qualifies as evidencd of a CD. [although not conclusive]

Daryl's statement qualifies as non-expert, eyewitness, circumstantial evidence of CD or of snapping structural members.

JD:

I simply cannot imagine any CD that would fit what Darryl describes

Actually, you have a very creative mind and you could come up with a scenario if you really wanted to.

If I close my eyes and ignore other things then it just might fit.

JD:

and I cannot understand why we are to take Darryl at his word about his expertise in identifying the sound of an explosion over that of breaking steel.

Daryl needs no expertise to describe what he heard as a clap of thunder.
You don't believe that it could have been demolition charges.
I don't believe that it could have been breaking steel.

Daryl needs no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it as similar to a familiar sound. He requires expertise to claim it had to be an explosion.

JD:

I repeat;
I believe that the evidence supporting the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused WTC 7 to collapse is much more convincing than the evidence that the building was taken down by explosive demolitions.

We respectfully disagree on this point.

That we do

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, suppose the steel holding up a hypothetical skyscraper failed. What would you expect to hear?

I would expect to hear a continuous rumbling sound.

I would not expect to hear a single clap of thunder in the middle of the collapse.

A collapse of a steel frame building is an on going series of connection failures.

Daryl did not hear the 5 to 7 second collapse of the columns and floors under the penthouse even though that would have made a very loud rumbling sound.

From two blocks away [more or less] he heard a clap of thunder about 4 seconds after the collapse began and about 2 seconds before the exterior walls started falling.

Perhaps you believe that one splice failure, or group of simultaneous splice failures, were many times louder than all the failures.

I think you will have a tough time selling that one anywhere but here.

 

[jaydeehess]

I find it hard to actually believe that no one heard, at the distance of 600 feet, the internal collapse that was the east penthouse falling through. I mean I can hear a train rumbling along its tracks that is over 1500 feet away from my house. I can hear it in the house if my windows are open and that train is doing no more than 40 KPH usually and there are a lot of intervening buildings to block the sound.

Further to that, how many other people heard Daryl's 'clap of thunder' or having heard it thought it extrodinary? I would also imagine there were quite a few people who saw the north wall first floors bow out before the rest of the wall started coming down. Is there any video of the lower floors of the north wall?

Daryl was north of #7 right?

 

[jaydeehess]

From two blocks away [more or less] he heard a clap of thunder

about 4 seconds after the collapse began

[more or less]

and about 2 seconds before the exterior walls started falling.

[more or less]


Daryl's timing of these events you are taking as gospel.

 

[Christopher7]

[more or less]

[more or less]
Daryl's timing of these events you are taking as gospel.

No
We agree on the 'more or less'.
He said " sounded like a clap of thunder.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."
He made no mention of a rumbling before the clap of thunder.

No doubt other people heard and saw what Daryl heard and saw.
They may be keeping silent for fear of reprisal.

There may be other accounts on the 6,000 video clips that have been kept from public view for over 5 1/2 years.

Craig Bartmer said "I think I know an explosion when I hear one"

No single eyewitness account should be taken as gospel, nor should they be denied out of hand.

These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

 

[Disbelief]

No
These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

But there is no evidence of bombs. Hence, no CD.

 

[Christopher7]

But there is no evidence of bombs. Hence, no CD.

That's reverse logic.
If you mean physical evidence, you are safe in your denial because, as you know, the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

 

[Kent1]

No
We agree on the 'more or less'.
He said " sounded like a clap of thunder.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."
He made no mention of a rumbling before the clap of thunder.

No doubt other people heard and saw what Daryl heard and saw.
They may be keeping silent for fear of reprisal.

There may be other accounts on the 6,000 video clips that have been kept from public view for over 5 1/2 years.

Craig Bartmer said "I think I know an explosion when I hear one"

No single eyewitness account should be taken as gospel, nor should they be denied out of hand.

These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

Not sure if thats what the interview was saying.

This matchs the videos where the progessive collapse started first. Windows breaking etc. Then the rest of the building followed
After the sound of thunder there was the shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out...about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that. I have no problem here.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma

...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

 

[jaydeehess]

No
We agree on the 'more or less'.
He said " sounded like a clap of thunder.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."
He made no mention of a rumbling before the clap of thunder.

No doubt other people heard and saw what Daryl heard and saw.
They may be keeping silent for fear of reprisal.

There may be other accounts on the 6,000 video clips that have been kept from public view for over 5 1/2 years.

Craig Bartmer said "I think I know an explosion when I hear one"

No single eyewitness account should be taken as gospel, nor should they be denied out of hand.

These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

As I said I can hear a train 1500 feet away. Daryl did not mention hearing the rumble of the collapse yet somehow manages to know that the clap of thunder occured 4 seconds after
the collapse began. From 600 feet away could he see the east penthouse? If he heard nothing then what caused his attention to go to the roof (basically looking up at a 45 degree angle)?

The 'fear of reprisal' refrain for explaining lack of corroiboration is yet another example of "lack of evidence=evidence" , and it goes nowhere since it requires a circular arguement. There was a gov't plot so people are afraid and therefore there is no evidence of a gov't plot beacuse it was a gov't plot.

As I said before they require no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it in terms of a familiar sound (clap of thunder). They would require expertise to claim to have been able to positively identify that sound as something that is not so familiar such as saying, "I think I know an explosion when I hear one".

Their eyewitness report is evidence of an explosion OR a large structural member failing.

Chris since you are a carpenter you will have a metal measuring tape, probably a 1 inch or 3/4 inch wide one. Extend that metal tape upward in a high ceilinged room, for the sake of arguement make it 10 feet extended. Lock the tape and then slowly tilt the tape down. The tape remains relativly straight, only bending slightly until it suddenly emits a loud crack and kneels over. The 'crack' is very reminicent of a .22 cal gunshot. Very close to the same sound but not as loud. If you were not in the room but in an adjacent room you might assume a gunshot. Same goes for the sound of a 2 X 6 board falling flat on another. That is even louder and sounds exactly like a gunshot. I know hunting guides (experts at the sound of a gunshot) that will attest to having thought that sound was a gunshot.

Daryl and Craig were not experts in explosives. Their characterization of the sound as that of an explosion simply carries no weight.

So, there was a loud sound that, it is claimed, occured 4 seconds after a collapse had started. The start of this collapse that, it is claimed, was not heard, was only detectable then by looking up at close to a 45 degree angle and witnessing the sinking of the east penthouse. Then, about 1 second after the loud sound was heard (2 seconds after it actually emanated from the building given the distance and the velocity of sound in sea level air) the lower floors of the north wall caved outward.

Do I have this listed correctly Chris?

 

[Kent1]

jaydeehess see my post above...for the full quote.
I saw his post #1628 in the other thread. Seems clear he has problems. Maybe if the figherfighter was temporarily blind and deaf for the beginning of the collapse I'd buy C7's claims. Otherwise it's clear he's grasping at straws.

 

[Disbelief]

That's reverse logic.
If you mean physical evidence, you are safe in your denial because, as you know, the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Just using your logic. You say that there is evidence for CDs because they heard explosions, and that is a leap. They heard explosions, so that is evidence of explosions. The cause of the explosions - be it bombs, transformers, gas tanks, whatever - is TBD so you have to use physical evidence. But you fall back on the "government conspiracy" so it was all destroyed. Now, you are involving the cleanup crews in the conspiracy because they would have to be silent. Plus, you are telling me that these guys are so good that they are able to clean up all physical evidence in that mountain of debris before anyone notices?

 

[A W Smith]

ACME document and building shredding services LLC

Let me see if i can understand this. There were supposedly secret documents within the offices of building 7 outlining many conspiracies. But rather than have a shredding contractor destroy all evidence or even have in house aviator sunglass and trench-coat wearing agents destroy this evidence. They thought it was best to blast this building to kingdom come and disperse that documentation all over the streets of lower Manhattan where any passerby could just pick it up off the street and read it?

What a great idea!

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html

As I said I can hear a train 1500 feet away. Daryl did not mention hearing the rumble of the collapse yet somehow manages to know that the clap of thunder occured 4 seconds after
the collapse began. From 600 feet away could he see the east penthouse? If he heard nothing then what caused his attention to go to the roof (basically looking up at a 45 degree angle)?

He did not mention the penthouse because he did not see or hear its collapse.
"...heard....a clap of thunder...turned around...shocked to see...shockwave ripping through the building..."

The 'fear of reprisal' refrain for explaining lack of corroiboration is yet another example of "lack of evidence=evidence" , and it goes nowhere since it requires a circular arguement. There was a gov't plot so people are afraid and therefore there is no evidence of a gov't plot beacuse it was a gov't plot.

Many people have come forward about 9/11. They have been harassed, fired or ignored.

Whistleblowers

http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-911commission-040913.pdf

http://www.nswbc.org/Press Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html

As I said before they require no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it in terms of a familiar sound (clap of thunder). They would require expertise to claim to have been able to positively identify that sound as something that is not so familiar such as saying, "I think I know an explosion when I hear one".

So only an explosives expert is qualified to identify an explosion.
Please
Craig was certain of what he heard.

Their eyewitness report is evidence of an explosion OR a large structural member failing.

No way could a structural member falling or breaking make a clap of thunder that could be clearly heard when all the falling and breaking under the penthouse was not heard.

So, there was a loud sound that, it is claimed, occured 4 seconds after a collapse had started.

Where do you get 'claimed'?
There was a sound like a clap of thunder about 4 seconds after the penthouse started to collapse.
Do i need to do the math for you again?

about 1 second after the loud sound was heard (2 seconds after it actually emanated from the building given the distance and the velocity of sound in sea level air) the lower floors of the north wall caved outward.
Do I have this listed correctly Chris?

Yes [minus the looking up part]

 

[Christopher7]

Just using your logic. You say that there is evidence for CDs because they heard explosions, and that is a leap. They heard explosions, so that is evidence of explosions. The cause of the explosions - be it bombs, transformers, gas tanks, whatever - is TBD so you have to use physical evidence. But you fall back on the "government conspiracy" so it was all destroyed. Now, you are involving the cleanup crews in the conspiracy because they would have to be silent. Plus, you are telling me that these guys are so good that they are able to clean up all physical evidence in that mountain of debris before anyone notices?

Some volunteers at SEAoNY salvaged a few pieces of steel before the government could destroy all the evidence.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

The sample from WTC 7 was analyzed and the results were published in this report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 

[BeAChooser]

Christopher7, you insisted I ask my questions about your CD theories here. Very well.

Looking through this thread, you began by claiming its the lack of evidence that proves a CD. What can one do but laugh at logic like that.

In post #58, you were again asked to provide your evidence that WTC7 was a CD. In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant.

But what do those videos really show? If a CD is that obvious in them, don't you think experts in demolition around the world would be coming forward by the droves to say so? All you currently have is the one ... Mr Jowenko.

In the other thread, you made the assertion that the number of eyewitness (and their expertise) to something was some sort of determinant of the truth. Your four eyewitness (all firemen) trumped the 1 non-fireman eyewitness. So why doesn't that logic work here? Why don't dozens of CD experts around the world who have looked at the WTC7 evidence and who say it was NOT a CD trump the one who does? Why is your logic different in this case?

And its turns out Mr Jowenko also said WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs. So let me ask you, Christopher ... do you believe that? Or are you just going to claim, as you already did, that *this* thread is about WTC7 and ignore my question? If so, would you kindly link a thread where you will discuss the towers? Or is that something you simply don't want to discuss? And if not, why not?

But back to WTC7. Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that? If so, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the other thread that there wasn't much damage to WTC7? You can answer that question since this thread is about WTC 7, can't you? Do you think the WTC7 demolition was a pre-planned event or not?

Now if you do believe Jowenko in this case, I can't figure out why Silverstein couldn't have waited till later to do that demolition but then I'm not a *truther*. Afterall, a bunch of other buildings were deliberately and publically brought down soon after 9/11 because they were damaged. Why would this one be handled differently? Maybe you can tell us why?

Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue. Let's see if you can present and define a rational theory of CD. Tell us how you think the demolition of WTC 7 was actually carried out and why. And answer your critics. Keep in mind that a successful defense of your *theory* is not just "claiming" that all the videos shot on 9/11 lacked sound or were too far away. A successful defense isn't ignoring questions like why they blasted with squibs from the top down. A successful defense isn't claiming only your CD expert is truthful (and only part of what he says is right) and all the rest of the experts around the world are corrupt, blackmailed into silence, or incompetent. A successful defense isn't claiming that $13,800 is all that stands between us and the proof it was a CD. A successful defense is not claiming that the beams in post #141 were cut when they clearly were not.

I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different? And if your expertise is that awesome, tell us what the first 5 seconds told you about WTC 1 and WTC 2. Or point me to a thread where you do.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, you insisted I ask my questions about your CD theories here. Very well.

Looking through this thread, you began by claiming its the lack of evidence that proves a CD. What can one do but laugh at logic like that.

A through analysis of the physical evidence is by far the best way to conclusively determine what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

The possibility that similar buildings might collapse if one core column fails, mandates a swift, through examination of the physical evidence.

Withholding of most of the video and photographic evidence is unnecessary and makes any independent analysis very difficult.

Perhaps you trust the administration that systematically distorts scientific documents and has a clear conflict of interests in this matter, i don't.

In post #58, you were again asked to provide your evidence that WTC7 was a CD. In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant.

Look again, they do.

That is all the owner of a demolition company, Danny Jowenko, needed to say that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.
Professional building implosions are very distinctive and easily recognizable, even by a lay person.
Anyone who says that WTC 7 does not look like a CD after a CD expert has said it is "absolutely" a CD, is lying.

But what do those videos really show? If a CD is that obvious in them, don't you think experts in demolition around the world would be coming forward by the droves to say so? All you currently have is the one ... Mr Jowenko.

Saying that WTC 7 was a CD is saying that the US government is lying about 911.
Jowenko was told that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 911 so he gave an honest, unbiased opinion.
BY outing Valery Plame and ending her career, the administration sent a clear message to anyone who might expose their lies.
There will be a price to pay.

And its turns out Mr Jowenko also said WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs. So let me ask you, Christopher ... do you believe that?

He did not recognize the Trade Towers as CD's for the reason he gave.
They collapsed from the top down, not the traditional bottom up building implosion.

But back to WTC7. Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that?

No

If so, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the other thread that there wasn't much damage to WTC7?

There was a lot of damage to the south west face of WTC 7
There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

Do you think the WTC7 demolition was a pre-planned event or not?

There was not enough time on 911 to get everything and everyone needed to the site and rig WTC 7 for demolition.
WTC 7 was rigged before 911.

Now if you do believe Jowenko in this case, I can't figure out why Silverstein couldn't have waited till later to do that demolition but then I'm not a *truther*. Afterall, a bunch of other buildings were deliberately and publically brought down soon after 9/11 because they were damaged. Why would this one be handled differently? Maybe you can tell us why?

As you said, Jowenko was speculating.
Now you are asking me to speculate on 'why'.

Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue. Let's see if you can present and define a rational theory of CD. Tell us how you think the demolition of WTC 7 was actually carried out and why.

You are asking me to speculate on every aspect of the collapse so you can talk it to death.

A successful defense isn't claiming that $13,800 is all that stands between us and the proof it was a CD.

That's $239 and another 6 months before my FOIA request for pictures and videos of the south east part of WTC 7 will be considered.

A successful defense is not claiming that the beams in post #141 were cut when they clearly were not.

So you think the beams in post #141 just broke off without bending or buckling?

I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different?

Name one who says WTC 7 does not look like a CD.
Name one who says WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

And if your expertise is that awesome, tell us what the first 5 seconds told you about WTC 1 and WTC 2. Or point me to a thread where you do.

It took about 5 seconds for a demolitions expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD because it is blatantly obvious to anyone not in denial.
I did not recognize the Trade Towers were demolitions.
I thought that they collapsed under the weight of the upper stories until i started investigating and found out that the core framing was massive and essentially hollow.
The NIST report does not say what caused the bottom 70 floors of the WTC 2 framework to collapse.

 

[DGM]

Perhaps you trust the administration that systematically distorts scientific documents and has a clear conflict of interests in this matter, i don't.

This is something you need to explain. Nobody has explained the WHY of building 7. What could be the conflict of interest with that building.

 

[simakperrce]

Chris, why was Building 7 imploded?