Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

So did all the steel elements of the Windsor Tower above the mechanical floor that halted the collapse and that was ENTIRELY due to fires.

The Windsor Tower did not implode.
It did not collapse completely as did WTC 7.
There was a partial collapse that took place over a period of an hour or more.

This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

Or in the case of a steel building involved in a severe fire, e.g., the Windsor Tower.

The Windsor was a hybrid design, with the weight of the building being carried by the reinforced concrete core.
It is not a suitable comparison for any reason.
The exterior columns were very light weight box beams [18 lbs. per lineal ft.]
Columns 79,80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal ft.

The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,

WTC 7 did not.

which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account.

What evidence?

All of it, actually.

What haven't i taken into account? Please be specific.

7. They are rectangular and they do not expand as the building starts to subside. They do not shoot out horizontally. They are in the exact same location as debris damage more clearly visible from the other side of the building.

Upon close inspection, they look like the blob tried to escape and got stuck.
The "squibs" and "pull it" are "red herrings" if not "Trojan Horses" IMO.

Most of the "evidence" presented by twoofers in re WTC 7 is just plain slovenly research,

The evidence i have presented is from the very government reports you site as your reason for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

 

[funk de fino]

hello

Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse

cherrypicker

Just in case you missed this C7, I know you would not purposefully ignore this question?

I cannot seem to see any mentions of it? I may be wrong so please show me if you can?

You also have to show me more videos and sound because the last efforts you gave me were false. It should not be too hard there were literally thousands of cameras around that day.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is also the lack of squibs, flying glass being blown out of windows, explosions being recorded on any of the many videos of the event. No ejecta and no detonations of cutting charges is positive disproof of CD.

 

[firecoins]

another long pointless thread .

 

[JimBenArm]

What is this an intervention? Hi, my names Josh, and I saw WTC7 fall, not implode...

[GROUP]
Hi Josh, we're here to help!
[/GFROUP]

Look, Christopher, I'm not offended, by your callow remarks, but there is something you have to understand, I do have demolition, and explosives experience, and as such I saw WTC7 fall from structural failure, it looked nothing like a CD to me.

Another thing, using your (il)logic:

CDs fall into their foot print, companies are so good they can bring a building down mere feet from other buildings and not harm them.

WTC7 fell mostly into it's footprint, with damage done to the surrounding areas, this is a sign it wasn't a CD!

So therefore, by your logic it is evidence that WTC was not a CD!

You see how that works? It's completely idiotic to think that way

You cannot possibly understand what all goes into an actual CD, so why do you think you can claim it was just from watching some videos?

You don't understand. He's a carpenter, which gives him abilities you and I can only dream of having.

 

[JMarshall]

You don't understand. He's a carpenter, which gives him abilities you and I can only dream of having.

Oh... Ok, well that makes everything much clearer now... I stand corrected, with his vast knowledge of carpentry he knows much more about explosives than I could ever know... If you can't tell Christopher this is sarcasm, a sign someone doesn't actually believe what is said, and therefore, by your account, evidence they don't want to hear someone else's rheotoric.

 

[jaydeehess]

Nada

[FONT=&quot]NIST L - 36
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

[/FONT]The damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on columns 79, 80 and 81.

Chris 7's statement does not follow from the NIST quote.

NIST is stating that the initiation of collapse did not come from the physical damage done to the perimeter. IT DOES NOT state that the damage to the perimeter did not contribute to the global collapse.

I have an odd deja vu concerning my stating this.................

 

[beachnut]

The Windsor Tower did not implode.
It did not collapse completely as did WTC 7.
There was a partial collapse that took place over a period of an hour or more.

The Windsor was a hybrid design, with the weight of the building being carried by the reinforced concrete core.
It is not a suitable comparison for any reason.
The exterior columns were very light weight box beams [18 lbs. per lineal ft.]
Columns 79,80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal ft.

The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,

WTC 7 did not.

What haven't i taken into account? Please be specific.

Upon close inspection, they look like the blob tried to escape and got stuck.
The "squibs" and "pull it" are "red herrings" if not "Trojan Horses" IMO.

The evidence i have presented is from the very government reports you site as your reason for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

Funny stuff, looked like a torch~! OH, my, wonder if night time had something to do with it! If you are the best of 9/11 truth, you guys are full of crazy ideas and do not use logic or rational thought to figure out even simple things like night and day.

Pathetic, the word of the day, the word for all 9/11 truth.

The rest of your stuff proves your have no point.

 

[Christopher7]

Just in case you missed this C7, I know you would not purposefully ignore this question?

You're question is pure sarcasm.
We both know NIST did not use the word 'implode'
So what?
Are trying to deny that WTC 7 imploded?
Can you not see the obvious as FEMA did?

You also have to show me more videos and sound because the last efforts you gave me were false. It should not be too hard there were literally thousands of cameras around that day.

The people and the cameras were moved back 2 or 3 blocks. Few could see much if any anything, but you know that.

In all the available videos, the sound track is missing or the critical moments just before the collapse and the beginning of the collapse have been cut. You know that too.

Over 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos were rounded up and are still being withheld from the public six years later.

There was no legitimate reason to remove all those videos and pictures.
Clearly, they are hiding critical evidence.

If this is a criminal investigation, the removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.
If this is just the investigation of a building collapse, there was no reason to confiscate and withhold the photos and videos.

The excuse that the investigation is still going on is ridiculous.
FEMA and NIST released selected pictures of WTC 7 showing every angle of WTC 7 except the south east part where the huge '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' was supposed to be.

NIST FoIA told me they had 25 photos of the south west side and 2 videos at or near the time of the collapse but they would not be released until the 'investigation' was finished.

There is no logical or legitimate reason to release some of the photos and withhold others.

OTers love to demand what they know is not available to the public and rail "where's the boom,boom?"

You cannot honestly deny that WTC 7 imploded so you subject shift to you're well worn fall back position and say the lack of boom, boom is proof there were no explosions.

The videos clearly show the east penthouse collapse first and then the screenwall and west penthouse.
Finally, the exterior walls fall and the building collapses in on itself landing mostly in it's own footprint.
When a building collapses in on itself, it is called an implosion.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris 7's statement does not follow from the NIST quote.

NIST is stating that the initiation of collapse did not come from the physical damage done to the perimeter. IT DOES NOT state that the damage to the perimeter did not contribute to the global collapse.

I have an odd deja vu concerning my stating this.................

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

 

[Christopher7]

Funny stuff, looked like a torch~! OH, my, wonder if night time had something to do with it! If you are the best of 9/11 truth, you guys are full of crazy ideas and do not use logic or rational thought to figure out even simple things like night and day.

Pathetic, the word of the day, the word for all 9/11 truth.

The rest of your stuff proves your have no point.

Forum decorum requires us to attack the argument, not the arguer.
You are doing just the opposite.
Please address the issue.

 

[LashL]

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

Hey, Chris, this thread is about the silly controlled demolition theory, not about debris damage and fires.




(Couldn't resist!)

 

[GStan]

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

That is an inaccurate statement. Evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event was not observed. That does not qualify as evidence to the contrary. It is merely an absence of definitive evidence in either direction.

ETA: If someone observed the intact diesel fuel line in the area of the initiating event, after the collapse of WTC1, that would be evidence to the contrary.

 

[jaydeehess]

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

So where in the prelim report does NIST list the factors that would have contributed to the collapse Chris?

Fact is they do not go into how much any particular damage contributed to the initiation of the collapse do they Chris. all they do is run sims as to what would have to fail to immediatly initiate collapse.

,, and as GStan mentions, there is no evidence to the contrary regarding diesel fires, only a lack of direct evidence that it did occur. That's a distinction that eludes you it seems.

 

[GStan]

Chris,
In reading most of this thread and the 10 story gouge thread, its quite clear that you believe that the CD hypothesis is the most plausible explanation for WTC7 collapse. I was wondering if you believe that the DD/F hypothesis is impossible, regardless of how unlikely. Do you believe that any scenario that does not include a CD-type conspiracy is impossible?

If you've already answered this and I've missed it, I apologize for making you repeat it again.

 

[Christopher7]

Hey, Chris, this thread is about the silly controlled demolition theory, not about debris damage and fires.




(Couldn't resist!)

Point well taken.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris,
In reading most of this thread and the 10 story gouge thread, its quite clear that you believe that the CD hypothesis is the most plausible explanation for WTC7 collapse. I was wondering if you believe that the DD/F hypothesis is impossible, regardless of how unlikely. Do you believe that any scenario that does not include a CD-type conspiracy is impossible?

If you've already answered this and I've missed it, I apologize for making you repeat it again.

Given the conditions that existed in WTC 7, i do not think it is possible that DD/F caused the implosion.

I believe it would be impossible to design a building that would implode in 15 seconds, due to the failure of a single core column.

However:
LashL is right, this discussion should be on the "10 story hole" thread.

 

[BenBurch]

"The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,"

So much for the myth of high rise fires not getting hot enough to weaken steel, eh? Thanks for admitting that you were not only wrong, but a fool as well.

 

[Christopher7]

"The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,"

The exterior columns in the Windsor Towers were box beams weighing about 18 lbs per lineal foot.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal foot.

 

[funk de fino]

Given the conditions that existed in WTC 7, i do not think it is possible that DD/F caused the implosion.

I believe it would be impossible to design a building that would implode in 15 seconds, due to the failure of a single core column.

However:
LashL is right, this discussion should be on the "10 story hole" thread.

I think if you take it to another thread you may want to rephrase that very open statement?

It will save you being shown to be wrong again.