Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

If damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration Chris, then there was absolutly no reason to attempt to implode the structure. We also know for a fact that if this was a vast conspiracy that the perpetrators also had no concern whatsoever as to the loss of life which this would bring on.

So the only concern the supposed perpetrators would have in bringing down WTC 7 would be to make it look as likely as possible that the debris damage and fires were responsible for the collapse. According to you, a collapse starting in the core of the building is as far as one can get from a DD/F caused collapse and thus the absolute worst way to address the only concern the perpetrators would have had in the destruction of WTC 7.
According to your contentions the best way to have destroyed WTC 7 would have been to have it fall to the south and east.

Damn these perpetrators for being both very, very good at what they do and very,very bad at what they do.

Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD.

WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint
This is consistent with an expert [if not perfect] building implosion.

 

[Christopher7]

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

That is my opinion.

You do not agree.

Have a nice day.

 

[jaydeehess]

Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

yeah, there's a lot of that going around

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

Logic certainly can be used to decide whether or not the original contention is, indeed, logical. As I demonstrated, the original contention, that WTC 7 was deliberatly brought down in a collapse that had it fold inwards, as part of an elaborate and vast conspiracy to attack and kill civilians on 9/11/01 does NOT follow from any logical arguement.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD

.

NO, you refer to the perimeter of the building. You do not know what failed internally prior to the perimeter coming down.

WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint
This is consistent with an expert [if not perfect] building implosion.

It is consistent with the initial failure causing the core to fail first. That is as far as you can go with such a statement. Anything that causes the core to fail first will result in the rest of the building preferentially being pulled towards the center of the building. ANYTHING!

 

[Christopher7]

Logic certainly can be used to decide whether or not the original contention is, indeed, logical. As I demonstrated, the original contention, that WTC 7 was deliberatly brought down in a collapse that had it fold inwards, as part of an elaborate and vast conspiracy to attack and kill civilians on 9/11/01 does NOT follow from any logical arguement.

Correct, it flows the other way.
[FONT=&quot]The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 [/FONT]are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, [FONT=&quot]Hugo Bachmann, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.[/FONT]

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.

It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

NO, you refer to the perimeter of the building. You do not know what failed internally prior to the perimeter coming down.

Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

It is consistent with the initial failure causing the core to fail first. That is as far as you can go with such a statement. Anything that causes the core to fail first will result in the rest of the building preferentially being pulled towards the center of the building. ANYTHING!

Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything?

 

[funk de fino]

That is my opinion.

You do not agree.

Have a nice day.

So you believe a building could not be designed to collapse with the failure of one core column? Your opinion sux. Of course they could design one. They would not want to design one and there would be no reason to, but it could be done.

You also thought that CD with no explosives and deliberately falling outside foorprint did not happen. You were wrong about that also.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct, it flows the other way.
[FONT=&quot]The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 [/FONT]are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, [FONT=&quot]Hugo Bachmann, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.[/FONT]

I hope your never on a jury along with those clowns. There may be a miscarriage of justice. All other evidence would be denied for edited and silent video clips.

It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

Except thats not really how it works in real life is it. Ask a structural designer about it.

Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

So they can design a building that collapses with 3 core columns damaged?

Do you know what damage the penthouse caused inside the building when it fell into it?

Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything?

Yes, you missed everything

 

[GStan]

Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

Nor can it be used to manufacture evidence where there is an absence of it.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

Why use this amateur argument? Every event that has ever occurred, at some point, happened for the first time. While it is thought-provoking, it does not in any way constitute evidence for a CD.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD.

The collapse is documented to be nearly 15 seconds from the point of the initiating event. This is not consistent with CD. Further, once the columns were weakened to the point of failure, gravity and resistance are what ultimately determine the speed of the subsequent collapse. Whether you believe the failure was brought about by DD/F or CD is irrelevant (and I think either one is possible.) The seven seconds is consistent with the collapse speed of a building that was weakened by DD/F or CD. It is consistent with CD but far from being exclusive to CD.

 

[jaydeehess]

Correct, it flows the other way.
The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, Hugo Bachmann, Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.

That's a conclusion through logical arguement?

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.

Originally Posted by C7

It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

Again a illogical conclusion. The destruction of the buildings of the WTC complex on 9/11/01 are unigue in history. In no other case in history has a large airliner been flown into large buildings at high speed. In no other case in history has debris from a 110 storey building hit and damaged other buildings, and in the case of WTC 7, in no other case has such a damaged building had fires that went unfought in any way..

Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

Actually 7 seconds after the initial failure seen on the roof, the roof structure above the rest of the core also started to fall. we do not know what occured inside the building in those intervals.
We do not know what the exact effect of the penthouse equipment falling through the building was.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

No, the central portion of the roof, and the perimeter of the building fell in those 7 seconds.

Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything?

DD/F - evidence - there were indeed fires and structural damage
CD - evidence- "it looks close enough to be CD"
Particle beam weapons - evidence - Woods and Reynolds imaginations
MNSET - evidence - a few examples of corroded steel (frankly a lot more evidence than W&R have for DEW)

 

[Christopher7]

Responce to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3289428#post3289428

I do not accept their denial that WTC7 looks like a CD.


Mr. Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert. His company website:
http://www.jowenko.nl

This is a MUST SEE for anyone interested in the truth about WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

In part 1
Jerwenko: ....This is a controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jerwenko: Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.

In part 2
Interviewer: .....could it not be by fire?
Jerwenko: No

In part 3
When told of the debris damage and fires, Jerwenko continued to talk about HOW it was done. There is never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.




You may not agree with him but to insist that WTC7 does not even look like a CD is denial.

 

[Norseman]

Responce to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3289428#post3289428

I do not accept their denial that WTC7 looks like a CD.


Mr. Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert. His company website:
http://www.jowenko.nl

This is a MUST SEE for anyone interested in the truth about WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

In part 1
Jerwenko: ....This is a controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jerwenko: Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.

In part 2
Interviewer: .....could it not be by fire?
Jerwenko: No

In part 3
When told of the debris damage and fires, Jerwenko continued to talk about HOW it was done. There is never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

You may not agree with him but to insist that WTC7 does not even look like a CD is denial.

Christopher7 we are talking about lack of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7 and not what the collapse of WTC 7 looked like in the videos. That is a big difference. Please go back and reread the NIST quotes I posted, NIST did not say what you are claiming they said.

Viewed without sound the videos of the WTC 7 collapse and videos showing building collapses caused by controlled demolition looks similar. And of course they look similar, they show buildings that are collapsing under the force of gravity. In the case of WTC 7 a progressive collapse (as described by NIST) initiated by column failure due to fire and a collapse initiated by cutting the columns in the same sequence with explosives would visually be very similar.

But when the sound is turned on the lack of evidence for a controlled demolitions in the case of WTC 7 immediately becomes evident. What is lacking in the soundtrack of the videos of the WTC 7 collapse, and that is clearly present in the soundtrack of videos showing building collapses initiated by controlled demolition with explosives? Like for instance in the video on the opening page of Jowenko's company website:
http://www.jowenko.com

Jowenko is surely a very competent demolition expert. But as an expert witness on WTC 7 he is very obviously a very flimsy straw man. In the video he makes a complete mess of himself, he doesn't know thing about the WTC 7 and the collapse, he have not read the FEMA report, he can not pick out the collapsed building in the picture, speculating wildly etc. Sorry but Jowenko is useless. You and I know more about WTC 7 than Jowenko does.

Nearly 7 years and yet zero evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7 we are talking about lack of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7 and not what the collapse of WTC 7 looked like in the videos. That is a big difference. Please go back and reread the NIST quotes I posted, NIST did not say what you are claiming they said.

Viewed without sound the videos of the WTC 7 collapse and videos showing building collapses caused by controlled demolition looks similar. And of course they look similar, they show buildings that are collapsing under the force of gravity. In the case of WTC 7 a progressive collapse (as described by NIST) initiated by column failure due to fire and a collapse initiated by cutting the columns in the same sequence with explosives would visually be very similar.[/

But when the sound is turned on the lack of evidence for a controlled demolitions in the case of WTC 7 immediately becomes evident. What is lacking in the soundtrack of the videos of the WTC 7 collapse, and that is clearly present in the soundtrack of videos showing building collapses initiated by controlled demolition with explosives? Like for instance in the video on the opening page of Jowenko's company website:
http://www.jowenko.com

Jowenko is surely a very competent demolition expert. But as an expert witness on WTC 7 he is very obviously a very flimsy straw man. In the video he makes a complete mess of himself, he doesn't know thing about the WTC 7 and the collapse, he have not read the FEMA report, he can not pick out the collapsed building in the picture, speculating wildly etc. Sorry but Jowenko is useless. You and I know more about WTC 7 than Jowenko does.

You think you are more qualified to recognize a CD than the owner of a CD company.
He didn't need to know anything about the implosion of WTC7
The video, without sound, is enough.
Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD?

BUSH appointed Shyam Sunder director of NIST shortly before the report was released.
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.
Of course his appointee will refuse to acknowledge that WTC7 looks like a CD.

 

[Norseman]

You think you are more qualified to recognize a CD than the owner of a CD company.
He didn't need to know anything about the implosion of WTC7
The video, without sound, is enough.
Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD?

BUSH appointed Shyam Sunder director of NIST shortly before the report was released.
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.
Of course his appointee will refuse to acknowledge that WTC7 looks like a CD.

I think you should reread my post very carefully Christopher7.

 

[Christopher7]

I think you should reread my post very carefully Christopher7.

I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

 

[Norseman]

I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

Yet again Christopher7 you managed to avoid the part of my post where I explained to you that a collapse of WTC 7 initiated by fire and a collapse initiated by explosives (CD) would look similar. But since all the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 lacks the characteristic detonation sound of explosives, present inn all videos showing controlled implosions of buildings, they are not evidence in itself of a controlled demolition of WTC 7.

So that's it Christopher7, there is no evidence supporting your controlled demolition hypothesis. While there is ample evidence and scientific knowledge about steel structures and fire supporting NIST's working hypothesis. In your other thread you have been so kind to post the evidence showing fires in the area of the initiating event repeatedly.

 

[jaydeehess]

I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

I believe you missed the point Norseman made that Jowenko , in the video, did not know anything about WTC 7 other than what he saw in the video of the collapse and from that and only that he drew a conclusion from which (suprise) he is unwilling to back away from even given the fact that there is no other evidence of a CD other than "it looks like a CD".
No sounds of detonations (you say many times that the steel columns were hefty brutes. As such then they would require hefty charges to cut and kick them. 24 of them at least, according to you. What was heard? One loud booming noise that was not recorded on any tape of the event, that did not cause onlookers to flinch/duck and as such was not the sharp pressure wave characteristic of an explosion which often does ellict such a reaction in explosive demolitions (in cases in which the steel columns are not as thick).

Jowenko had not, at the time of his initial conclusion, read anything about the WTC 7 collapse including the NIST prelim report.

Van Romero initially thought explosives were used in the towers and later corrected himself. That is simply being honest and admitting one's mistake. Jowenko however, I assume has now seen the research done and yet will not admit that his initial conclusion based upon scant evidence, was wrong. That is an example of ego overiding truth.

However, and you know this to be true, Jowenko is not the only demolitions expert to make pronouncements about WTC 7 and others conclude the exact opposite, that it was the damage and fires that brought the structure down. Furthermore fire damage experts and structural engineers also conclude that fire brought the building down.

 

[jaydeehess]

Richard Gage believes that explosives and a cornucopia of other items were used in the destruction visited upon the USA on 9/11/01 and Gage is an architect and therefore an expert.

However right on this forum we also have architects, one of which goes by the moniker "Architect" who do not believe that explosives were used in the destruction of the buildings.

Does the fact that Gage makes money in public appearances make his opinion have greater weight?

 

[Christopher7]

Yet again Christopher7 you managed to avoid the part of my post where I explained to you that a collapse of WTC 7 initiated by fire and a collapse initiated by explosives (CD) would look similar.

We are talking about an implosion.

But since all the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 lacks the characteristic detonation sound of explosives, present inn all videos showing controlled implosions of buildings,

Not so.
The critical seconds when Daryl heard the "clap of thunder" and saw "a shock wave ripping thru the building" have been edited out of the only 2 videos with sound.

they are not evidence in itself of a controlled demolition of WTC 7.

The implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD.

So that's it Christopher7, there is no evidence supporting your controlled demolition hypothesis.

The fact that WTC7 imploded is evidence that was a CD.

While there is ample evidence and scientific knowledge about steel structures and fire supporting NIST's working hypothesis.

Please site your evidence to support The NIST hypothesis on the "10 story hole thread".

 

[Christopher7]

I believe you missed the point Norseman made that Jowenko , in the video, did not know anything about WTC 7 other than what he saw in the video of the collapse and from that and only that he drew a conclusion from which (suprise) he is unwilling to back away from even given the fact that there is no other evidence of a CD other than "it looks like a CD".

That's all that is needed in his expert opinion.

Building implosions are very distinctive, unmistakable.

No sounds of detonations

You guys keep going back to this talking point.
The lack of available videos with the critical seconds of sound do not negate the indisputable visual proof that WTC7 imploded.

Jowenko had not, at the time of his initial conclusion, read anything about the WTC 7 collapse including the NIST prelim report.

He had all he needed to make a positive identification.

Van Romero initially thought explosives were used in the towers and later corrected himself.

That is simply being honest and admitting one's mistake. Jowenko however, I assume has now seen the research done and yet will not admit that his initial conclusion based upon scant evidence, was wrong. That is an example of ego overiding truth.

You have no idea what Jowenko thinks.

As for Van Romero:
[FONT=&quot]The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

[/FONT] Ten days later the Albuquerque Journal published this following article, describing a dramatic reversal of Van Romero's position.

[FONT=&quot]"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero

[/FONT] That's a rather dramatic repudiation of himself.
Somebody made this guy an offer he couldn't refuse.

However, and you know this to be true, Jowenko is not the only demolitions expert to make pronouncements about WTC 7 and others conclude the exact opposite, that it was the damage and fires that brought the structure down.

Name someone with Jowenko's qualifications who says WTC7 was not a CD.

Furthermore fire damage experts and structural engineers also conclude that fire brought the building down.

List them.

Here are some folks who say WTC7 was a CD.

234 architects and engineers: http://www.ae911truth.org/

[FONT=&quot]2 Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction[/FONT]
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html


Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

 

[Christopher7]

Richard Gage believes that explosives and a cornucopia of other items were used in the destruction visited upon the USA on 9/11/01 and Gage is an architect and therefore an expert.

However right on this forum we also have architects, one of which goes by the moniker "Architect" who do not believe that explosives were used in the destruction of the buildings.

Would "Architect" or any other qualified person here care to give their real name and Credentials?

Does the fact that Gage makes money in public appearances make his opinion have greater weight?

No

 

[rwguinn]

Christpher7:
Have you not been warned in the past about bumping your BS posts without NEW comments and evidence?