Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Christopher7]

Oh, come on C7. ........ there is no boom,boom,boom at WTC 7. So, only ONE boom?

Craig said "...and all the time you're hearing thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, ...I think I know an explosion when I hear it.

If you wish to base your denial on the lack of audio evidence you are safe,
but don't say there is NO evidence of explosions.

Don't tell me again that it 'could have been something else' until you can be honest and say the other half;
it could have been explosions.

CHF writes:

In the video Chris 7 supplies above the narrator says "hundreds". Chris 7 might not agree.

There could be hundreds of explosions in very rappid sucsession that could sound like a clap of thunder.

To say that it just can't be because of this or that is denial.

You cannot rule out the possibility that Daryl and Craig heard the explosions of a CD.

The narrator also states tha the building fell in 6 seconds which is a blatant lie. That completely ignores the interior failures that are part and parcel of the collapse.

That should be 7 seconds, as if it mattered.
It ignores the penthouse because i am referring to the entire building.
The 'building' fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

As for the manner of collapse it does fall almost within its own footprint. Significant damage is done to 30 West Broadway and other debris does impact the buildings to the east and west and WTC 6 to the south. This is a fairly compact area but is it direct evidence of a CD?

It is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Surrounding buildings were not a consideration.

So we have two bits of circumstantial evidence of CD. The loud bang and the manner of collapse.

two bits of circumstantial evidence.
Understate much?

These two bits of circumstantial evidence do have other explanations as well though and are therefore not conclusive.

Not conclusive, but it is enough to consider a professional building implosion as one possible explanation.

Chris 7 however also states that in regard to the other hypothesis, DD/F, that there is no direct, empirical evidence of DD/F* to the area of the initial failure and this is the case for the CD hypothesis as well. There is no direct, empirical evidence of explosives being placed or going off in WTC 7 let alone them being placed or going off in the area of the initial failure.

*DD/DFF

The physical evidence was destroyed.

There is this empirical evidence

I think these beams have been cut.

You can find a reason to believe otherwise but you cannot dismiss the possibility that it is what it looks like.

The blue discoloration suggests heat.

You can ask unanswerable questions as a way to deny this evidence.

You can find a reason to dismiss or deny any evidence presented to you

but you cannot honestly reject this evidence out of hand.

 

[Gravy]

As you well know, there are no videos of the collapse with the sounds of explosives currently available on the web.
So ignore everything else.

The government collected, and has kept from public view, over 6,000 video clips and over 6,000 photographs.

You can now see them for a measly $13,800

Chances are that one of the news clips was close enough to hear the clap of thunder that Daryl heard.

I have repeatedly asked you when you will raise that measly sum from the 84% of the adult American public who you claim support you.

Will you start the fundraising campaign this weekend, Chris?

If not, why?

 

[Gravy]

Pure intellectual cowardice. Chris, I showed you last summer why those columns weren't cut, but broke at their splices: every single one of them. You can read my analysis and look at the pretty pictures again here:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Don't be an intellectual coward, Chris. It's unbecoming of an adult.

 

[tonicblue]

Don't know if this is the right thread to bring this up but apparently another engineer is onboard.

This guy was engineer of the year in 1998 and was "feted by 500 colleagues for design of steel structures"


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6001

 

[Gravy]

Don't know if this is the right thread to bring this up but apparently another engineer is onboard.

This guy was engineer of the year in 1998 and was "feted by 500 colleagues for design of steel structures"

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6001

The link says he'll be discussing the issues with an activist. It doesn't say what side he's taking. If he's a conspiracist, I look forward to reading his engineering analysis: he'll be the first!

ETA: I assume, by the way he's promoted by the symposium ad, that he's a truther. I'll email him to see. To be clear, he was "Engineer of the year" in Hamilton, Ontario. Not trying to take anything away from him...just wanted to point out that it didn't mean "Engineer of the year for the solar system" or somesuch.

 

[Christopher7]

I have repeatedly asked you when you will raise that measly sum from the 84% of the adult American public who you claim support you.

Will you start the fundraising campaign this weekend, Chris?

If not, why?

There was NO legitimate reason to remove 6,000 video news clips and 6,000 photographs from the public in the first place.

I got a reply to my Freedom of Information Act request, made on 2-6-07, on 3-12-07.

I have been put in the "all other requesters" category.

They will contact me when they complete the fee estimate.

A citizen should not have to take up a collection and go thru the FOIA to see what was once public information.

You don't have a problem with that because you are happy to have this information kept from the public as long as possible.

If you were as interested in the truth as i am, you would be following your own advice and starting a fund raising campaign and or putting your money where you mouth is.

 

[Christopher7]

Pure intellectual cowardice. Chris, I showed you last summer why those columns weren't cut, but broke at their splices: every single one of them.

You showed the two bent columns.
You did not show these beams nor can you deny the blue discoloration, indicating heat.
2/3 of the cut on both beams is very straight.

These beams were cut using heat from a acetylene torch or explosive device IMO.

You can claim that these plates broke off if you want but you cannot rule out the possibility that they were cut.

 

[Gravy]

A citizen should not have to take up a collection and go thru the FOIA to see what was once public information.

Please tell us when this information was public, before being made private.

I'm very interested to hear your response.

 

[Gravy]

These beams were cut using heat from a acetylene torch or explosive device IMO.

You can claim that these plates broke off if you want but you cannot rule out the possibility that they were cut.

I can't? I already did, conclusively. Disagree? Go ahead, Chris: show the science that your opinion is based on.

Do you care at all about the crazy things you say? Do you even give a bit of a damn?

Then explain how your scenario is possible. Include all the photos of WTC 7's columns, and include your explanation of the splice plate/column separations. No more bullcrap. Do it. Now.

Don't forget to refer to the images in my paper: http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

Please tell us when this information was public, before being made private.

I'm very interested to hear your response.

News clips are by their nature, public.

You don't think it was wrong for the government to collect and withhold all these video clips and photographs from the public for 5 years.

You don't think it is wrong that we should now have to pay to see them.

I do

BTW The fees are for the search and duplication of the 'documents', not for royalties.

 

[Gravy]

News clips are by their nature, public.

Do explain, Chris.

Then explain why all the amateur photography that NIST used is also public.

I'm here. Explain.

 

[tonicblue]

News clips are by their nature, public.

You don't think it was wrong for the government to collect and withhold all these video clips and photographs from the public for 5 years.

You don't think it is wrong that we should now have to pay to see them.

I do

BTW The fees are for the search and duplication of the 'documents', not for royalties.

Is it also true that each person has to pay? I heard that once you obtain them you cannot disseminate or broadcast them in any way.

 

[Gravy]

Is it also true that each person has to pay? I heard that once you obtain them you cannot disseminate or broadcast them in any way.

Rather than saying "I heard," you should present the statements from the source. Do you agree that that's a good idea? For instance, exactly what are the copyright issues with the images in NIST's collection?

tonicblue, this is my third request. When you make a claim about a serious issue, will you try to include all available information?

 

[tonicblue]

Rather than saying "I heard," you should present the statements from the source. Do you agree that that's a good idea? For instance, exactly what are the copyright issues with the images in NIST's collection?

tonicblue, this is my third request. When you make a claim about a serious issue, will you try to include all available information?

I was asking a question. If you can answer it then please do.

 

[Christopher7]

I can't? I already did, conclusively. Disagree? Go ahead, Chris: show the science that your opinion is based on.

If you say "conclusively" that those steel 'splices' broke off, then you are in denial.

You are not an expert on metal, cutting charges, or other demolitions techniques.

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

Then explain how your scenario is possible. Include all the photos of WTC 7's columns, and include your explanation of the splice plate/column separations. No more bullcrap. Do it. Now.

On this thread i am presenting the evidence for explosives in WTC 7 and am defending the validity of that evidence.

You reject any evidence of CD and then say, "you have no evidence."

I think you are in denial and you think i'm out of my mind.
Ain't democracy interesting?

You want to get in to an endless speculation conversation.
No thank you.

I prefer to debate the evidence.

 

[Mobyseven]

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

Actually, the blue discolouration appears to have been caused by poor white balancing, or file compression, or both.

If you had a closer shot of the beams I could make a more accurate judgement, but thats the most likely cause of the 'blue discolouration' you're seeing.

 

[jaydeehess]

If you wish to base your denial on the lack of audio evidence you are safe,
but don't say there is NO evidence of explosions.

...Don't tell me again that it 'could have been something else' until you can be honest and say the other half;
it could have been explosions.

How did you miss my saying "However, the sound, at least that one sound, could be an explosion."?

CHF writes:

There could be hundreds of explosions in very rappid sucsession that could sound like a clap of thunder.

To say that it just can't be because of this or that is denial.

Much like your denial that there can be any other damage or that the damage seen could have affected interior columns?




More later............

 

[jaydeehess]

That should be 7 seconds, as if it mattered.
It ignores the penthouse because i am referring to the entire building.
The 'building' fell at near freefall, just like a professional building implosion.

7 seconds would be starting only when the penthouse was actually beginning to sink. This now ignores , as I stated earlier, any interior failures that occured out of sight of the cameras. It looks to my eye that the interior, core columns failed in a horizontal sequence that had the center of the building falling. That pulled the perimeter walls inward, the north side pivoting over the original Con-ed building except for the eastern portion that was beyond that original structure. The eastern portion seemed to then twist slightly and go NE. The south face falling inward but had already suffered damage that caused it to fall apart quickly. It may have prevented some southward movement of the north facade as that side came over the Co-ed structure and as the Con-ed structure buckled, the north face would now come straight down with it. Some southward momentum would cause the upper portions of the north face to continue past the line of the south face.

Point is that in timing the collapse one is being very disingenuous to start the timing at after the initial failure that only manifested itself when the east penthouse began moving. That is like saying it takes 3 hours to travel from here to Montreal because the flight takes that long. It would ignore the fact that it takes a 2 1/2 hour drive to get to a large airport from which to board a jet and that one must be at the airport 1 1/2 hours in advance of the flight time as well as other matters such as automobile storage at a park n' fly.

As for the manner of collapse it does fall almost within its own footprint. Significant damage is done to 30 West Broadway and other debris does impact the buildings to the east and west and WTC 6 to the south. This is a fairly compact area but is it direct evidence of a CD?
It is consistant with a professional building implosion.

Surrounding buildings were not a consideration.

Really???
If so then why bother designing a collapse that falls mostly within its own footprint at all? It would make more sense to have it topple south thus mingling its debris with that of WTC 6 and WTC 1.
You are aware that this statement is at exact opposite odds with many another CTist concerning WTC 7 in which it is said that WTC 7 was brought almost straight down in order to limit damage?

Quote:
So we have two bits of circumstantial evidence of CD. The loud bang and the manner of collapse.

two bits of circumstantial evidence.
Understate much?

Ok, two points that could be regarded as meaning several things including indicators of explosive use.

Quote:
These two bits of circumstantial evidence do have other explanations as well though and are therefore not conclusive.

Not conclusive, but it is enough to consider a professional building implosion as one possible explanation.

Barely, IMHO.

Quote:
Chris 7 however also states that in regard to the other hypothesis, DD/F, that there is no direct, empirical evidence of DD/F* to the area of the initial failure and this is the case for the CD hypothesis as well. There is no direct, empirical evidence of explosives being placed or going off in WTC 7 let alone them being placed or going off in the area of the initial failure.
*DD/DFF

The physical evidence was destroyed.

How convenient for your arguement. Just invoke a further conspiracy whenever you reach a deadend..

There is this empirical evidence

It looks very much like the columns snapped at their connections as Gravy has already pointed out. During construction in the WTC complex it was simply NOT POSSIBLE to use steel sections longer than 30 feet because it was not possible to drive them into the area. In the extreme conditions of the collapse the connections were subject to forces well beyond anything they were designed to take and they failed just as could be expected. In shear action a joint is always going to be weaker than the contiguous parts of the column.
That they snapped at the joints is evidence that the column suffered shearing forces NOT explosives. The discolorization does not resemble any explosive residue either IMHO.

 

[Gravy]

So, Chris, now you're contending that the conspirators tore out the walls and exterior panels of WTC 7 and blowtorched the splice plates on the exterior columns, then, presumably wired the building with explosives and put everything back together again, without anyone noticing.











Care to rethink that, buddy?

 

[Christopher7]

Do explain, Chris.

Then explain why all the amateur photography that NIST used is also public.

I'm here. Explain.

The amateuer photos were private. So what?
The news video clips were public.
There is NO legitimate reason to hide the evidence they contain for 5 years.
There was NO legitimate reason to destroy the physical evidence.
You are content with this destruction of evidence and withholding of evidence.
It spells 'cover up' to me.