Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[DGM]

No Chris, Pgimeno is not exactly the most reliable source. People reported seeing things burning in the street around 7 and a lot of smoke from burning cars and other buildings, but there was no proof ff fires inside 7 right after the fall of the Tower as explained in chapter 5.

You have for example taken his out of context quotation as proof for 1) that debris from the Tower set fire in 7 and that 2) fire was observed on floor 10..

when NISTs report actually says the exact opposite:

1)



2)

So you dispute the testimony of fire fighters and employees? Good, we have a starting point. Have at it "researcher".

 

[Ziggi]

So you dispute the testimony of fire fighters and employees? Good, we have a starting point. Have at it "researcher".

You really can´t tell the difference between the person citing a quote (me) and the institution being quoted (NIST). That explains a lot. Bye.

 

[jaydeehess]

y

No Chris, Pgimeno is not exactly the most reliable source. You have for example taken Ps out of context quotation as proof for 1) that debris from the Tower set fire in 7 and that 2) fire was observed on floor 10..

when NISTs report actually says the exact opposite:

1)
Since fires were observed on the ground surrounding WTC 7, it is possible that potential ignition sources entered WTC 7 through openings created in the south and west faces of the building during the collapses of the towers. NIST found no evidence to confirm this possibility, but the available data suggests that this was highly likely. - NCSTAR page 194

Really? How is that the exact opposite?

NIST agrees that it is highly likely that ignition sources entered WTC7 through openings in the south and west faces.

Regarding the " no evidence". Why not use the last sentence on page 244 as a reference for what that means in the context of the report.

 

[DGM]

You really can´t tell the difference between the person citing a quote (me) and the institution being quoted (NIST). That explains a lot. Bye.

Can you separate model from reality? Tony can't.

Did the fire fighters/employees lie?


Are you winning?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Can you separate model from reality? Tony can't.

Did the fire fighters/employees lie?


Are you winning?

NIST apparently couldn't accept what you want to from people who allegedly said WTC 7 had fires in it before 12:15 PM. How come?

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST apparently couldn't accept what you want to from people who allegedly said WTC 7 had fires in it before 12:15 PM. How come?

No, NIST said it could not corroborate the statements with images from that time period.

This is fantastic though. I thought eyewitness statements were tantamount to gospel in truther circles.
"Heard explosions"= demolition charges
" Saw molten steel"= molten steel
So why is it that "saw huge gash" or "saw fire" does not equal huge gash and fire? I would have thought there'd be a lot less ambiguity for gash and fire, than for explosion and molten steel.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, the trolls are working overtime to divert attention from Chris and his over-g trouble. Don´t feed them. Let´s see if Chris resurfaces.

Ziggi, Chris Mohr's attempt to use the claim for >g acceleration to somehow support a natural collapse position for WTC 7 has been shown to be flawed in more ways than one.

I explained that the symmetric fall of the building could only be accomplished by all 24 core columns coming down at once and it doesn't matter if it generated free fall or >g acceleration of the exterior. All 24 core columns coming down simultaneously can't be caused by a progressive collapse from east to west and Chris' sequential exterior column failure doesn't work for the symmetrical collapse of the exterior either due to ductile material.

I think the door has been closed on Chris' attempt to be seen as reasonable and still be able to support the NIST narrative for WTC 7. Of course, the only others here who support it have been ridiculous for years. I wonder if he will join them, or give up the fight as he should, because he was supporting something that was not true.

 

[JSanderO]

Weren't explosions reported in 7wtc right when or right after the plan hit 1wtc? Wasn't the building evacuated for that reason and was pretty much empty of workers by the time Jennings and Hess got there and found no one in the EMC? Doesn't the empty EMC so early in the AM mean something was not right with 7wtc?

There were 13 or so 13.8kv feeders lines down at the moment of the plan hitting 1wtc... and this suggests that there may have been shorts, explosions or other "electrical" events which could arc or short and start fires.

 

[DGM]

NIST apparently couldn't accept what you want to from people who allegedly said WTC 7 had fires in it before 12:15 PM. How come?

Where did they say this? Do you need me to translate English for you? Do you need me to direct you to the appropriate page(not that it hasn't already been done)?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, NIST said it could not corroborate the statements with images from that time period.

This is fantastic though. I thought eyewitness statements were tantamount to gospel in truther circles.
"Heard explosions"= demolition charges
" Saw molten steel"= molten steel
So why is it that "saw huge gash" or "saw fire" does not equal huge gash and fire? I would have thought there'd be a lot less ambiguity for gash and fire, than for explosion and molten steel.

As I have explained in detail on this thread, the chances of the North Tower causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 that weren't observed for nearly two hours after the North Tower fell are essentially non-existent. It is obvious that you are not impartial and just trying to keep the door for criminality closed.

 

[JSanderO]

Ziggi, Chris Mohr's attempt to use the claim for >g acceleration to somehow support a natural collapse position for WTC 7 has been shown to be flawed in more ways than one.

I explained that the symmetric fall of the building could only be accomplished by all 24 core columns coming down at once and it doesn't matter if it generated free fall or >g acceleration of the exterior. All 24 core columns coming down simultaneously can't be caused by a progressive collapse from east to west and Chris' sequential exterior column failure doesn't work for the symmetrical collapse of the exterior either due to ductile material.

I think the door has been closed on Chris' attempt to be seen as reasonable and still be able to support the NIST narrative for WTC 7. Of course, the only others here who support it have been ridiculous for years. I wonder if he will join them or give up the fight as he should because he was supporting something that was not true.

The building started coming down well before the facade's movement at for the first 100 foot of drop at around FF.

What you see coming down is the not "the building" but the curtain wall attacked to the perimeter moment frame. The inside was already collapsed. And with it the lower braced frames on the east and west collapsed.. and of course the north face was at the end of cantilevers with no columns directly below it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Weren't explosions reported in 7wtc right when or right after the plan hit 1wtc? Wasn't the building evacuated for that reason and was pretty much empty of workers by the time Jennings and Hess got there and found no one in the EMC? Doesn't the empty EMC so early in the AM mean something was not right with 7wtc?

There were 13 or so 13.8kv feeders lines down at the moment of the plan hitting 1wtc... and this suggests that there may have been shorts, explosions or other "electrical" events which could arc or short and start fires.

The power in WTC 7 was working up until it was shut off right after the South Tower fell. That is provable, and it puts any transformer explosions due to shorts notion out of the question.

 

[DGM]

Weren't explosions reported in 7wtc right when or right after the plane hit 1wtc?

Yes. Also smoke and fire (specifically a red glow in a generator room along with smoke and a fuel smell).

Lying, right Tony?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The building started coming down well before the facade's movement at for the first 100 foot of drop at around FF.

What you see coming down is the not "the building" but the curtain wall attacked to the perimeter moment frame. The inside was already collapsed. And with it the lower braced frames on the east and west collapsed.. and of course the north face was at the end of cantilevers with no columns directly below it.

Most rational people believe the interior collapse of WTC 7 brought down the exterior with it and the problem the NIST report has is its east to west progressive interior collapse doesn't make sense with a symmetric exterior collapse.

You need to explain how you think the interior of WTC 7 could collapse without affecting the exterior. Otherwise what you are saying here has no basis.

 

[DGM]

The power in WTC 7 was working up until it was shut off right after the South Tower fell. That is provable, and it puts any transformer explosions due to shorts notion out of the question.

You do know you just debunked what "truthers" claim to be Barry Jennings time line......

Can I quote you on this?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Most rational people believe the interior collapse of WTC 7 brought down the exterior with it and the problem the NIST report has is its east to west progressive interior collapse doesn't make sense with a symmetric exterior collapse.

You need to explain how you think the interior of WTC 7 could collapse without affecting the exterior. Otherwise what you are saying here has no basis.

The outer wall being a free standing box frame which was not attached to the interior steel frame.

 

[LSSBB]

Ziggi, Chris Mohr's attempt to use the claim for >g acceleration to somehow support a natural collapse position for WTC 7 has been shown to be flawed in more ways than one.

I explained that the symmetric fall of the building could only be accomplished by all 24 core columns coming down at once and it doesn't matter if it generated free fall or >g acceleration of the exterior. All 24 core columns coming down simultaneously can't be caused by a progressive collapse from east to west and Chris' sequential exterior column failure doesn't work for the symmetrical collapse of the exterior either due to ductile material.

I think the door has been closed on Chris' attempt to be seen as reasonable and still be able to support the NIST narrative for WTC 7. Of course, the only others here who support it have been ridiculous for years. I wonder if he will join them, or give up the fight as he should, because he was supporting something that was not true.

You didn't show anything, Tony. You just "said" something. Your word is not gospel (here at least, except among your fan club). I for one will not bow down to it.

 

[JSanderO]

Most rational people believe the interior collapse of WTC 7 brought down the exterior with it and the problem the NIST report has is its east to west progressive interior collapse doesn't make sense with a symmetric exterior collapse.

You need to explain how you think the interior of WTC 7 could collapse without affecting the exterior. Otherwise what you are saying here has no basis.

The interior collapse quickly led to the curtain wall and moment frame collapse... The interior failure rapidly progressed from east to west... there were only a few dozen columns and the collapse likely separated much of the floor system from the core which added more load to the perimeter moment frame... the floors core side dropped and probably provided impulse to the exterior.

It's absurd to assert that all 81 columns over 8 floors were "disappeared" structurally in an instant... and then the 8 story drop ensued. With nano thermite? Which 8 floors?

 

[000063]

It isn't just a lack of photographic evidence for fires in WTC 7 for nearly two hours after the North Tower collapsed. There were a number of helicopters in the air during that time and none of them reported fires in the building before 12:15 PM. In case you don't know the North Tower went down at 10:28 AM.

Appeal to Ignorance. Again.

You do need everything spelled out here and have nerve even arguing about it. Did you ever hear the saying "its better to keep your mouth shut and let people just think you might be ignorant in a specific discussion where you aren't familiar enough, rather than opening it and removing all doubt"?

I've heard something very similar, and wonder how the proverb-writer expected people to learn if they didn't ask questions.

Why do you keep repeating that the fires in WTC 7 were un-noticed for 2 hours? Are you now disputing the testimony of several fire fighters and building employees?

The first report was made before the collapse of the south tower (actually at the time of impact of the second plane).

Well, it's not like he keeps harping on helicopters, specifically, not noticing.

Oh, wait.

The arsonists and the explosive demolition teams were both working in 7?

I asked Tony this earlier. He didn't answer, IIRC. Weird. Then again Truthers always tend to be a bit shaky on logistics.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Tony by saying he only gets his information from the Journal of 9/11 Studies. He's perfectly capable of making up his own information.

Dave

As I have explained in detail on this thread, the chances of the North Tower causing fires on ten floors in WTC 7 that weren't observed for nearly two hours after the North Tower fell are essentially non-existent. It is obvious that you are not impartial and just trying to keep the door for criminality closed.

And as others, myself included, have pointed out, your claims about likelihood are based on nothing more than your own incredulity.

Also, several people have pointed out that reports were made well before two hours. You've simply moved the goalposts to certain types of reports, and ignored the existence of others, as you are doing right now.

The power in WTC 7 was working up until it was shut off right after the South Tower fell. That is provable, and it puts any transformer explosions due to shorts notion out of the question.

Assuming that's true, since you didn't bother to provide a source; people have bought up independent sources of power, such as generators.

Most rational people believe the interior collapse of WTC 7 brought down the exterior with it and the problem the NIST report has is its east to west progressive interior collapse doesn't make sense with a symmetric exterior collapse.
...

Most rational people don't give two craps about WTC 7, because they don't know it even exists.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The interior collapse quickly led to the curtain wall and moment frame collapse... The interior failure rapidly progressed from east to west... there were only a few dozen columns and the collapse likely separated much of the floor system from the core which added more load to the perimeter moment frame... the floors core side dropped and probably provided impulse to the exterior.

It's absurd to assert that all 81 columns over 8 floors were "disappeared" structurally in an instant... and then the 8 story drop ensued. With nano thermite? Which 8 floors?

Where did I say 81 columns over 8 floors were disappeared in an instant? Actually it is 82 columns between the core and exterior in WTC 7 (24 in the core and 58 on the exterior), but we can forgive you for not knowing that detail.

I have been saying for quite some time that only the interior would need to be pulled to effect a collapse and if all 24 core columns were pulled over a number of stories nearly simultaneously they would pull the exterior inward on all sides of the building and due to high slenderness and eccentricity would cause the exterior to present essentially no resistance and it would come down in free fall or possibly even a little >g due to a whip action.

Your notions on how it could have occurred are not coherent. An asymmetric east to west progressive interior collapse cannot cause a symmetric exterior collapse.

If you had been reading this thread I explained which eight floors could have had charges. They could have been ones without fires above the 13th floor.