LCFC - section on WTC 7

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

LCFC - section on WTC 7
Topic Started: Jan 31 2008, 10:08 PM (777 Views)
Diane	Jan 31 2008, 10:08 PM Post #1
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	On my blog, I've written a detailed, point-by-point review of the section of LCFC dealing with WTC 7. After my review, there's a comment posted by a "debunker" challenging what I say is the strongest evidence, namely the straight-down vertical, symmetical nature of the collapse. I would appreciate feedback on my response to that comment, as well as on issues raised in the review itself.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Stundie	Jan 31 2008, 10:35 PM Post #2
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Diane Jan 31 2008, 10:08 PM On my blog, I've written a detailed, point-by-point review of the section of LCFC dealing with WTC 7. After my review, there's a comment posted by a "debunker" challenging what I say is the strongest evidence, namely the straight-down vertical, symmetical nature of the collapse. I would appreciate feedback on my response to that comment, as well as on issues raised in the review itself. Hi Diane, The guy who is commenting is a JREF Member and who will no doubt try and thwart any attempts for you suggest that WTC 7 was or could be a controlled demolition. I'm a layman like you and I can see the tactics he is using here. westprog99 With respect to the unlikelihood of a symmetric collapse - it really is next to impossible for a layman to make an informed judgement as to how a particular building should collapse in given circumstances. Clearly WTC7 looked, superficially, extremely symmetrical as a collapse. However, only a detailed analysis by qualified engineers can determine whether such a collapse is in any way suspicious. He is appealing to authority here. By saying you are not qualified and a layman, he is suggesting that your opinion doesn't count. A layman is perfectly capable of making an informed judgement, it doesn't mean they are correct, but unless the engineering community can explain how a 47 storey building can collapse symmetrically without the use of explosives, then please ask him to explain it this for you and the engineering community. Bearing in mind that WTC 5 & 6 suffered much more damage than WTC 7 makes it much harder to believe that this building collapsed straight down and within it's own footprint. westprog99 Such an analysis is possible given the information available. It would be quite possible to retain suitably qualified engineers who would examine the structure of WTC7, the witness reports of the damage and fire, video of the collapse and pictures of the rubble post-collapse. If they then stated that the appearance of the collapse was suspicious, or could not be explained by the fire and damage, that would be evidence that some other factor might have been present. The problem is the official report on WTC 7 which was promised last year as suffered delay upon delay. Its been reported that NIST can't quite get a handle on how and why it collapsed. westprog99 Such an analysis should be thorough, of course. Mr Jowenko’s opinion might be that of an expert, but he would need to do more than view a single video. This is debunkers doing what they do best. Mr Jowenko didn't just look at a single video, he was given blueprints and was not aware of WTC 7 until it was shown to him. Since the video became public knowledge, he was phoned by an independent researcher and ask if his opinion on WTC 7 had changed. He said that he had looked further into the collapse and still concluded that it was brought down by a demo team. Miragememories as written about this interview, so please see his thread about the interview with Jowenko. I believe he also speaks dutch and seems to be very informed about wtc 7. I hope this helps you. Stundie
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 1 2008, 11:50 AM Post #3
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Well said Stundie Diane, choose your words carefully, don't let them drag you off point or into their circular logic. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one. The same is true with building implosions. They are VERY distinctive, unmistakable. Implosion is the key word. It means 'fell IN on itself'. As Jowenko said, you just blow the core columns and the outer walls cant hold the weight. Since the center is falling first, it pulls the outside walls inward. Implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance. FEMA 5-31 "Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded" As for your review, your points are well taken. 'Numerous cases' is arguable and should be left out unless it can be demonstrated. 'Disrupted Spying Operations' same thing. 'the CIA searched the rubble' "This speculation doesn’t prove anything." Agreed. * East face, floors 11 and 12 * North face, floors 7 and 12 [8 & 13, sometime after 3:00] * West face, floors [18 & 22] 29 and 30 [at SW corner] * South face: Smoke [screen] obscures the entire south face of the building. 'collapse of the main structure takes place in in approximately 6.5 seconds' I'd make that 7 seconds to include most of the interior [core]. "Most of WTC 7 fell straight down* in about 7 seconds and landed mostly in it's own footprint*. [anything else will get you into an endless debate about the definitions of 'building', 'free fall' and 'footprint'] This is consistent with a professional building implosion and nothing else. FEMA 5-31 "WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down" NIST L-33 "The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building." 'barely damaged surrounding structures' The Vorizon building was also heavily damaged. 'diesel tank' There were no diesel fuel fires [see my post on old forum] NIST has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility [after LCFC came out] 'no steel' FEMA said they found a beam that appears to be from 7. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf NIST says: Pg 5 [on pg counter] The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure Pg 27 No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7 Pg 28 The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests on actual material from the structure Pg 54 No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. Who is this eye-witness? Barry Jenkins. 9/11/01 Michael Hess: I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out on the building, another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6475257160515133665&q=wtc7+new+footage [start at 6:20. WARNING: audio very loud, turn down volume] 9/11/01 Barry Jenkins "Me and Mr. Hess ..... We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnF--czW0F8&mode=related&search= Removed by Youtube June 2007 Barry Jenkins: When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way. There was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging.[1] I had to climb back up and now I had to walk back up to the eighth floor. When I got to that lobby, the lobby was totally destroyed. It was so destroyed they had to take me out through a hole in the wall”[2] http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3 NISTNCSTAR1-8 [footnote 380 pg 109 [163 on pg counter] - from interviews, spring 2004] When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. [No mention of the landing giving way] [1] If he were “left there hanging”, that would have been the most traumatic part of the experience. He would not describe it as “Blew us back into the 8th floor.” [2] Dr. Michael Guttenberg, NYC Office of Medical Affairs The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were …… getting out. It was obstructed. Q. The door was blocked? A.Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. We found our way out one of the back doors of No. 7 and came outside. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF Firefighters don’t knock holes in walls if they don’t have to. “the glass on the ground floor was not even blown out.” The atrium glass [between promenade and pedestrian bridge] was reported to be intact but this video shows some of the glass on the ground floor was broken. http://loosechange911.com/download/wtc7_lobby.mov 'all 81 of these columns had to collapse simultaneously' Not so. Core columns 79, 80 and 81 [under east penthouse] failed first. About 6 seconds later the other 21 core columns failed and 1/2 second after that, the east north and west exterior walls started to fall. Edited by Chris Sarns**, Feb 2 2008, 02:48 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 2 2008, 04:18 AM Post #4
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Diane, I read the comments on your thread and found this on the "lost documents' issue. New York Law Journal, 9/17/2001 http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles Looks like most of the lost files could be recovered from backup files elsewhere. Finding specific cases that were dropped or lost will take some research.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Diane	Feb 2 2008, 07:50 PM Post #5
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Thanks very much to both of you for the info and feedback.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


illeagalhunter	Feb 7 2008, 03:52 PM Post #6
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08	I would love to see the Barry Jenkins vidro interview the Dylan & Bermas
Posts: 175 Group: Members Member #81 Joined: 01/16/08


brinks	Feb 15 2008, 11:04 PM Post #7
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	Chris Sarns Feb 1 2008, 11:50 AM NIST has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility [after LCFC came out] Where does NIST say or imply it has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility? Thanks
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 16 2008, 05:54 PM Post #8
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	brinks Feb 15 2008, 11:04 PM Chris Sarns Feb 1 2008, 11:50 AM NIST has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility [after LCFC came out] Where does NIST say or imply it has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility? Thanks Page 6 The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf Edited by Chris Sarns, Feb 16 2008, 05:54 PM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


brinks	Feb 16 2008, 08:42 PM Post #9
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08	Chris Sarns Feb 16 2008, 05:54 PM brinks Feb 15 2008, 11:04 PM Chris Sarns Feb 1 2008, 11:50 AM NIST has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility [after LCFC came out] Where does NIST say or imply it has dropped diesel fuel fire as a possibility? Thanks Page 6 The working hypothesis is based on an initial local failure caused by normal building fires, not fires from leaking pressurized fuel lines or fuel from day tanks. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary_18Dec07-Final.pdf Thanks
Posts: 14 Group: Members Member #319 Joined: 02/15/08


Diane	Feb 17 2008, 01:16 PM Post #10
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Way back in 2004, the NIST preliminary report on WTC 7 specifically noted an absence of diesel smells in and around the building. I discuss this, among other things, in my blog post WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 20 2008, 01:18 AM Post #11
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Diane Feb 17 2008, 01:16 PM Way back in 2004, the NIST preliminary report on WTC 7 specifically noted an absence of diesel smells in and around the building. I discuss this, among other things, in my blog post WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word. It's a moot point now but here is the info on diesel fuel fires in the AIE. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=19261
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 20 2008, 01:28 AM Post #12
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Fire progression in the east half of WTC 7. NIST L 22–26 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: fire on floor 22 on south side fire on floor 12 burned west to east across the south side [there were no other fires reported in the east half of the south side] 2:00 to 2:30 p.m.: fires on floors 11 and 12 at SE corner, progressing north http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7555/e40rv.jpg About 3:00 p.m., fires on floors 7 and 12 near the center of the north face The fire on floor 12 spread in both directions, eventually reaching the NE corner http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/346/11kp0.jpg http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/3849/copyofnorthfacekj6.png Sometime later, fires on floors 8 and 13 Fire on floor 8 eventually burned to NE corner and moved to east face http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/337/copyof3kt0.jpg Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle of the north face. The fire on floor 12 had burned out by this time [NIST did not publish this photo] Fire on floor 8 had already burned this area out. The south west corner had fires on nearly every floor. The smoke [screen] obscures the south face. These fires had nothing to do with the implosion that began at the other end of the building. http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6830/wtc7southwest4vc6.jpg Edited by Chris Sarns, Feb 20 2008, 01:41 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »