Some simple Tower 7 questions

[Christopher7]

A single steel beam or a beam section could have knocked the elevators into the hallway, but whatever it was, it did not damage the 9th floor facade or leave heavy debris in the lobby.

,,,,,,,and in damaging the elevator it certainly could have also taken out some of the building's structural components OR another large piece could have done it. Obviously large pieces did reach WTC 7, you admit as much when you admit that the elevator was damaged.

We dont know that a beam dislodged the evevators although we agree that that is the most likely explination.

The SW corner damage indicates how much damage can be done by such falling mass. Why is it so very difficult for you to believe that other structural damage was done to the building that was not seen by the few people who were in the building following the collapse of the towers? Almost all of the tenents left the building after the fall of the south tower. Not long after the fall of the north tower(at which time the bulk of FF's left were trying to find their buddies in the rubble) the few FF's that did go into WTC 7 were told to get out and no one went in after that.

The firefighters who did go into WTC 7 reported "...no heavy debris in lobby area" and " only damage to the 9th floor facade was to the SW corner"
Chief Fellini was in charge of the opperations post at West and Vessy [NY Times Oral Hist. pg 3] He said "....ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors accross the facade on Vessy Street." [he didnt say how wide or deep]
Why do you all keep trying to talk arround the fact that these 3 statements make it clear that "the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from the 10th floor to the ground" is incorrect ?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

We dont know that a beam dislodged the evevators although we agree that that is the most likely explination.

The firefighters who did go into WTC 7 reported "...no heavy debris in lobby area" and " only damage to the 9th floor facade was to the SW corner"
Chief Fellini was in charge of the opperations post at West and Vessy [NY Times Oral Hist. pg 3] He said "....ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors accross the facade on Vessy Street." [he didnt say how wide or deep]
Why do you all keep trying to talk arround the fact that these 3 statements make it clear that "the middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from the 10th floor to the ground" is incorrect ?

rathern than mince words on a forum over what these people said or what they meant have you ever considered contacting them and asking them what the building looked like?

 

[Christopher7]

Given the unreliability of eyewitness statements, I would say we could safely ignore any statement that is in conflict with the evidence.

Do you think that the eyewitness statements of fierfighters is unreliable ?
Do you know of any evidence to the contrary ?

 

[Christopher7]

I am willing to accept the possibility that Boyle was refering to the SW corner damage though by the same measure C7 should be as willing to assume that the others were incorrect and Boyle was refering to the central portion of the south face(in which case only the extent of the damage varies between accounts that C7 acknowledges was transcribed well after 9/11).

No. I am hesitant to accept the eyewitness testimony of 1 person as fact but when there are 3 statements that mutually negate the possibility of a 10 story hole, absent evidence to the contrary, i believe them.

 

[Christopher7]

rathern than mince words on a forum over what these people said or what they meant have you ever considered contacting them and asking them what the building looked like?

No i havent. Have you? did NIST?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No i havent. Have you? did NIST?

your the one who made the claim their statements are being misinterpreted, the least you could do is try to support that claim

 

[Christopher7]

your the one who made the claim their statements are being misinterpreted, the least you could do is try to support that claim

Only one statement was misinterpreted. I support that 'claim' with the other 3 statements.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Only one statement was misinterpreted. I support that 'claim' with the other 3 statements.

your conclusion that the statements are mutually exclusive seem to be based on a lack of debris in the lobby

was the lobby on the north or south side of the building?

you also keep saying boyles statement was misinterpreted, he said "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building" i really dont see how anyone could possibly misinterpret that so what you are actually saying is that boyle is wrong

 

[Christopher7]

your conclusion that the statements are mutually exclusive seem to be based on a lack of debris in the lobby

and damage between 3rd and 6th floors and only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner

was the lobby on the north or south side of the building?

South. see apendex L pg 8 [12 on the page counter]

you also keep saying boyles statement was misinterpreted, he said "there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building" i really dont see how anyone could possibly misinterpret that so what you are actually saying is that boyle is wrong

"In the middle of it" was misinterpreted

We have two choices here:
Either Captain Boyle's statement was misinterpreted
or
Chief Fellini cant tell the difference between a 4 story hole in a building and a 10 story one,
and
The firefighters leaving the building thru the lobby [that would have been destroyed in the 10 story hole claim] didnt notice the debris pile that would have resulted in the 10 story hole claim.
and
The firefighter checking the 9th floor was wrong.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

and damage between 3rd and 6th floors and only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner

boyle reported damage in the middle of the south side, i fail to see how these are contradictory

The firefighters leaving the building thru the lobby [that would have been destroyed in the 10 story hole claim] didnt notice the debris pile that would have resulted in the 10 story hole claim.

so then the lobby was on the south side? or are you just assuming?

 

[Christopher7]

..damage between 3rd and 6th floors and only damage to 9th floor at SW corner

boyle reported damage in the middle of the south side, i fail to see how these are contradictory

A 10 [or 20] story hole from the ground floor up cannot co-exist with a 4 story hole between floors 3 & 6 unless Chief Fellini has some weird kind of tunnel vision.
Inherent in the statement "only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner":
There was no damage to the middle of south facade

so then the lobby was on the south side? or are you just assuming?

South
NIST report Apendex L pg 8
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendexl.pdf

 

[CurtC]

It is also well known that the equipment in the penthouse was heavy machinery and therefore as it ran down through the building it would exacerbate the damage proximate to the already compromised column all the way down to that transfer truss system over the Con-ed building.

That's possible, but I don't see any way to know that the equipment sank in any farther than the top floor or two.

The other explanation is that the equipment in the penthouse falling is indicative of the building's internal structure starting to give way. Whatever failures caused the equipment in the West penthouse to collapse, put additional stress on the rest of the structure, which therefore was only able to last a few seconds after that additional load.

 

[jaydeehess]

That's possible, but I don't see any way to know that the equipment sank in any farther than the top floor or two.

The other explanation is that the equipment in the penthouse falling is indicative of the building's internal structure starting to give way. Whatever failures caused the equipment in the West penthouse to collapse, put additional stress on the rest of the structure, which therefore was only able to last a few seconds after that additional load.

I'd buy that. The 46th floor was reinforced to take extra load from the equipment cooling towers. When the penthouse sinks if it makes it only to the 46th floor and stops then OK it did not contrinute to the destruction of the proximate columns. At the very least any compromise of those columns would have the cooling tower's floor tilting towards the center of the bldg and eastward.

That the screenwall and west penthouse do not start to move until 7 seconds after the east penthouse begins it s movement does suggest that the cooling towers did not fall when the east penthouse did. That means that either the damage caused by the east penthouse falling did not include severely damaging the columns under the cooling towers but that it was as you suggest a pulling in of those columns due to the loss of the initial failed column(s).

 

[jaydeehess]

..damage between 3rd and 6th floors and only damage to 9th floor at SW corner


A 10 [or 20] story hole from the ground floor up cannot co-exist with a 4 story hole between floors 3 & 6 unless Chief Fellini has some weird kind of tunnel vision.
Inherent in the statement "only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner":
There was no damage to the middle of south facade

If the air was clear. It was not. If the day was a walk in the park. It was not. Two reasons for 'tunnel'vision'. You say it took a while for the fires to get going. Yes but there was smoke from the rubble of the towers, from the burning vehicles, from other blgs nearby and there was the dust in the air. When eavh tower fell the lobby of #7 filled with it putting it into complete darkness. That dust hung in the air. Maybe Fellini could not see the entire face of the bldg, maybe he could. Did Boyle see a 20 story gash to the ground?

Why does it matter? It is not required for there to be damage to the columns. If large debris did not eject the elevator cars then what did? those elevators are very near the columns in question(the ones that run to the east penthouse) and the truss system at about the 6th floor level.

You have not commented on wheter or not you agree with the NIST computer sims of what would happen with various column losses and that there are a couple of these that match very well to observed events.

You have not commented on any evidence of explosive use.

All you wish to do so far is to pick at eyewitness statements.

What else you got?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Case closed bitch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

 

[Oliver]

Case closed bitch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

Thank you for the link - i never saw this footage about the burning WTC 7.

Imbedded video:

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I apologize for the crude way I introduced this important piece of video 'evidence' into this thread, but I'm just getting rather irritated that the CT's just think NIST threw together some 10th grade thesis about what happened on 9/11.

NIST had access to documents, witnesses, photographs, interviews, etc that we as Internet forum lurkers (Gravy and a few others excepted) may not come across for years. They had PLENTY of evidence to back up their conclusions. Why don't these CT's get that? This video is just a small piece of information we're missing on the events which occurred on 9/11. However, it is quite the comical 'slap-in-the-face', which is why I parodied the term 'bitch' when I presented it here.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you think that the eyewitness statements of fierfighters is unreliable ?
Do you know of any evidence to the contrary ?

Eyewitness testimony IN GENERAL is unreliable.

As for the evidence...do you deny that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and was on fire? These two are KNOWN ENTITIES that can be used to explain the collapse. Any type of explosives, thermite, or other mechanism besides accidental damage is an UNKNOWN entity, and therefore cannot be reasonably posited as an explanation, especially since we already have everything we need to explain the collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

Eyewitness testimony IN GENERAL is unreliable.

As for the evidence...do you deny that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and was on fire? These two are KNOWN ENTITIES that can be used to explain the collapse. Any type of explosives, thermite, or other mechanism besides accidental damage is an UNKNOWN entity, and therefore cannot be reasonably posited as an explanation, especially since we already have everything we need to explain the collapse.

If large debris did not eject the elevator cars then what did? those elevators are very near the columns in question(the ones that run to the east penthouse) and the truss system at about the 6th floor level.

You have not commented on whether or not you agree with the NIST computer sims of what would happen with various column losses and that there are a couple of these senarios that match very well to observed events.

You have not commented on any evidence of explosive use.

All you wish to do so far is to pick at eyewitness statements.

What else you got?

C7 must be compiling a lengthy response.

 

[Christopher7]

Eyewitness testimony IN GENERAL is unreliable

The 10 story hole is bassed on eyewitness testimony. You cant have it both ways. If you consider Chief Fellini and the other firefighters statements to be unreliable, then you must also consider Boyle's statement unreliable.

Either way, The 10 story hole does not exist.

That is the only point im trying to make here.

C7 must be compiling a lengthy response.

Lets not cloud the issue by debating several things at once.
Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the 10 story hole is bassed on an eyewitness statement and there are 3 eyewitness statements, includung the Chief in charge of opperations at WTC 7, that clearly show the 10 story hole claim is not true.