Some simple Tower 7 questions

[jaydeehess]

Ok, so what's your duck look like? Explosive demolition?

The ONLY way it could be such would be if the explosives were placed such as to cause a collapse in the same manner as was observed and by virtue of the computer sims the only way that can be shown to have caused that would be to take out the columns identified by them. So your 'theory' then boils down to explosives placed at the same area that NIST suggests is the initiation point of the collapse.

Forget 'squibs' at the 40th floor(or there abouts), they'd be irrelevent and useless.
So what is the evidence of explosives being used? There isn't any!

What is the evidence of damage in the area in question due to WTC 1 debris. There is ample witness testimony for damage in this area. What evidence is there of fires in this area. There is ample evidence of multiple fires throughout the building and no reason to suppose that there were none at the area damaged by WTC 1 debris.

Finally, where is the paper that does the analysis on the collapse and events leading up to the collapse that even comes close to matching the NIST preliminary report which can show a good case for explosive demolition? Please post it here I know others would be interested in seeing it.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Jesus. Does anyone else feel like their foot is nailed to the floor?

 

[JimBenArm]

Jesus. Does anyone else feel like their foot is nailed to the floor?

No. But Dinsdale nailed my head to the floor once.

 

[HeyLeroy]

:

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
,,,and the point is that a 10 story hole does not matter.

You are probably the only one here that thinks the 10 story hole doesnt matter. [on either side]

The 10 story hole is the the source of much of the debris damage in the graphic in the NIST report and in debates about WTC 7.
The evidence [such as it is and what there is of it] consists of 1 statement about a 10 stoty hole and 4 statements that are in conflict with that statement.
Therefore:

The "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was GOUGED OUT from floor 10 to the ground"

Is Incorrect. This hole did not exist and damage atributed to it did not happen.

debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the
atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

This statement is itself internally conflicted since there would be no way for all atrium glass, or even a large percentage of it, to be intact if 25% of the facade was destroyed from the 5th floor to the ground. Does this mean that there was no damage across one-fourth of the width of the south face? NO! It means that the eyewitness did see some atrium glass intact and given the other statements it is likely that it was more to the west of the south face than the east.

The 10 story hole doesnot matter in that no where does anyone state that the damage to the perimeter columns much less the floor pans of the first 10 floors in the south face were the cause of the collapse. It is damage to the interior columns in/next to the core of the building, that are identified as those which failed first, that is of greatest importance. Yet you continue to harp away at the minutiae of statements that are already described as bearing some conflict with each other.

Shall we examine the minutiae of your favorite statement

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited,

The FF's would not be using the elevators, they would be using the stairs.
The FF's were in the process of clearing the building, specifically floors 7 and 8 are mentioned.
The FF's saw a fire in a cubicle at the west end of the building "just before leaving" floor 7. This certainly suggests that they used the west stairs and thus the portion of the lobby they would see as they were leaving the building would be the west end. We know they cannot exit through the SW corner, it horribly damaged and we have a report from someone else on this forum who states that leaving via the south was difficult even before the collapse of either tower and we also know that Vesey Street was full of debris. Thus the best exit would have been those on the north side ofthe building, through the Con-ed building. It is therefore quite possible that the FF's reporting this are saying that they saw no heavy debris in the portion of the lobby that they could see well, or they went all the way through the lobby and exited through the east side of WTC 7 and they saw no heavy debris in the whole lobby. Why ignore the first possibilty except in order to obfuscate matters?

Further to this I have already laid out a senario in which all the statements can be true, where damage to 1/3 to 1/4 of the width of the south facade is confined to the perimeter columns with only one piece of heavy debris entering the core and down the elevator shaft with heavy debris other than this one piece ending up on Vesey Street. Some floors being more damaged than others giving the impression through the dust and smoke, that the entire length from 10,15 or 20 storys up is taken out for tens of feet into the building. (obviously another heavy piece takes out the SW corner as well)

You brush this aside claiming that your characterization is better. Explain why!

 

[jaydeehess]

C7 will you ever have a cogent answer to any questions posed to you?

To be succinct, try these. Do attempt answers that amount to more than , 'that's absurd' or 'because, just because!'.

1) Why is it required that the debris that damaged the facade and parts of some floors result in heavy debris in the lobby rather than in the street?

2) Where does NIST state that the "approximate extent of damage" means that this was indeed a gouge from ground to the 10th floor and from facade to core? Where does NIST require such damage for their collapse senario?

3) Can you dispute (with logic and evidence) the NIST computer sims and the results that show which structural elements failed to cause a collapse as observed?

4)Do you dispute (with logic and evidence) that FF's were greatly concerned that WTC 7 was going to collapse and that this concern was raised shortly after WTC 1 collapsed?

5)If you subscribe to an explosive demolition of WTC 7 then please give your evidence of such and address the what, where, and when of this.

5) Am I the 'new kid who doesnt know what the discussion is all about' ?


Ok , I threw that last one in for kicks and giggles.

 

[Christopher7]

This statement is itself internally conflicted since there would be no way for all atrium glass, or even a large percentage of it, to be intact if 25% of the facade was destroyed from the 5th floor to the ground.

If you add the word 'some' to the beginning of that sentence, it doesnt conflict with itself.
"some debris damage accros 1/4 width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that atrium glass was still intact."
However you interpret it, there is nothing ambiguous about "atrium glass....intact"

The 10 story hole doesnot matter in that no where does anyone state that the damage to the perimeter columns much less the floor pans of the first 10 floors in the south face were the cause of the collapse. It is damage to the interior columns in/next to the core of the building, that are identified as those which failed first, that is of greatest importance.

It matters because it is incorrect and it was used as the basis for the graphic on pg 23 and 31. [outer area = 1/3 the width of WTC 7, inner area = 1/4 of the width] The area(s) show the 'gouged out' portion of the south face.

The FF's would not be using the elevators, they would be using the stairs.
The FF's were in the process of clearing the building, specifically floors 7 and 8 are mentioned.
The FF's saw a fire in a cubicle at the west end of the building "just before leaving" floor 7. This certainly suggests that they used the west stairs and thus the portion of the lobby they would see as they were leaving the building would be the west end. We know they cannot exit through the SW corner, it horribly damaged and we have a report from someone else on this forum who states that leaving via the south was difficult even before the collapse of either tower and we also know that Vesey Street was full of debris. Thus the best exit would have been those on the north side ofthe building, through the Con-ed building. It is therefore quite possible that the FF's reporting this are saying that they saw no heavy debris in the portion of the lobby that they could see well, or they went all the way through the lobby and exited through the east side of WTC 7 and they saw no heavy debris in the whole lobby. Why ignore the first possibilty except in order to obfuscate matters?

The lobby was the whole front part of the 1st floor. The firemen reported "no heavy debris... in the lobby area" This means they looked at the lobby area.

Further to this I have already laid out a senario in which all the statements can be true,

You didnt take into account 'gouged out'. This means the whole wall was gone and then some. [as depicted in pg 23 & 31]

You cannot deny that the 10 story gouge is in conflict with Chief Fellini's statement. He was in charge of the operations post at the West and Vessy. Theres no way he would describe a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building' as "ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors".

There are 4 statements that conflict with the 1 statement about a 10 story hole.
A critical thinker would accept the preponderance of evidence and not try to explain away 4 statements in order to confirm 1.

 

[Christopher7]

C7 will you ever have a cogent answer to any questions posed to you?

To be succinct, try these. Do attempt answers that amount to more than , 'that's absurd' or 'because, just because!'.

1) Why is it required that the debris that damaged the facade and parts of some floors result in heavy debris in the lobby rather than in the street?

2) Where does NIST state that the "approximate extent of damage" means that this was indeed a gouge from ground to the 10th floor and from facade to core?
2.1)Where does NIST require such damage for their collapse senario?

3) Can you dispute (with logic and evidence) the NIST computer sims and the results that show which structural elements failed to cause a collapse as observed?

4)Do you dispute (with logic and evidence) that FF's were greatly concerned that WTC 7 was going to collapse and that this concern was raised shortly after WTC 1 collapsed?

5)If you subscribe to an explosive demolition of WTC 7 then please give your evidence of such and address the what, where, and when of this.

5.1) Am I the 'new kid who doesnt know what the discussion is all about' ?
Ok , I threw that last one in for kicks and giggles.

1) A 100' high by 60' to 80' wide gouge in the south face would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

2) The graphic on pg 23, 31 & 32. "Damage by large WTC1 debris"
Inner area 1/4 width, outer area 1/3 width. Shaded areas depict gouged out areas like the SW corner and the roof and upper level.

2.1) bottom of pg 50 and top of pg 51

3) No

4) They had just seen the Towers collapes and they had lost hundreds of friends. Their fear was well founded but it does not equal 'evidence'.

5) Dont change the subject

5.1) Youre doin real good [for a new kid]

 

[jaydeehess]

1) A 100' high by 60' to 80' wide gouge in the south face would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

So you are answering "because, just because".

2) The graphic on pg 23, 31 & 32. "Damage by large WTC1 debris"
Inner area 1/4 width, outer area 1/3 width. Shaded areas depict gouged out areas like the SW corner and the roof and upper level.

Yes but you simply fail to realize that NIST is saying that this is the extent of damage that was reported and not that they are saying it WAS this big.

3) No

I thought not

4) They had just seen the Towers collapes and they had lost hundreds of friends. Their fear was well founded but it does not equal 'evidence'.

NO, actually they all determined this by actually looking at the tower and hearing the sounds it was making. If all of their fear was strictly founded on the basis of the collapses of the towers and their dead friends then they would have felt the same about several buildings in the area not the least of which would be Banker's Trust".

5) Dont change the subject

Hahahahaha, oh, you kill me sometimes.
OK how about "do you or do you not subscribe to the hypothesis of a controlled demolition using explosives, for the collapse of WTC 7?

5.1) Youre doin real good [for a new kid]

I'm only 'new' at JREF. You assume that this conversation does not go on at many other forums where the preponderance of persons do not belong to the 'truth movement'.

 

[jaydeehess]

2.1) bottom of pg 50 and top of pg 51

Which states: (bolds and underlines mine)

1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9

Hardly seems like a ringing endorsement of your characterization of NIST claiming that this was all "gouged out" , now does it!

So I ask again(since you have yet to answer this)
2) Where does NIST state that the "approximate extent of damage" means that this was indeed a gouge from ground to the 10th floor and from facade to core?
2.1)Where does NIST require such damage for their collapse senario?

Try again Mr. S.

 

[jaydeehess]

If you add the word 'some' to the beginning of that sentence, it doesnt conflict with itself.
"some debris damage accros 1/4 width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that atrium glass was still intact."
However you interpret it, there is nothing ambiguous about "atrium glass....intact"

<<snip>>

The lobby was the whole front part of the 1st floor. The firemen reported "no heavy debris... in the lobby area" This means they looked at the lobby area.

If adding the word "some" is Ok by you, and indeed what I have been saying all along is that the statement refers most likely to the western portion of the atrium, then add it into the other statement too,
ie. "some of the lobby area"
I have already shown that the statement by the FF's shows that they were are the FF's were at the west end of the building.

 

[jaydeehess]

Youre doin real good [for a new kid]

Thanks, at least you read the NIST report it seems. That is a step above many in your camp.

 

[Christopher7]

So you are answering "because, just because".

I believe the 10 story hole would leave heavy debris in the lobby.
You think otherwise. So be it.
You still havent challenged Chief Fellini's statement [see next post]

Yes but you simply fail to realize that NIST is saying that this is the extent of damage that was reported and not that they are saying it WAS this big.

My point is: The following statement and refrences to it, are incorrect.

"middle one fourth to one third of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
[NIST Appendex L pg 18]

This graphic and 1st item in the Summary are refering to that statement.

Approximate Reigon of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris [pg 31 & 32]

Inner area 1/4 width of WTC 7, Outer area 1/3.

Summary pg 50
1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimiter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimiter columns.........The extent of damage.......of core framing is not known,"

They didnt know how deep the gouge was but they are referring to the statement on pg 18.

Your doin real good [for a new kid]

That was a joke. No offence intended.

 

[Christopher7]

You cannot deny that the 10 story gouge is in conflict with Chief Fellini's statement. He was in charge of the operations post at the West and Vessy. Theres no way he would describe a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building' as "ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors".

There are 4 statements that conflict with the 1 statement about a 10 story hole.
A critical thinker would accept the preponderance of evidence and not try to explain away 4 statements in order to confirm 1.

 

[Arus808]

No, a critical thinker would take all statements and find the common factor in all of them and use that to support whatever position they are taking.

Its the same with eyewitnesses who describe a criminal 10 different ways. Yet the one thing among those eyewitnesses statements that is "common" in their descriptions is what helps the police capture the right guy.

Many of what you're claiming as "concrete" are utterances by people who are in the "thick" of the moment or they are remembering "after the fact" to which their memories have been heavily influenced by the media, or even by other people.

 

[Gravy]

Chris, since the NIST WTC 7 report was produced in 2004 and may be altered significantly, why not address the final version?

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, since the NIST WTC 7 report was produced in 2004 and may be altered significantly, why not address the final version?

I will address the final version when it comes out.

Will you address the error in this report?

Please read post 728 which states the evidence.

The only 'evidence' of a 10 story hole is 1 statement on pg 18.
I have sited 4 statements that contradict that statement.
All must be given equal weight.

 

[Christopher7]

No, a critical thinker would take all statements and find the common factor in all of them and use that to support whatever position they are taking.

Its the same with eyewitnesses who describe a criminal 10 different ways. Yet the one thing among those eyewitnesses statements that is "common" in their descriptions is what helps the police capture the right guy.

Many of what you're claiming as "concrete" are utterances by people who are in the "thick" of the moment or they are remembering "after the fact" to which their memories have been heavily influenced by the media, or even by other people.

You are comparing people identifying a face to firefighters describing damage to a building.
Are you saying that Chief Fellini didnt rember seeing a 10 story hole or that his description of the damage between the 3rd and the 6th floors was 'influenced' by the media?

 

[jaydeehess]

My point is: The following statement and refrences to it, are incorrect.

"middle one fourth to one third of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground"
[NIST Appendex L pg 18]

I have already pointed out the disclaimer that NIST precedes that with
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

Just exactly what part of the fact that they are stating that these statements bear some conflict with each other do you not comprehend???

ALL of the statements DO refer to damage to the center of the face of WTC 7 and SOME refer to damage that went beyond the face.

This graphic and 1st item in the Summary are refering to that statement.

Approximate Reigon of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris [pg 31 & 32]
[qimg]http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/3375/11qd1.jpg[/qimg]
Inner area 1/4 width of WTC 7, Outer area 1/3.

What's wrong with it besides your distorted characterization of it? It shows the approximate location and extent of damage reported to have been done to WTC 7. It does not state that for a fact this damage had occured nor does it state that it was this deep on all floors.

Summary pg 50
1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimiter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimiter columns.........The extent of damage.......of core framing is not known,"

They didnt know how deep the gouge was but they are referring to the statement on pg 18.

More biased quote mining form you C7

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:
1. Debris damaged the south face of the perimeter moment frame and some interior core framing on the south side. The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimeter columns. The damaged floors are less certain, but reports indicate they occurred between the ground and up to Floors 15 or 20. The extent of damage, both structural and to fireproofing, of core framing is not known, but damage to elevator cars and shafts was reported to have occurred around columns 69 to 78 at Floors 8 or 9.

 

[jaydeehess]

I will address the final version when it comes out.

Will you address the error in this report?

Please read post 728 which states the evidence.

The only 'evidence' of a 10 story hole is 1 statement on pg 18.
I have sited 4 statements that contradict that statement.
All must be given equal weight.

Where does this 10 story hole become integral to the NIST determination of a possible collapse sequence? It isn't! This report is simply one of many that describe damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7. Had they left the statement out completely it would have made no difference to the report other than to have one less eyewitness statement that refered to damage on the south face. That the extent of the damage reported in THIS ONE statement does not absolutly match that described by the others is a minute detail that you hold onto and you still refuse it seems, to even state why you harp away on it.