• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
mortimer said:
Your reading comprehension skills are pathetic. Did you actually read the little blurb that proceeded that claim?

"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts aremostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:"

In other words, NIST isn't claiming this at all. They are recounting an individual's account of what was seen.
Click to expand...
Yes, i read it

The question here is: do you believe "1/4 to 1/3 width of south face was gouged out floor 10 to the ground"
 
Last edited:
Is there a "moron" smiley around the joint? I can't find one but, not to be disrespectful, it sure would save a lot of keystrokes in threads like this one.
 
mortimer said:
I have no idea. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?
 
Christopher7 said:
I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?
Click to expand...

See number 41

or just go back to the prior thread on the same topic where you skated away from it more than once.

or, if you're too lazy for that, here it is again:

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.
Click to expand...
 
LashL:

I answered that on the other thread.

ETA correction, that post didn't post [just as well]



This thread is about what you believe, not why you believe it
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?
Click to expand...

NIST clearly stated that the damage to the south side was described by individuals, and that those individuals had some inconsistencies in their accounts. How could that possibly be leading people to believe that it was a statement of fact? What you should be taking away from that whole section is that there was definitely some significant damage to the south face that was not visible from afar due to the smoke.

From NIST Appdx L-18:

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− 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
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west
 
mortimer said:
NIST clearly stated that the damage to the south side was described by individuals, and that those individuals had some inconsistencies in their accounts. How could that possibly be leading people to believe that it was a statement of fact? What you should be taking away from that whole section is that there was definitely some significant damage to the south face that was not visible from afar due to the smoke.
Click to expand...

So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?
 
Christopher7 said:
So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?
Click to expand...

I think there was most likely a hole there that could be described as such. Of course it could have been narrower or wider or could have been taller or shorter. It could have run from floor 10 down to 2 with a debris pile obscuring the ground floor making it appear to the observer that the ground floor was damaged.
 
Christopher7 said:
So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?
Click to expand...
Take a look at page L-20, Figure L-22a.

That shows a big honkin hole in the building.

I count it as being 10 stories high, and (maximum visible) 4 windows wide. The visible face of the building is 14 windows. I think that would count as being "10 stories high and 1/4 to 1/3 the depth of the building."

It is also quite clear that the line christopher is so fond of is a quote from a witness.

I don't know what Christopher is on about, but there's a nice, clear photo that shows a big effin hole in the building.

If Christopher doesn't think that's grounds enough for a building to collapse, then he can just go set his own house on fire, and chop a big freaking hole in it and see how long it takes to fall on his head.


Next doofus to the chopping block, please.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong: should be no 10 story hole*
Click to expand...

So your brilliant counter to the NIST report and all of its arguments, diagrams, and photographs along with eyewitness reports is essentially "no there isn't, I said so"?

You're going to have to do better than that if you want to actually convince anyone here.

Why, if you're saying there was no hole, is there a large gash in the building in at least one of the pictures of it?
 
Christopher7 said:
So, you don't think there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground ?
Is that correct ?
Click to expand...

I've already answered this question. So you think NIST claims that there was a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width, floor 10 to the ground?
 
Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts aremostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions
Click to expand...

What wasn't conflicting was that there was severe damage suffered by WTC 7 after the collapse.
 
Last edited:
I love how he is asking for 'absolute" answers when the report itself took testimony, even going so far as commenting that testimony wasn't absolute.
 
Christopher7 said:
The question asked at the beginning of this thread is:

Do you believe that the middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face [of WTC 7] was gouged out floor 10 to the ground ?

 [as stated in the NIST report Apendex L pg 18]

What do you believe ?
Click to expand...
I believe that within two weeks you will have started a third thread about this topic, which is more about your jumping to conclusions than anything else. How many times do you have to be told that?

I believe that you should have the courage of your convictions and present your findings to NIST. Why haven't you done so?
 
Christopher7 said:
I believe that the NIST report led a lot of people to believe that there was
a gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, from floor 10 to the ground

jaydeehess believes that it does not

So i'm asking, Do you believe this debris damage actually happened ?
Click to expand...

Actually I believe that my words conveyed my opinion that it was unlikely to be as extensive as that. That is to say that I don't completely reject the idea. I feel that there is not enough evidence to make an exact determination of the extent of the damage and that the greatest extent of reported damage as shown in the NIST diagrams is likely to be greater than what was the reality that day.

Odd that C7 cannot fathom this since it seems that CT's are quite capable of non-binary thought when it suits their purposes.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom