• 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.
Christopher7 said:
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
Click to expand...

No, you didn't answer it on the other thread. You avoided it on the other thread, which is precisely why I posted it here.
 
LashL said:
No, you didn't answer it on the other thread. You avoided it on the other thread, which is precisely why I posted it here.
Click to expand...
Your questions were retorical;

I stated the evidence several times
Yes, people were in different locations at different times
I simply quoted official documents and concluded that 4 statements were in conflict with the 1 statement about the 10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7
The accounts are not just inconsistant, they are in conflict.
"Go and interview them"
That is impossible and therefore retorical

Now, i have responded as best i can to your post

Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

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

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

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

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]
Click to expand...


As stated by NIST report Appendix L pg 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
Click to expand...

So you are asking if we absolutly believe that the most grevious of reported damage was in fact the reality on 9/11 when the line immediatly preceeding this states very clearly that there are "there are some conflicting descriptions". You have repeatedly pointed out that there are conflictions between the statements just as NIST very clearly sets out yet you want everyone to state that they unequivocably believe tha the damage was or was not this extensive.

I believe that it was just as NIST says on page 50-51
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.
Click to expand...

This does not mean that the columns were removed along their entire length from ground to 10, 15 or 20th floor. It means that these columns could have been severed anywhere along their length. For eg. two adjacent columns get severed at the 12th floor the next one over at the 9th floor the next one over at the 15th floor etc.

Sorry if I simply cannot answer yes or no to your question C7. I have stated that I believe it to be unlikely to have been as bad as a ground to 10th floor, exterior to core gouge (though that is not stated anywhere in the NIST report anyway. It is your interpretation of the two dimensional diagrams).
 
Christopher7 said:
Your questions were retorical;

I stated the evidence several times
Yes, people were in different locations at different times
I simply quoted official documents and concluded that 4 statements were in conflict with the 1 statement about the 10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7
The accounts are not just inconsistant, they are in conflict.
"Go and interview them"
That is impossible and therefore retorical

Now, i have responded as best i can to your post

Please respond directly [yes, no, i don't know] to the question in the first post of this thread before demanding i respond to your questions again.

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

[as stated in NIST Report Apendex L pg 18]
Click to expand...

No, I have posted no rhetorical questions at all. You've simply ignored my post because you could not respond meaningfully to it and you still have not.

Unless and until you are willing to plot the accounts of the people who were on the scene on a time line, demarking their locations and their opportunity to observe, your position that their accounts are conflicting is unsustainable, and thus your demand of others to respond to your question about "beliefs" is silly. You appear to be unwilling to even attempt to prove your own point, so what makes you think that anyone should respond to your demands of them to disprove your unfounded assertions?

And you are quite wrong in asserting that I have asked you to do anything that is impossible. There is nothing stopping you from contacting the people who were there at the scene and asking them all of the questions that you wish. Why do you refuse to do so?

You are also wrong in asserting that I made any "demands" of you. What I said was:

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...

Pretty straightforward, really.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is this
6197454770bda6fc4.gif
close enough?
 
MortFurd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thats not the big honkin hole i'm refering to.
Please read the first post on this thread.
 
Gravy said:
WTC 7 did make a big noise when it collapsed. What would you expect? There was a post here from someone claiming to be his ex-girlfriend, who said Bartmer has trouble telling the truth and had respiratory problems before 9/11. I have no way to verify that, but it's interesting.
Click to expand...
And another 9-11 'hero' speaks out.
Let the character assassination begin
That's a good start Gravy. Of course you just inferred that he is a liar but I'm sure the faithful will find lots of slanderous things to say about him.

BTW Would you like to state weather or not you believe the '10 story gouge' story ? [as described in the first post of this thread]
 
Last edited:
JonnyFive said:
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?
Click to expand...
The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendex L pg 18

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"....the atrium glass was still intact"

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"

FEMA Report pg 20

"Acording to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner."

Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."

NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible reigon of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate reigon of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage atributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

Please note that the entire report is awash with could have, may have, possible, appears to have, etc.

They also admit that "The extent of damage.....of core framing is not known."
In other words, the entire report is pure speculation.

The point is:
The 10 story gouge did not exist and the refrences to it should not have been included in the graphics and the Summary.

The problem is:
Many people have been mislead into believeing that this gouge and the massive damage atributed to it actually existed.

The question is:
Do you believe this misinterpretation of the damage to WTC 7 ?
 
The fact remains that the majority of on-site expert eye witness observations of the building concluded it was heavily damaged and in danger of collapse.

The question is:
Do you think they were lying?
 
HeyLeroy said:
Is this [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/6197454770bda6fc4.gif[/qimg] close enough?
Click to expand...

Close enough for rock 'n roll :D

Oliver said:
Or maybe one of these:
Click to expand...

Lol ~ some excellent ones there, Oliver. I especially like the "rubber room" one - very fitting for our tinhat friends. :D
 
Christopher7,

Unless and until you ascertain the time, location, and opportunity to observe of each of the people whose quotes you are citing, you cannot legitimately simply brand them as inconsistent without further detail.

This is a pretty straightforward point and one which you appear to deliberately disregard.

ETA: Oh, and since you didn't answer this post, I'll repeat part of it:

LashL said:
No, I have posted no rhetorical questions at all. You've simply ignored my post because you could not respond meaningfully to it and you still have not.

Unless and until you are willing to plot the accounts of the people who were on the scene on a time line, demarking their locations and their opportunity to observe, your position that their accounts are conflicting is unsustainable, and thus your demand of others to respond to your question about "beliefs" is silly. You appear to be unwilling to even attempt to prove your own point, so what makes you think that anyone should respond to your demands of them to disprove your unfounded assertions?

And you are quite wrong in asserting that I have asked you to do anything that is impossible. There is nothing stopping you from contacting the people who were there at the scene and asking them all of the questions that you wish. Why do you refuse to do so?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
The fact remains that the majority of on-site expert eye witness observations of the building concluded it was heavily damaged and in danger of collapse.

The question is:
Do you think they were lying?
Click to expand...
No

There was heavy damage but there was no "middle 1/4 to 1/3 floor 10 to the ground, gouge
 
Christopher7 said:
And another 9-11 'hero' speaks out.
Let the character assassination begin
That's a good start Gravy. Of course you just inferred that he is a liar but I'm sure the faithful will find lots of slanderous things to say about him.

BTW Would you like to state weather or not you believe the '10 story gouge' story ? [as described in the first post of this thread]
Click to expand...
Just doing exactly what einsteen did, chief.

Second time:when are you going to report your findings to NIST? There is nothing we can do for you here. If you have important information that the investigators missed, you should report it. Do you agree?
 
LashL said:
Christopher7,

Unless and until you ascertain the time, location, and opportunity to observe of each of the people whose quotes you are citing, you cannot legitimately simply brand them as inconsistent without further detail.

This is a pretty straightforward point and one which you appear to deliberately disregard.
Click to expand...
BS

I'm quoting the NIST report
It is the only source of the '10 story gouge' [misinterpretation]

Are you saying that the statements in the NIST report cannot be used as evidence?
If you believe the gouge statement, why doubt the rest?
Do they not all have the same value?

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom