10 story hole in WTC 7

[Gravy]

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

Wait...NIST's final report on WTC 7 is out? How did I miss that news???

So, Chris, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? CONTINUE MAKING THREADS ON AN INTERNET FORUM? OR CONTACT THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THIS INFORMATION?

 

[LashL]

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

Reading for comprehension is clearly not your strong point.

Please try actually addressing what I wrote, along with the other of my posts that you have deliberately misrepresented or ignored, instead of JAQing off in the usual conspiracy theorist fashion. You keep claiming that certain accounts are inconsistent but you cannot legitimately say that without knowing where, when and what opportunity to observe were in play for each of those accounts.

The fact that you ignore that reality is, well, typical of conspiracy theorists, but you'll never find the "twoof" that you claim to be seeking if you refuse to acknowledge reality.

 

[Christopher7]

Just doing exactly what einsteen did, chief.

Second time:when are you going to report your findings to NIST?

Now there's a stupid question. Why did you repeat it?
Like their going to say OMG, he's right! Change the final report accordingly! .........Right

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?

What you are doing for me is demonstrating how [as captain of the Olympic answer evading team] you and the 'team' can post 77 non answers to a simple straight forward question

 

[LashL]

The only relevant time factor is:
After WTC 1 collapsed and before WTC 7 collapsed

This is particularly misinformed, even by (the woefully low) twoofer standards.

It matters a lot what time it was when each of the individuals whose accounts you claim are inconsistent made their observations. For instance, early in the day, when the fires in WTC7 were smaller and before smoke started pouring out of the entire south side of the building, it may have been possible for witnesses to see damage to the building more clearly in a particular location than would have been possible a few hours later. And that's just for starters. The depth of ignorance exhibited by your comment is, frankly, shocking.

 

[Gravy]

Now there's a stupid question. Why did you repeat it?
Like their going to say OMG, he's right! Change the final report accordingly! .........Right

Got it. You believe you've uncovered information about the condition of building 7 that NIST isn't aware of, but you feel no obligation to pass that information on.

Just what sort of "truth" are you about?

Tell you what: write up your conclusions and I'll pass them on to NIST, since you're afraid to.

Fair enough, Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

Got it. You believe you've uncovered information about the condition of building 7 that NIST isn't aware of, but you feel no obligation to pass that information on.

Just what sort of "truth" are you about?

Tell you what: write up your conclusions and I'll pass them on to NIST, since you're afraid to.

Now there's a good idea!
Copy post #94 send it to NIST
You can use my real name
Chris Sarns

Fair enough, Chris?

Yes

 

[Gravy]

Now there's a good idea!
Copy post #94 send it to NIST
You can use my real name
Chris Sarns

Yes

Write up a few sentences to introduce the subject and I'll put that together with post 94 and send it off.

 

[Christopher7]

After reading your report [Appendex L] and some other official reports, I have concluded that:
Statement 1 cannot co-exist with the other 4 statements

For your consideration:


The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendex L pg 18

"middle one quarter to one third 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.


Chris Sarns

 

[jhunter1163]

Chris:

Then how come all that fire and smoke was pouring from the ENTIRE south side of WTC7? I've seen the pictures and that building looks pretty much fully involved from the roof to the ground.

 

[maccy]

I find it paradoxical that the like of 28th Kingdom accuse "left-brainers" of getting bogged down in evidence while pretty much every CT argument that isn't factually incorrect is attempting to spin a massive conspiracy from a quibble over a tiny detail.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris:

Then how come all that fire and smoke was pouring from the ENTIRE south side of WTC7? I've seen the pictures and that building looks pretty much fully involved from the roof to the ground.

Thats non answer #81.

25 responders, 2 straight answers

So far

1 unlikely

1 I have no idea

 

[Christopher7]

I find it paradoxical that the like of 28th Kingdom accuse "left-brainers" of getting bogged down in evidence while pretty much every CT argument that isn't factually incorrect is attempting to spin a massive conspiracy from a quibble over a tiny detail.

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

 

[jaydeehess]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

Was I the first?

Fact is that it is a minute detail. The Appendix L report is a preliminary report. It includes the statement about the 10 storey damage as one more that illustrates that there was significant damage(beyond broken glass) to that area of the south face. It certainly does belong in a preliminary report.

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

Finally, after being asked only 2.5 zillion times. Not that it is any suprise at all but at least now you are prepared to admit it here, CS.

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

And this one detail concerning the south central face damage does nothing to bolster your case or anything to damage ours.

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

The exact extent is not known, true.

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

Well yes they can infer damage to the core framing since there is the report about the elevator cars having been ejected from their shafts. Unlike the central face damage this is contains detail that it is difficult to even imagine being misconstrued by the witness. The elevator cars reside in the core struvture alongside the core columns.

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

It is unlikely, true but even without it being that extensive the NIST sequence of collapse is not affected at all.

Now, since you are into details perhaps you will set out for us your evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Who set the charges, where were the charges, when were they set, who detonated them , why do this to WTC 7, why can no one see the charges going off? For a start.

 

[maccy]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

None of us were there so we believe as we do based on the evidence we have seen and read

Damage to the core framing is no 'tiny detail'

NIST admits that the damage of the core framing is not known

So if they don't know, how can you be so sure that there was any damage to the core framing?

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

What do you mean by core framing? What does this have to do with damage to the external structure?

Do you still believe that the external walls could completely support the building? And that they were extensively cross-braced.

I think that there may have been a gash as described by NIST but that going by the evidence of the interim report we cannot be certain. NIST is not misleading anyone as their damage assessment is not final.

The most important factor, as far as I can see, is the indications of a failure in the system that transferred the loads between floors 4 and 7.

I am waiting for the final report for further details.

Even if the report doesn't conclusively establish the extent of the damage or the cause of the collapse, this is not evidence for CD. You can't use a 'God of the gaps' argument - you need positive evidence of your own. I don't see evidence from you, I just see obsessive nit-picking.

Here are some CD theory questions:

1. why leave the building burning for so long?

2. how did the explosives survive the fire?

3. why no flashes and loud bangs immediately before collapse?

4. why did the east penthouse start to collapse before the rest of the building?

5. why was the building leaning over?

6. why did the firefighters report the building was creaking and looked like it would collapse?

7. why did the FDNY clear the area around the building (abandoning the search for survivors in that area) a few hours before it collapsed?

8. how were the explosives planted in a crowded office building that was in use 24 hours a day?

9. where was the detonation cord run to, how did it escape being severed by falling rubble?

10. why demolish WTC7 at all?

 

[twinstead]

Speaking for all lurkers, I would like the above questions answered.

 

[jaydeehess]

The 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 did not exist

The damage atributed to it did not exist

No one here has said that it does

CS, you stated here

No one here, other than yourself, is willing to give an inch and acknowledge that there was no 10 story hole in spite of the preponderance of evidence that it did not exist

Now you complain that no one will state that it did exist.

Do make some attempt to keep your complaints consistent.

 

[Christopher7]

Was I the first?

Yes

Fact is that it is a minute detail. The Appendix L report is a preliminary report. It includes the statement about the 10 storey damage as one more that illustrates that there was significant damage(beyond broken glass) to that area of the south face. It certainly does belong in a preliminary report.

You may consider the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' a minute detail if you like

And this one detail concerning the south central face damage does nothing to bolster your case or anything to damage ours.

It removes a signaficant part of the debris damage often sited as part of the cause of the collapse

NIST "damage of the core framing is not known"

The exact extent is not known, true.

Well yes they can infer damage to the core framing since there is the report about the elevator cars having been ejected from their shafts. Unlike the central face damage this is contains detail that it is difficult to even imagine being misconstrued by the witness. The elevator cars reside in the core struvture alongside the core columns.

Only 1 core column would have been damaged [see NIST Appendex L pg 6]
It would take a large piece of debris to eject 2 elavator cars from their shafts, yet there is no mention of this debris or the damage it would have done.

We don't know what ejected the elevator cars. [neither does NIST]
Claiming that it was a large piece of debris is pure speculation.

We can agree that whatever ejected the elevator cars may have severed 1 core column.

It is unlikely, true but even without it being that extensive the NIST sequence of collapse is not affected at all.

The sequence of collapse is not in dispute
Just the 'cause'

Now, since you are into details perhaps you will set out for us your evidence that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Who set the charges, where were the charges, when were they set, who detonated them , why do this to WTC 7, why can no one see the charges going off? For a start.

That's another subject.
In this thread i intend to clear up some misconseptions about the extent of the debris damage.
No one here considers it likely that the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' existed, or they would have said so by now.
No one here can say that there is any evidence the elevator cars were ejected by falling debris.

 

[Christopher7]

Speaking for all lurkers, I would like the above questions answered.

11. Will the Cubs ever win the World Series ?

Would you like to know whather or not anyone here believes there was a
'10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

 

[Arus808]

so i guess you can't answer the questions?

 

[beachnut]

You are the second person to call it a tiny detail and the 24th person to dodge the question with a question

So where am i going with this

You all believe that wtc 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire

I believe that it was a controlled demolition

Fire destroyed WTC7. True

CD destroyed WTC. False

That was quick and easy. No CD! No evidence of CD.

Evidence of fire! Yes

Evidence of CD! No

Add up proof! CD 0 Fire 1

Next!

Do you agree there was fire in WTC7? If you do not answer yes you will fail to understand the word fire!

If you believe the words "pull it" mean CD you are hopelessly lost in the CT world.

Do you have any evidence of CD? If you answer yes you are telling a lie. If anyone had evidence of CD, it would have come out that day with a simple "bang" sound of RDX going off. RDX can be heard for miles. Sorry there were no RDX sounds. But the other day I found a video some CT guys altered and they tried to add RDX sounds; but I heard the same Video years ago before the liars altered it. You must have the noise to get the CD. Sorry you messed up and are ignored cause you ignore the facts.

There you go a damaged WTC7 burned and fell. You know I bet the damage to the WTC7 building helped the fires breath.

I still do not understand why WTC7 means anything anyway. Who is the logic coordinator for the loons running the 9/11 truth movement of lies? Dumber than dirt, "see WTC7 fell just due to fires raging all day" it has to be proof of??????????? Very sad. You CT guys need to have a meeting on something and find some facts. So sad. Is this the best you CT guys have?