10 story hole in WTC 7

[westprog]

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

Yes.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

So you will now assert that the demolitions were placed where the NIST report states the collapse sequence originated I suppose?

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.

You might have noticed how you changed horses mid-stream there CS. First you claimed that most of the people on this board would indeed state that the large 10 storey gouge existed. Now you complain that no one here will say it was likely. Seems your contention, that almost everyone whoreads the report would come away with that interpretation, was wrong.

No one here can say that there is any evidence the elevator cars were ejected by falling debris.

Well then what evidence is there? There was debris thrown into WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1. It took out an entire corner and there was at least some impact on the central area of the south face of WTC 7. Various damage reports about WTC 7 include steel being severed and holes in the front of the building. The elevator cars were in shafts right next to the columns involved in the collapse sequence set out by the NIST sims. Not one but two cars were thrown out by some force .

What evidence is there of some force other than falling debris from WTC 1 caused the ejection of these elevator cars? None. No one reports an explosion, no one saw a flash and there are no reports of any other damage that would be consistent with explosives.

You prattle away that there are no reports of the nature of the debris that caused the cars to be ejected yet by the same token you have no evidence whatsoever of any explosives being used, no evidence of any other cause for these cars to have been ejected while we all know that there were indeed large pieces of debris hitting the building even if we do not know exactly what caused these ejections.

This may be circumstantial evidence for debris having caused the ejections and core column damage, however there is much less evidence of any sort whatsoever that explosives or incidiaries were used to cause the ejections(which would eliminate incindiaries anyway) and the collapse of WTC 7.
That is unless you can cite some better evidence than I have seen anywhere.

 

[Christopher7]

so i guess you can't answer the questions?

Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

 

[Christopher7]

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!

The question here is not about fires or controlled demolition.

It is about the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Do you believe that this gouge and the damage atributed to it existed ?

 

[Arus808]

chris, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, that '10' foot' claim that you so "concretely" adhere to, is the culmination of several inconsistent reports taken by the NIST on investigating and interviewing eyewitnesses and physical evidence. THE FACT THAT THEY STATE that these testimonies are incosistent led them to a BEST GUESS as to how deep that "hole" was. the FACT That this is a PRELIMINARY report seems to just go OVER YOUR head.

 

[twinstead]

Although the testimony about just how large and where the damage was is admittedly inconsistent, the one consistent thing is that there was indeed heavy damage to the building, and that it indeed was in danger of immediate collapse.

The eye-witness testimony describing these general facts is, IMHO, incontrovertible.

Why on Earth is this mythical '10 story hole' important?

 

[Bell]

Christopher7, I posted about the Bank Trusters building before, but I think it needs repeating. First a map of the damage to the buildings on and around the WTC area:

And then a picture of the Bankers Trust building, that got hit by debris from the South Tower. So how is it impossible for WTC7 to have simulair damage?

 

[Architect]

That is specatacularly severe damage. Professionally speaking.

 

[R.Mackey]

Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

Oh, look, semantics. What a great argument you make, Troofer.

What next? "The WTC Towers didn't collapse! What madness! NIST is a sham! Everybody can see that they fell down!"

 

[jhunter1163]

I'd venture a guess that the gouge in WTC7 was larger than the one in the Bankers Trust building. The pictures I've seen of the south side of WTC7 show holes (through the smoke) from near the top to the ground.

 

[Christopher7]

Yes.

Thank you for the honest, direct answer.

 

[332nd]

Please note the title of this thread

Those questions have nothing to do with the '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'

Are you willing to state weather or not you believe there was a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' ?

Yes. (Though I expect the figures to change in the final report.)

 

[Christopher7]

So you will now assert that the demolitions were placed where the NIST report states the collapse sequence originated I suppose?

This thread is about the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'
I'm not going to debate CD on this thread.

You might have noticed how you changed horses mid-stream there CS. First you claimed that most of the people on this board would indeed state that the large 10 storey gouge existed. Now you complain that no one here will say it was likely. Seems your contention, that almost everyone whoreads the report would come away with that interpretation, was wrong.

My 'complaint' is, only 3 people have been honest enough to answer the question at all. It remains unknown where Gravy and the rest of the Olympic answer avoiding team stand on this issue.

Well then what evidence is there? There was debris thrown into WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1. It took out an entire corner and there was at least some impact on the central area of the south face of WTC 7. Various damage reports about WTC 7 include steel being severed and holes in the front of the building. The elevator cars were in shafts right next to the columns involved in the collapse sequence set out by the NIST sims. Not one but two cars were thrown out by some force.

We don't know which elevator cars were ejected. They could have been the ones on the west side. We don't know what dislodged them or if any core columns were severed at all. It's just speculation.

What evidence is there of some force other than falling debris from WTC 1 caused the ejection of these elevator cars? None. No one reports an explosion, no one saw a flash and there are no reports of any other damage that would be consistent with explosives.

True, there are no reports of expolsions or debris that would have dislodged the elevator cars. Bottom line, we just don't know what dislodged the elevator cars or if there was any damage to the core columns.
WTC 7 was evacuated after WTC 2 fell so there were very few people in WTC 7 when WTC 1 fell.

You prattle away that there are no reports of the nature of the debris that caused the cars to be ejected yet by the same token you have no evidence whatsoever of any explosives being used, no evidence of any other cause for these cars to have been ejected while we all know that there were indeed large pieces of debris hitting the building even if we do not know exactly what caused these ejections.

We have no reports of debris penatrating to the core of building.
We do have a report of "no heavy debris in the lobby area"

This may be circumstantial evidence for debris having caused the ejections and core column damage,

I disagree

however there is much less evidence of any sort whatsoever that explosives or incidiaries were used to cause the ejections(which would eliminate incindiaries anyway) and the collapse of WTC 7.
That is unless you can cite some better evidence than I have seen anywhere.

There is NO evadence for either explanation

 

[Arus808]

This thread is about the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'
I'm not going to debate CD on this thread.

Then you have been answered, ad nauseum in this thread.

 

[Christopher7]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

chris, as has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, that '10' foot' claim that you so "concretely" adhere to, is the culmination of several inconsistent reports taken by the NIST on investigating and interviewing eyewitnesses and physical evidence. THE FACT THAT THEY STATE that these testimonies are incosistent led them to a BEST GUESS as to how deep that "hole" was. the FACT That this is a PRELIMINARY report seems to just go OVER YOUR head.

Wrong.

They did not inspect the physical evadence!

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests of actual steel from the structure"

pg iii [pg 5 on the pg counter]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

The "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" depicted in the graphic on pg 31 & 32, is consistant with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face was gouged out from floor to the ground" [pg 18]
The inner area depicts a gouge 1/4 the width of WTC 7 and the outer area depicts a gouge 1/3 the width.
The other gouges to the SW corner and the roof and upper floors are depicted in the same manner.
It is not a culmination of inconsistant reports. It is a depiction of 1 statement that is in conflict with 4 others.

This 'preliminary' report is the 'current' report until the 'final' report comes out.
It depicts damage that did not happen and refers to that damage in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81"

 

[Christopher7]

Then you have been answered, ad nauseum in this thread.

You got the nausium part right

There have only been 4 direct answers so far

Everyone else has thus far refused to answer the question

Possible answers:

2 Yes
0 Likely
1 Unlikely
1 I don't know
0 No
?

Will you go on record with a real answer ?

 

[DavidJames]

There have only been 4 direct answers so far...

I will answer Yes

But before you get to excited, that's my answer to the question:

Is Christopher7 a disingenuous, anti-intellectual tin-hatter trying to play coy games attempting to fool people into some wet dream of a CT trap?

 

[Christopher7]

Although the testimony about just how large and where the damage was is admittedly inconsistent, the one consistent thing is that there was indeed heavy damage to the building, and that it indeed was in danger of immediate collapse.
The eye-witness testimony describing these general facts is, IMHO, incontrovertible.

The few* people who thought the building was going to collapse had just seen the Trade Towers collapse. Their fear was well founded but it doesn't mean the building was going to collapse.

Not everyone agreed with this assessment.
Battalion Chief John Norman didn't think WTC 7 was going to collapse.
"I looked at 7 World Trade Center. There was smoke showing, but not a lot and I'm saying that isn't going to fall"
"I never expected it to fall the way it did as quickly as it did."

*read Gravy's list. All but a few say they were told WTC 7 was comming down

Why on Earth is this mythical '10 story hole' important?

Because it didn't happen yet it is depicted on pg 31 & 32 as the cause of the damage to columns 69, 72 and 75.
These are then refered to in the Summary as "possible componets that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81"
Although few are willing to admit it, many of you [and many others] believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire based in part on this incorrect damage assessment.

 

[Christopher7]

I will answer Yes

But before you get to excited, that's my answer to the question:

Is Christopher7 a disingenuous, anti-intellectual tin-hatter trying to play coy games attempting to fool people into some wet dream of a CT trap?

Thank you for the direct answer

I'm pointing out the flaws in the Debris damage/fire dream

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, I posted about the Bank Trusters building before, but I think it needs repeating. First a map of the damage to the buildings on and around the WTC area:

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg

And then a picture of the Bankers Trust building, that got hit by debris from the South Tower. So how is it impossible for WTC7 to have simulair damage?

Possible? yes

It didn't collapse

Even though Bankers Trust was about 100' closer, the gouge didn't penatrate very deep.