10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

 

[Arus808]

Possible? yes


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4199/bankerstrustje2.jpg

It didn't collapse

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

do we even need to point out that the banker's trust building was in no way, similiar in design, construction, or material to that of the two WTC towers and WTC 7? NOr did it have RAGING FIRES withing the building? NOR did it have a DIESEL FUEL Line that ran through the building?

MY god your ignorance is blinding.

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

 

[uk_dave]

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

Well it's a combination of lack of knowledge and lack of imagination

The evolution of CT theory goes something like this:

1. All multistorey buildings are constructed the same, therefore there should be a precedent for the collapse of a multi storey structure such as the WTC towers.

Through natural selection this becomes....

2. Some multi storey structures are reinforced concrete and some are steel frame, therefore there must be a precedent for the collapse of a multistorey steel frame structure such as the WTC towers.

..... further natural selection produces......

3. Not all multi storey steel framed structures follow the same design, so now we'll ignore the WTC towers and concentrate on WTC7 which was of a more traditional frame design and therefore there should be a precedent for it's collapse.

.... after nature brutally culls the CT still further......

4. So some multistorey steel structures have unique design features such as large areas of cantilevered support over existing plant and they got hit by debris and.....oh bugger I'm going home.

Of course, just as with nature, there are always isolated pockets of CT Think untouched by the real world which cling on to the primitive CT ideas....a kind of CT Galapagos Islands, if you will.

 

[LashL]

<snip>MY god your ignorance is blinding.

Why you CT'ers like to compare Apples to oranges is beyond understanding.

I think that many of them do it because they know deep down that that is the only way they can even start to believe their own tinhat "theories". Deep down, they know that they are full of [rule 8] but they've finally found their niche among a small group of other other whackos and nutcases incapable of rational or critical thinking, so they simply wave off reality to maintain their newfound acceptance among the woos.

Some of them do it for other reasons, including intellectual laziness, stupidity, desire to be accepted by anyone, actual mental illness, desire to be viewed as "special", desire to fit in with any group that will have them, etc. etc. But the common denominator is that they are all either incapable or unwilling to engage in analytical or critical thinking.

 

[Arus808]

really, its so sad that we've become a society that cant' think for themselves, that are too lazy to find their answers, and just rather sit back and be spoon fed information, no matter if its wrong, from websites that have no culpability or reason to be honest in what they report.

I can remember, that going to the library was a REQUIREMENT for any school related reports and research and we were WARNED that if we refer to an internet quote resources, we must have a published (book, magazine, in a recognized source) that support the internet source.

This is why I never used the internet for any of the numerous reports I did for class.

 

[Christopher7]

You are right, it's a poor comparison

Would you care to respond to post 138 or the following ?

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

 

[uk_dave]

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

Yep on a busy day such as 9/11, when most people at GZ are frantically searching for survivors, in some cases people they knew, taking a record of the damage to WTC7 would have been a low priority.

The fire chiefs who did think that WTC7 would collapse were correct. Clever people.

Yep, on a day when a huge multistorey tower collapsed spreading heavy debris at speed over a large area and causing fires within WTC7, I would agree that the structural damage and fire would certainly be a strong possibility for why WTC came down. Whereas CD...... is a very weak to non existent possibility.

Consider this:

A car skids on a patch of ice and crashes into a wall killing the driver.

Which is the more probable cause of the crash? :

1. The patch of ice

2. The driver having a heart attack

 

[LashL]

Well it's a combination of lack of knowledge and lack of imagination

The evolution of CT theory goes something like this:

1. All multistorey buildings are constructed the same, therefore there should be a precedent for the collapse of a multi storey structure such as the WTC towers.

Through natural selection this becomes....

2. Some multi storey structures are reinforced concrete and some are steel frame, therefore there must be a precedent for the collapse of a multistorey steel frame structure such as the WTC towers.

..... further natural selection produces......

3. Not all multi storey steel framed structures follow the same design, so now we'll ignore the WTC towers and concentrate on WTC7 which was of a more traditional frame design and therefore there should be a precedent for it's collapse.

.... after nature brutally culls the CT still further......

4. So some multistorey steel structures have unique design features such as large areas of cantilevered support over existing plant and they got hit by debris and.....oh bugger I'm going home.

Of course, just as with nature, there are always isolated pockets of CT Think untouched by the real world which cling on to the primitive CT ideas....a kind of CT Galapagos Islands, if you will.

I was about to nominate this post but you're already wearing the TLA badge of honour, so instead, I'll just say, "beautifully said".

And I hope you don't mind if I quote you in future.

 

[beachnut]

Possible? yes

It didn't collapse

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

I was very deep! Oop I was wrong that gouge is only 17 stories, and not too deep into the building.

Gee, it did not burn. I bet there were not generators and fuel all over the banker trust building like WTC7 had. Fuel, fire, gouge, WTC7 fell due to fire, just like all steel building when fire burns them.

FDNY, I bet they train and teach that buildings fall.

Not very deep just 17 stories. Bet the WTC7 was bigger.

 

[uk_dave]

I was about to nominate this post but you're already wearing the TLA badge of honour, so instead, I'll just say, "beautifully said".

And I hope you don't mind if I quote you in future.

Cheers!

It's about time that badge of honour was passed to someone else...how long do these things last?

 

[LashL]

Cheers!

It's about time that badge of honour was passed to someone else...how long do these things last?

Cheers back atcha

(and I think it's a monthly bestowed honour - so enjoy! You've earned it!!)

 

[SezMe]

Bell, regards that picture of the Bankers Trust building in your post 127 ...

I had a nutter send me that picture and claim it was WTC7! I straightened him out and also asserted that it was taken days, if not weeks, after 9/11. Would you (or, obviously, any one else) like to speculate on how long after 9/11 that picture was taken.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Did various kind of severe damage to the building exist?

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

So? How would you expect it could be known?

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

Did the fire dept. abandon the building and make a safety zone around it?

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

This statement is wrong. We can indeed claim that, with good certainty, since:

There was debris and fire damage to the building. In particular, the fire damage was extensive. The condition and apparant stability of the building was observed to deteriorate progressively while the fires burned.

So yes, we have a good probability. Now, to conclude, we need to examine the probability of other causes, so my question to you is now:

Which other possible causes would you suggest, and what is your evidence for those causes?

Since the collapse is a fact, and we have good evidence for debris and fire being the cause, for some other cause to be seriously considered, such a cause must have at least comparable evidence showing for it.

Hans

 

[westprog]

Thank you for the honest, direct answer.

Whoooosh.

 

[MortFurd]

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"

The "Physical Evadence" (was that a Freudian slip, my friend?) was an enormous effin pile of rubble.

If I stab you, then run the body through a wood chipper, how easy do you think it will be to prove - based on physical evidence - that you were stabbed before being shredded?

BTW:

Am I blind or stupid? The NIST report has a photo which shows a huge honkin' hole in WTC7. Have I missed somewher where that photo was shown to be irrelevant, fake, or from a different building?

 

[CurtC]

I'm honestly trying to understand Chris's point, but so far I haven't gotten it. Chris, you're saying that since there are various reports of a huge hole, but there are slight differences in the details about the extent of the gouge, that therefore this gouge did not even exist? Is that what you're saying? Really?

You keep asking whether we believe that there was a 10-story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building. I believe that yes, there was a huge gouge. Is that enough of an answer?

 

[CosCos]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

wow, so you have some fire chiefs that said it was going to collapse and some that said it was not. Fine. So we all know the building did collapse, and you are contending that the fire chiefs who said it wasn't going to collapse were the correct ones, just to make your little paranoid consipracy world work???

By your logic: if you're an investor and you have two different people advising you on the same stock, one says the price is going up the other saying it's coming down. If you end up buying and the stock ends up plummeting are you going to fire the person who advised you correctly and reward the one who led you astray??

 

[westprog]

wow, so you have some fire chiefs that said it was going to collapse and some that said it was not. Fine. So we all know the building did collapse, and you are contending that the fire chiefs who said it wasn't going to collapse were the correct ones, just to make your little paranoid consipracy world work???

Like most people here, I watched the collapses live. Like, I imagine, many other people, I was surprised to see the towers collapse. This was based on nothing in particular - and given the circumstances, most of us were unlikely to be thinking very closely.

When the reasons for the collapse were explained, it all made sense. But there were a few people who couldn't let go of their initial impression. When they saw the collapses, they thought "Hey, they've demolished the building!" When it was shown that that didn't happen, instead of reevaluating, they started to construct ever more bizarre theories to explain a simple mistaken first impression, eventually extending to pods, death rays, thermite, holograms and evil Jewish landlords.

If it had taken place in the middle of the night and they'd only found out after the towers had collapsed, I bet half of them wouldn't be so certain.

 

[jaydeehess]

The 10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7, and the damage atributed to it, did not exist

Damage to the core columns is not known [NIST pg 51]

A few fire Chiefs [but not all] thought WTC 7 was going to collapse

NIST could only say that the collapse due to debris damage/fire "appears possible" [pg 50]

No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty.

It has been pointed out time and again that the diagram shows the 'possible' extent of damage not the extent of damage and that there is other evidence besides the one statement to suggest that a large piece of debris hit the very area in question, namely near columns 69, 72 and 75 or columns 79, 80 and/or 81.


There are two possibilities put forth.
1) that the debris damage and subsequent fire damage caused the collapse
2) that the debris damage and fires were inconsequential and that explosives were used to cause the collapse

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence for 1).
There is great pacity of even circumstantial evidence(limited to such arguements as 'it looks like') for 2)

So, although Chris is technically correct in "No one can justifiably claim the WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage/fire with any certainty", he completely ignores the fact of the large amount of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests this is indeed what did occur, AND that his own opinion about explosive causes has much less to back it up.

 

[Bell]

Bell, regards that picture of the Bankers Trust building in your post 127 ...

I had a nutter send me that picture and claim it was WTC7! I straightened him out and also asserted that it was taken days, if not weeks, after 9/11. Would you (or, obviously, any one else) like to speculate on how long after 9/11 that picture was taken.

There is still a lot of dust in that picture, so my guess would be very close after 9/11 (next day even??). I found the picture on http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm but it doesn't mention a date.