10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

This thread started with and proved that the 10 story gouge did not exist as it would have left lots of large debris in the lobby area.

Except that there was so much damage the Lobby no longer existed!

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

The Loading dock was blocked in by debris.

The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

Mr. Jennings has over stated the damage to the lobby area

NIST Apx. L pg 17

After WTC 2 collapsed:

- Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors

- Dust covered the lobby areas at floors 1 and 3

pg 18

After WTC 1 collapsed:

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:

- No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed



The loading dock [west side of WTC 7] was blocked by debris

 

[jaydeehess]

The loading dock [west side of WTC 7] was blocked by debris

I could have sworn that the loading ramp keeps showing up in diagrams as being on the east side of the building Chris with the vehicle entrance on the north side of the east end of the building.

 

[Christopher7]

I could have sworn that the loading ramp keeps showing up in diagrams as being on the east side of the building Chris with the vehicle entrance on the north side of the east end of the building.

The access ramp was in the NE corner and was not blocked by debris.

The loading dock is on the west side:
[see NIST Apx. L pg 8 {behind lobby} - floors reversed]

FEMA pg 14:
Silverstien tanks under loading dock on ground level
Pumps....between elevator shafts on west side of ground floor
Riser....in shaft in west elevator bank
Generators....5th floor in south west corner

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your question was rhetorical, my answer, satirical, your response ridiculous.

No worries

BTW, what part of 'photographer' don't you understand?


The evidence that there was no damage below floor 12 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7 is as follows:

NIST Apx. L pg 24
Looking from the south east corner of the south face:
11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

Fire...floor 14 (corrected to 12, NIST Final 4-5-05)
face above fire covered with smoke
Fire moved toward east face
[no fire or smoke below floor 12 as observed over a 3 hour period]

Pedestrian bridge and the wall holding it up intact.

No damage reported to east 1/3 south face of WTC 7.

No, the question wasn't rhetorical, I genuinely wanted to know if you had evidence. As for the "photographer" definition, I would think it would include someone who chooses good angles for their shots. The shot from under the pedestrian bridge is such a poor angle for revealing anything that's going on that it suggests to me that the photographer either doesn't know what he or she is doing, or is constrained to occupy a partuicular location for some reason. Falling debris was certainly a present danger around WTC Plaza on that day, and the very large amounts of smoke issuing from the south face of WTC7 suggest a lot of window breakage and hence falling glass and other debris. I'd have wanted to stay under cover, and that would preclude photographing the eastern part of the south face except from a fair distance away, as in Steve Spak's photos.

As for your evidence of no damage to the east 1/3 of the south face, the report says "no damage reported". There's also the possibility that debris entered higher up the face but the entry hole was obscured by smoke, along with most of the eastern side of the south face. Sorry, but although I admit there's no evidence of damage, neither is there evidence of no damage to that part of the building, and there will be neither unless your hypothetical photographs emerge.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Nothing big enough to knock the pedestrian bridge down.

Can you possibly believe that the photographer who took this picture, didn't turn to their right and take a picture of WTC 7 ?

Nothing that hit the walkway was big and heavy enough to destroy it, but both your photos show exterior wall sections next to it. Which destroys your own argument. Which part of your own argument do you not understand?

 

[Christopher7]

No, the question wasn't rhetorical, I genuinely wanted to know if you had evidence. As for the "photographer" definition, I would think it would include someone who chooses good angles for their shots. The shot from under the pedestrian bridge is such a poor angle for revealing anything that's going on that it suggests to me that the photographer either doesn't know what he or she is doing, or is constrained to occupy a partuicular location for some reason. Falling debris was certainly a present danger around WTC Plaza on that day, and the very large amounts of smoke issuing from the south face of WTC7 suggest a lot of window breakage and hence falling glass and other debris.

Did you see the other photograph by the same photographer in post #1259 ?
He did not run to seek cover under the pedestrian bridge.
He had to walk around and over a lot of debris.
Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

As for your evidence of no damage to the east 1/3 of the south face, the report says "no damage reported". There's also the possibility that debris entered higher up the face but the entry hole was obscured by smoke, along with most of the eastern side of the south face. Sorry, but although I admit there's no evidence of damage,

Thank you.
Please note that there was NO debris large enough to bring down the pedestrian bridge [photo in post #1259]
There was NO damage below floor 12 [area of initiating event]
There is nothing to suggest heavy damage to the east half of the south side.

neither is there evidence of no damage to that part of the building, and there will be neither unless your hypothetical photographs emerge.
Dave

There was no damage to the east half of the south side in the area we can see in this photo; floors 13 - 17 as far as column 11 or 12.

Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely.

The core columns were 37' inside the building.

A hypothesis of DD/F could not justifiably include columns
75 [in line with Steve's column 9],
78 [between Steve's columns 10 & 11] and
81 [in line with Steve's column 12].

 

[Christopher7]

Nothing that hit the walkway was big and heavy enough to destroy it, but both your photos show exterior wall sections next to it. Which destroys your own argument. Which part of your own argument do you not understand?

Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.
There was no damage to floors 1 - 11 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Although it is possible that there was damage to the east half of the south side above floor 12, it is unlikely.

Given that there was damage to the west half of the south side close to roof level and at levels 7-16 at least, involving three or four separate debris strikes, why is damage to the east half unlikely above floor 12? As far as I know there are no photos showing floors 12-25 on the eastern side of the south face; that's a lot of area that might have been damaged.

As I said, if your hypothetical photos exist they might clear this up. However, you've only got conjecture to suggest they do exist. Do you know who actually took the photos near and under the pedestrian bridge, and have you contacted them to find out whether they have any more pictures?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.

No, but there are large holes in WTC7 which strongly suggest that heavy debris impacted the building, so it is clearly fallacious to say that there could not have been heavy debris falling closer to WTC7 than the pedestrian bridge.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Do you still think he didn't turn to his right and take a photo of the south side of WTC 7 ?

I wonder what kind of fallacy that is.

Please note that there was NO debris large enough to bring down the pedestrian bridge [photo in post #1259]

And therefore nothing could have seriously damaged 7 WTC, is that what you're saying ?

There was NO damage below floor 12 [area of initiating event]

Uh-huh.

Oh, and please adress my post here.

 

[GlennB]

Good point
That large section is west of the pedestrian bridge and on the south side of the street.
There is no heavy debris any closer to WTC 7 in either photo.
There was no damage to floors 1 - 11 in the east 1/3 of WTC 7.

And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.

A CT ignoring the evidence that desagrees and claiming witnesses are lying, or wrong. Wow , that is something new, NOT!

 

[Christopher7]

And still you ignore the two photos I posted.
One of which shows something plummeting from WTC1 to hit the top centre(ish) of WTC7, the second of which shows serious damage to that approximate area.

The roof and upper level damage is around columns [Steve's 5 & 6], west of center [Steve's column 8]
All the severe damage is in the center or west of center.
This is not surprising given that WTC 1 was west of WTC 7.

 

[Christopher7]

A CT ignoring the evidence that desagrees and claiming witnesses are lying, or wrong. Wow , that is something new, NOT!

Are you saying that the firefighters, who were leading people out of WTC 7, were lying or wrong about "no heavy debris in lobby area" ?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Are you saying that the firefighters, who were leading people out of WTC 7, were lying or wrong about "no heavy debris in lobby area" ?

Are you saying that the ones that described the heavy damage and gapping hole in the south face were lying?

 

[Christopher7]

Are you saying that the ones that described the heavy damage and gapping hole in the south face were lying?

No

 

[PhantomWolf]

No

So if the firemen that report the serious damage in the south side weren't lying, then why are you disputing what they say they saw?

 

[Arus808]

chris like magz and christophera likes to see his "thread" bumped up to the top. he's been debunked. end of story. he wont wait till the official report is out, and arguing from the contents of a preliminary reports is like arguing about who is going to win the presidency based off of only 10 states returns

 

[Christopher7]

So if the firemen that report the serious damage in the south side weren't lying, then why are you disputing what they say they saw?

I'm not

 

[Arus808]

yes you are chris; by stating that the damage they witnessed couldn't be enough to collapse a building (despite all the other factors) you are disputing what they saw.