10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

Forgot to add that smoke from the fires in WTC 7 that were started when WTC 1 collapsed would also be exiting WTC 7 via the missing windows on the south side of WTC 7. It would be in the vicinity of the greatest damage that the most missing glass would be. The most probable location for fires to start is also proximate to the greatest damage.

To be sure glass was broken even in areas where the steel was undamaged and fires could also have started in areas that suffered lesser damage but the greater probability for fires starting and smokeexiting would be near the locations of greatest damage.

The wind was light but from the NW which meant that dust cleared from Vesey Street slower than in less sheltered areas and that smoke from WTC 7' s south windows was not whisked away as quickly as it would have been had the wind been along Vesey Street (either east or west)

For Chris to suggest that the air must have been clear enough to have an unobstructed view of the south face of WTC 7 is more sophistry on his part.

 

[notheist]

It should be noted the collapseod WTC7 was NOT the "into footprint collapse" that is so popular with conspiracy theorist.

The office structure at 30 West Broadway, Fiterman Hall It is located just north of WTC 7. The southern half of the west facade and most of the south facade were severely damaged or destroyed. The south face of the building suffered structural damage in the exterior bay from impact by large debris from WTC 7.

Not exactly a NEAT implosion.

 

[notheist]

This I found as an interesting side note

45 Park Place This building is located three blocks north of the WTC site and was initially rated as No Damage when inspected from the exterior. However, subsequent interior inspection revealed that three floor beams were missing from the top story of the building as a result of the landing gear that penetrated the roof following the airplane impact on WTC 2, The rating was subsequently changed to Major Damage.

But there were not planes on 911, Right?

 

[A W Smith]

This I found as an interesting side note

45 Park Place This building is located three blocks north of the WTC site and was initially rated as No Damage when inspected from the exterior. However, subsequent interior inspection revealed that three floor beams were missing from the top story of the building as a result of the landing gear that penetrated the roof following the airplane impact on WTC 2, The rating was subsequently changed to Major Damage.

But there were not planes on 911, Right?

Now I'm wondering. How many rooftops. Parapet projections, Cooling towers, Mechanical balconies, Air right setbacks, Within a three block radius were searched for human remains since 9/11?

 

[Kent1]

You guys might be very interested in this video posted on the web from the DVD "America 9/11".

In the background behind the firefighter is WTC7 on 9/11 before its collapse.

"See where that white smoke is? See this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause ya have to go up in there to put it out...and its already... The structural integrity is not there. Its tough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

 

[jaydeehess]

Kent1, that FF certainly seems convinced doesn't he.

 

[aggle-rithm]

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.


I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

It also suggests a lot of other things, such as, there was an unholy mess at Ground Zero, and the authorities tried to clean it up as quickly as possible because this was an important financial district that needed to be brought back into service.

Not surprisingly, the investigations focused on THOSE TWO BIG BUILDINGS THAT AIRPLANES CRASHED INTO...remember those?

For some reason, you find it suspicious that, in the midst of all the chaos that arose in the wake of these two skyscrapers collapsing, someone didn't say, "Wait a minute: There may have been INSURANCE FRAUD at work here! After all, there are JOOOOs involved! We'd better ignore the testimony of all these emergency workers, who were obviously paid off, and examine the ruins of one of the many buildings that were destroyed as a result of these attacks!"

In the real world, paranoia doesn't reign supreme as it does in your mind. Thank God for that, for otherwise nothing would ever get done.

 

[Belz...]

I am quoting the relevant points to the question at hand.
I have not 'disregarded' anything.

See the post right above your by Factcheck.

The difference is in describing what they saw and what three of them thought was going to happen.

Professional opinions don't matter. Got it.

Really? Where?

WHAT ? It's the title of the thread, bucko. 10 stories according to some, and I saw 20 stories a few times, myself. So they didn't know the exact size of the hole. Now we have a pretty good idea.

Not so. The videos show a hole from the roof to about the 27th floor.
The Spak photo shows a hole from floor 10 to floor 12 with steel ripped out indicating that the hole extended to floor 14.

And would it be entirely unreasonable to assume that, sine they seem to be aligned, they are in fact the same hole ?

Hayden: "It took a while for that fire to develop."

Smoke was NOT obscuring the building until the afternoon.

Okay, genius. Perhaps you can think of something else that was in the air following 1 WTC's collapse...

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

You seem to think that "initiating event" means the first thing that led to the collapse. The way I see it, it means the first EVENT of the collapse. Otherwise we can go back to the 767 that hit 1 WTC as the initiating event... or maybe the Big Bang.

Since the damage to 7 WTC was caused by 1 WTC's collapse, and since the fires in 7 WTC were certainly caused by said damage, I don't see your problem with it.

The rest of the scenario is about unknown damage to the core columns and the known fires.

Doesn't the unknown suck ?

They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario because they know that it was too far away to have any effect on the core columns in the east end of the building.

This is a no brainer.

That's a lie. You have NO IDEA what kind of effect such a huge amount of damage could have. You have NO IDEA how the damage could progress to the building and you have NO IDEA what the people at NIST actually know at this point in time.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

Because, like you, my thought processes aren't limited to an interim report.

 

[Belz...]

So your position is:

The physical evidence was destroyed.

Without physical evidence, no one has the right to suggest foul play.

The destruction of physical evidence is YOUR contention, not ours. The problem with that physical evidence is that it simply can't exist. There is no way explosives could be rigged in that building AND function properly once the fires got going. Any scenario but a "natural" collapse caused by 1 WTC debris damage is contra the evidence.

I would counter:

The destruction of the physical evidence suggests foul play.

Circular reasoning.

It is possible that the hole went from roof to ground but it is very unlikely that no one would mention something that dramatic.

Unless they didn't see it.

Hayden and many others saw the damage to WTC 7 before it was obscured by smoke.

Again, genius.

In any case, the loads were transferred to surrounding columns.

Yes, that is exactly how the whole thing started.

Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

Well I guess that makes two of you.

The damage to the southwest part of WTC 7 did not contribute to the initiating event in the east central part.

Speculation.

This is clear to anyone who understands framing, including the experts at NIST.

Actually, you have no idea what will be in the final report, only hope.

 

[notheist]

"The physical evidence was destroyed"

But what happened to WTC7 was obvious, How much investigation does it take?

It WAS hit by WTC1, there WERE fires, This caused the collapse. Sorry that is the facts, live with it.

No need to keep a pile of smoldering trash around polluting the air and hampering cleanup.

Let say you do keep the pile around and test for explosives, and naturally you do not find any but you do it to appease the controlled demolition nuts. Then you cart the stuff off to a landfill.

And then sometime later another nut comes up with his own little conspiracy theory, Mini Nuke or space death ray, His contention is you have to take him seriously because you did not test for radiation!

Exactly how long do you keep this stuff around? There are new nuts every day and will be for as long as dim-witted amateur sleuths are born. Do we keep the Oklahoma Building around for 15 years? JFKs body for 40.

Do we have to wait for everyone to decide THEY are over it?

 

[notheist]

You guys might be very interested in this video posted on the web from the DVD "America 9/11".

In the background behind the firefighter is WTC7 on 9/11 before its collapse.

"See where that white smoke is? See this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause ya have to go up in there to put it out...and its already... The structural integrity is not there. Its tough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLDgjYuRHk

Thank Very Good video, But this guys is lying, Right Maybe he didn't notice the building had only minor damage.

 

[LashL]

My bad. I was referring to post #1804
The single photo i posted was of the north side to make the point that although the south west corner was fully involved, the rest of WTC 7 was not fully involved.

You chose a photo that you know full well does not come even remotely close to accurately representing the extent of the fires and damage to make a "point" that ignores reality.

This is petty semantics, not evidence.

It is not semantics at all. Those were your words, that you "couldn't care less" about obtaining the opinions of professional firefighters about the very evidence that you are proffering with respect to the fires.

I do not understand how you can claim to be interested in serious research and yet completely ignore the sources available to you to obtain important information from relevant professionals on the very subject matter upon which you are opining.

My premise is based on data in the FEMA and NIST reports. The term 'fully involved' was never used.

Now, that is semantics. The item under discussion is the extent of the fires and damage, and is not dependent upon a particular phrase being used in a particular report. Why do you lend credence to the evidence of the firefighters when it suits your purposes and wholly disregard the evidence of the firefighters when it does not suit your purposes?

This is NOT an important issue, it is a diversion.

It is not a diversion at all. The extent of the fires and the damage, obviously, go to the very heart of the premise of this entire thread.

The important issue here is:
The debris damage to the west half of the south side had nothing to do with the initiating event.

You keep saying that, as though by repetition you can cause it to be true. It doesn't work that way, and you are not qualified to make that determination, in any event, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Moreover, you seem to want to separate each of the factors known to have contributed to the demise of the building and parse them out as though none of them had any effect on the others. Reality, however, does not operate in accordance with such artificial attempts to circumvent it.

 

[Christopher7]

I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post so i'll just summarize.

The destruction of the evidence works both ways.
Examination of the physical evidence would have proven conclusively what caused the collapse.
If it was due to fires they would know, to a much greater degree of certainty, where it started and how it progressed from a single column failure to a global collapse.

The destruction of the physical evidence is worthy of it's own thread,

however, this thread is about DD/F to WTC 7.

It is possible that the hole went from the roof to the ground but it would be wrong to assume that it did.


In any case, NIST said:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

The rest of the scenario is about possible damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

 

[chipmunk stew]

NIST said:

"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

The rest of the scenario is about possible damage to the core columns and the known fires.
They did NOT include the damage to the perimeter columns in their scenario.

Why do you insist that there is a connection when NIST made no such connection?

NIST did not discount a connection, either.

You're reading more into that sentence than is warranted. "If the initiating event was due to..." In other words, if the damage to the perimeter moment frame was the primary cause of the initiating event, then "it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

That doesn't shut the door on the possibility of the damage contributing to the initiating event. You're right that NIST did not include the damage in their INTERIM scenario. That's probably because they didn't have enough good data at the time for it to be meaningful, and it was not a necessary component of their hypothesis. Their hypothesis works even without taking this damage into account, but I'd be surprised if their FINAL report does not include a thorough analysis of the impact that this damage did have, either on the initiating event itself or on the manner of the collapse.

 

[LashL]

<snip>I don't have time to respond to every point in a every post

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

 

[Arus808]

round and round we go>

this thread is boilded down to these simple statements:


C7 - NIst is wrong on their assessments (based on a preliminary report) . There was no large hole in the building
US- NIST interviewed witnesses who were on scene that reported seeing a large hole. NIST guessed the size of the hole based on their testimony.

C7 - The fires weren't fully involved
US - fully involved doesn't necessarily mean the whole building is on fire. reports from firefighters were in relation to the floors they were on as being "Fully involved"

C7 - The firefighters knew the building would collapse
US- did you interview the firefighters to get their opinons.

C7 - a building cant collapse from fire alone
US - fire has been shown to weaken steel; but dont forget about all the damage that the building sustained from two collapsing buildings nearby. NIST attributed part of the collapse to the large hole in the building.

Back up to the top....
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat
Lather. Rinse. Repeat

 

[FactCheck]

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

OK.

Maybe you can explain why the building fell to the south if the south side had no structural damage? Heh!

 

[Christopher7]

round and round we go>
this thread is boilded down to these simple statements:

C7 - NIst is wrong on their assessments (based on a preliminary report) . There was no large hole in the building

Specifically:

No gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7 as described on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 and 32.
See post #94

US- NIST interviewed witnesses who were on scene that reported seeing a large hole. NIST guessed the size of the hole based on their testimony.

There are 4 witness statements in conflict with the 1 witness statement of a 10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide in the middle of WTC 7.

C7 - The fires weren't fully involved
US - fully involved doesn't necessarily mean the whole building is on fire. reports from firefighters were in relation to the floors they were on as being "Fully involved"

We disagree on weather or not the term 'fully involved' should be used.
How we describe it changes nothing and is of no consequence.

C7 - The firefighters knew the building would collapse
US- did you interview the firefighters to get their opinons.

False statement, stupid question.
Three fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse, one did not.
I don't need to interview them, the FDNY and Firehouse Magazine interviewed them.

C7 - a building cant collapse from fire alone

Specifically:
A modern high rise steel frame building cannot suffer a global collapse from fire alone IMO.

US - fire has been shown to weaken steel; but dont forget about all the damage that the building sustained from two collapsing buildings nearby. NIST attributed part of the collapse to the large hole in the building.

NO, THEY DID NOT!

Read the Collapse Hypothesis starting on pg 34.


C7 - There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

C7 - The damage to the south east part of WTC 7 was not a factor in the initiating event.

See post # 1804

 

[Arus808]

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages?

 

[LashL]

see what I mean. round and round we go. chris repeats the same lies over and over again, without even attempting to back up his claims.

do we have to continue this dance for another 50 pages?

No, we certainly do not (and kudos to you for not quoting his most recent nonsense and thereby giving it any prevalance, which is what he's really after). We have the option of ignoring his attempts to avoid the legitimate questions and posts that he has so studiously tried to avoid and we have the option to just keep pointing him back to:

I am sure that most people here would settle for you addressing posts that are directly in response to your posts - particularly those which you have entirely ignored.

Take your time, we will wait.

Note to posters: Please give Chris the time he needs to respond to the posts he has avoided above before responding to his latest "summary".

It is difficult, I am sure, for him to try to respond to numerous posts that he has not got around to yet while new posts are being written as well, so this would help him tremendously if we simply give him the time to respond to, say, the last dozen posts that he has avoided before continuing to post on this thread. I suspect that it is only way that the unanswered posts and points will be answered at all.

What do you say?

And we have the option to ignore his attempts to try to draw people into subsequent discussions of his own (illegitimate) framing until he responds to the numerous posts he has deliberately ignored above.

I would really like to see that happen. I would really like to see skeptics here ignore his ridiculous attempts to draw them into his lame attempts at goal post shifting and nonsense, and instead insist that he respond meaningfully to the posts that he has deliberately tried to skate away from, before engaging him in any more of his flights of fancy.