10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

So when do you plan on contacting engineers, Chris? When are you gonna show them your amazing proof and bring a few of them over to your side?

Here's a link with tons of US engineering firms; contact info and all.

[SIZE=-1]www.progressiveengineer.com/firms.html

Now get to work and stop waiting for experts to come to you.
[/SIZE]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

 

[Christopher7]

the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 did not exist

Do you have any statements or other evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do.

Then where is it?

 

[Dog Town]

Then where is it?

You're gonna regret that one, you really should keep up!

 

[Christopher7]

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 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

"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."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

"... the atrium glass was still intact"

FEMA Report pg 20

"According 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 occurred 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 NCSTAR 1-8 pg 110 [264 on pg counter]

"The Chief officer [Fellini] was able to negotiate the debris field, get to the building, and see the WTC 7 Logo on the side."
[floor 5 above atrium]

From there he could see where the 10 story gouge would have been, had it existed.

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 region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

 

[Whiplash]

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

So what about the professionals in other countries? Surely you must realize there are many, MANY people worldwide who could reach the same conclusion, but would face no backlash. Are there no Russian or Chinese scientists (for example) who can see the "truth" for themselves? What would keep them from talking? Not to mention numerous other countries. The idea that the whole world is being silenced is utterly laughable.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

I acutally believe this. But the reason people would want to fire them is because no sane, rational and responsible person would would anything to do with this utter insanity. It shines badly onto THEM as well. They don't want that spotlight on them and they are right to want to avoid the problem. And maybe they actually think this whole thing is rather reprehensible. They certainly have every right to.

 

[CHF]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

Sure you have, Chris. I'm certain you know lots of engineers and demolition pros who would love to speak out but they can't for fear of losing their job or ending up dead.

I must say I find it a bit odd that so many twoofers claim to know experts who agree there were demolitions but, oh shucks, they can't speak up about it so I'll just have to take your word for it that these people actually exist.

Tell you what, Chris: how about you contact some engineers or demolition experts outside the USA. Ever think of that? Seems a pretty logical way of escaping the crushing reign of terror currently being directed at America's engineers.

Start with Venezuela or China. Or, better yet, Holland. It's obvious from Danny Jowenko that Bush's death squads aren't operating over there. In fact, Jowenko even still has his job! Imagine that! So now you know where to look.

So Chris.....will you contact non-US engineers? Or are you, like the rest of your movement, too lazy to get off your ass and save the world?

 

[Gravy]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

Of course not. Why interfere with your bizarre fantasy?

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

Please demonstrate that you're not lying.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

I've had people tell me that I was responsible for the Holocaust.

You live in NY, i don't.

STOP THE PRESSES! LITERALLY!
Journalism Proved Impossible! "Technology" Revealed to be Chimera!

I recently found out that Chief Fellini made his way thru the debris to where he could see the WTC 7 Logo, which means he could see the area where the 10 story gouge would have been if it had existed.

False. He said he was on the side of the building. The WTC 7 logo was on all four sides of the building. You could ask him, but you won't, because you've proved that communications beyond the range of the human voice are impossible.

That's a bit vague. Please provide proof.

Sorry, I won't be listening to Dylan Avery's 2006 radio interviews again. Why don't you ask him?

A majority of engineers world wide?

How do you know this?

Care to list a few?

Here's one list. These people were involved in the investigation. Let's see your list.

1. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E.
2. Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
3. Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E.
4. Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
5. Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
6. Andrew McConnell, S.E.
7. Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
8. Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
9. Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
10. Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.
11. Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
12. Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
13. August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
14. Bernie Denke US&R Structural Specialist
15. Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
16. Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
17. Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
18. Brian McElhatten, S.E.
19. Charles J. Carter, S.E., AISC
20. Charles Thornton, P.E.
21. Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
22. Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC
23. Chuck Guardia, S.E.
24. D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
25. Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
26. Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
27. Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
28. David Hoy, S.E.
29. David Leach, USACE
30. David M. Parks, P.E.
31. David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
32. David Sharp, S.E.
33. David T. Biggs, P.E.
34. Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
35. Dean Tills, P.E.
36. Delbert Boring, P.E.
37. Dick Posthauer, S.E.
38. Donald Friedman, P.E.
39. Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
40. Ed McGinley, P.E.
41. Edward Depaola, S.E.
42. Edward M. DePaola, P.E.
43. Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
44. Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
45. Frank Gayle, Sc.D
46. Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
47. Gary Steficek, S.E.
48. Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA
49. George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
50. Gerald Haynes, P.E.
51. Gerald Wellman US&R Structural Specialist
52. Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA
53. H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.)
54. Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
55. Harry Martin, AISC
56. J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
57. James A. Rossberg, P.E.
58. James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
59. James H. Fahey, S.E.
60. James Lord, FSFP.E.
61. James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
62. Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
63. Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
64. John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
65. John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
66. John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
67. John Lekstutis, P.E.
68. John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
69. John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
70. John W. Fisher, P.E.
71. Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
72. Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.
73. Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
74. Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
75. Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
76. Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
77. Kevin Terry, S.E.
78. Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
79. Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
80. Lawrence Griffis, P.E.
81. Leo J. Titus, P.E.
82. Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.
83. Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
84. Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
85. Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
86. Louis Errichiello, S.E.
87. Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
88. Mark Kucera, USACE
89. Mark Tamaro, P.E
90. Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
91. Merle E. Brander, P.E.
92. Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
93. Michael Burton, P.E.
94. Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
95. Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
96. Mike Marscio, P.E.
97. Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
98. Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
99. Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
100. Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.
101. Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
102. Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.k
103. Paul Tertell, P.E.
104. Peter Chipchase, S.E.
105. Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
106. Rajani Nair, S.E.
107. Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
108. Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
109. Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
110. Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E
111. Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
112. Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E..
113. Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
114. Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
115. Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
116. Robert F. Duval (NFPA)
117. Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
118. Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.
119. Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
120. Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
121. Robert Solomon, P.E.
122. Robert Wills, AISC
123. Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
124. Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
125. Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
126. S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
127. Saw-Teen See, P.E.
128. Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
129. Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
130. Stan Murphy, P.E.
131. Stuart Foltz, P.E.
132. Theodore Galambos, P.E.
133. Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
134. Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
135. Thomas Schlafly, AISC
136. Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
137. Tom Scarangello, P.E.
138. Tony Beale, P.E.
139. Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
140. Victor Hare, P.E.
141. W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
142. William Baker, P.E., S.E
143. William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
144. William McGuire, P.E.
145. Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

 

[twinstead]

Thanks for the list, Gravy.

Now, Chris, these are real people. What you are implying is that the collapse was SO obviously CD that every single expert on that list is either stupid, afraid to come forward, or paid off.

This is your movement in a nutshell.

 

[Belz...]

Fires cannot cause high rise buildings to implode the way WTC 7 did. IMO

Your opinion is irrelevant. What do the people with RELEVANT expertise say ?

Fires DO destroy steel buildings. We've seen several examples named on these threads. Your position in untenable.

True

Circular, my foot.

Really ? This is what you said:

As for the "no trace of explosives", most of the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

In essence, you are saying that there was evidence of explosive; but that it was removed. You are now using the fact that it was removed to prove some nefarious intent. In other words you are using your conclusion of a controlled demolition as the very basis of your argument. How is that NOT circular ?

If core/perimeter frame buildings are subject to global collapse, it is essential to know where the problems are.

Wait for the final report, then.

This is now impossible.
Destruction of vital evidence, whatever the cause of the collapse, was irresponsible.

If and only if you assume that something was wrong with it. More circular reasoning.

You are the one saying "there's no trace of explosives"

There is.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2629725#post2629725

So the evidence WASN'T destroyed ? Make up your mind.

Impossible? I speak to them on a regular basis.

You live in NY, i don't.

You said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I live in Canada and I could talk to them if I wanted to. What's your excuse ?

Do any of them say there was a 10 story gouge as described on pg 18?

You're conveniently ignoring this:

 

[Belz...]

A partial collapse due to office fires is possible but the implosion of WTC 7 could not be the result of office fires. IMO

Again, your opinion is irrelevant. How many 47-floor buildings have YOU seen collapse from a fire ? Admittedly zero.

IYO

No. The more certain one is one oneself, the more chances are that he's arguing from his own ignorance.

Actually, i had no idea what i would find.

You mean you didn't have an idea that the evil US government blew up 7 WTC ?

Yes, so i went thru the report and found on pg 8 & 9 that the lobby was on the south side and extended from the ground to floor 5.

The entire width of the building ?

NIST has published pictures of every side of WTC 7 except the south east face where the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 was supposed to be.

Yes, you see there was a whole lot of debris and smoke in that area. For your information a 110-storey skyscraper fell there. You might have missed it.

Of course, this ignores the fact that we have, in fact, several pictures of that area.

That is a stupid question, given that i have talked about office fires.

Excellent; then please stop using your silly "diesel fuel fire" strawman.

No

Thanks for contradicting yourself.

Debris>fires>possible partial, local collapse.

AH! So now it's not the fires->collapse part that annoys you but the fact that it was a complete collapse ? I'm starting to think that you're changing your opinion on the subject to keep from admitting the fact that you're utterly, completely wrong.

This thread is about DD/F in WTC 7. It is not about CD.

And you contend that a huge hole in the south side of the building wouldn't have impaired the demolition efforts ? How is that not related ?

Your ability to ignore what you can't deal with is astounding.

Likewise.

Do you think that this is a picture of a gouge floor 10 to the ground?

Yes, I do. In fact I think it extends a whole lot higher than floor 10.

 

[Belz...]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

Of course not. They might tell you you're wrong.

Many professional people in the US are reluctant to come out against the official story for fear of backlash.

Speculation.

I have had people tell me that if they said WTC 7 was a CD at work, they would be fired.

If you knew this, would YOU come forward ? I would. I'm sure Gravy would, or Mack, or everyone here. Why are your hypothetical truther engineers so unscrupulous ?

 

[Christopher7]

So what about the professionals in other countries? Surely you must realize there are many, MANY people worldwide who could reach the same conclusion, but would face no backlash.

"In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by a controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH. And also Jorg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indicates "WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives."

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

 

[Gravy]

"In my opinion WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by a controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH. And also Jorg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indicates "WTC 7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives."

http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

Quite a thorough study they performed, isn't it?

 

[twinstead]

It appears that members of the YouTube generation only respect the opinion of those who have formulated their opinions solely from watching YouTube videos.

I suspect, but cannot verify, that educationally the youth of the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Christopher7]

attacked by SWAT teams (in the case of Mccormack)

Please demonstrate that you're not lying.

I can speak from personal experience of people i have talked to and the fact that Stephen Jones and Kevin Ryan lost their jobs.

Also;

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
(Able Danger, Pentagon whistle blowers)

Col. Steve Butler (man who trained two of the hijackers in US spy training in 1997)

Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright (FBI agents)

Indira Singh

Major Mike McCormack, one of the most decorated and celebrated heroes of 9/11 in NY.

These people were threatened, fired, their pensions taken away, legally gagged, or attacked by a SWAT team (in the case of McCormack)

False. He said he was on the side of the building. The WTC 7 logo was on all four sides of the building.

There is a Logo on the east side and there probably was another on the west side.
I stand corrected.

Sorry, I won't be listening to Dylan Avery's 2006 radio interviews again. Why don't you ask him?

That's a cheap dodge.
Please demonstrate that you are not lying.

Here's one list. These people were involved in the investigation. Let's see your list.

So what?

How many of these people have gone on record saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?



C7 "Do you have statements or other evidence to the contrary"
Gravy "Of course I do"

Please demonstrate that you are not lying.

 

[Kent1]

Aside from the other problems with your post Able Danger has nothing to do with the goofy CT theories. You can e-mail Mark Waid, Schaffer's lawyer. He certainly doesn't believe or find any evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP theories.

 

[twinstead]

So what?

How many of these people have gone on record saying WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?

For Christ's sake they were part of the report that is the essence of the 'official story'. How much more on record can one be? Do you want a written affidavit from each of them?

 

[Unfit4Command]

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this picture here, but here's another photo where you can see some of the gash in WTC 7's facade.

It's also visible in this video for a short time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPRpNgcA_Hw

 

[chipmunk stew]

I don't plan on contacting engineers.

I am going to search the web to see who has gone on record opposing the official report.

Stundied.

 

[Christopher7]

Aside from the other problems with your post Able Danger has nothing to do with the goofy CT theories. You can e-mail Mark Waid, Schaffer's lawyer. He certainly doesn't believe or find any evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP theories.

So what?

The point here is:

People who speak out against the government get fired and/or harassed.