10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

Thank you for acknowledging that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist.

You're welcome. It was much larger than that.

However, it's not my mythological gouge!

Oh, yes it is. We've all seen the hole in the pictures. Yours just doesn't seem to exist. Though of course there could be other holes, lower still, that we can't see.

You left out 'near' free fall.
That's sophistry.

[/QUOTE]

Telling the truth is sophistry ??? I said it didn't fall at free fall. That's true. I asked how far would not be near freefall, and you didn't answer.

The fact [not a claim] that WTC 7 fell at near free fall has been denied here many times.

You are a liar, sir. You modified your claim about the rate of collapse only recently. I want to know how far from free fall would no longer be "near" free fall.

Only by adding 'most of' could this sophistry be brought to an end.

Did you just discover that word ?

 

[Belz...]

So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

It's just a convenient way for Chris to obsfuscate the fact that he's been completely wrong all along. He's changing the definitions along the way so it doesn't seem so bad. He's trying to vindicate himself by making his claim so vague that it couldn't possibly be wrong.

 

[Christopher7]

I’m afraid you’re wrong; you have yourself hopelessly muddled. The claim I said I didn’t dispute is this one:

C7: Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall.

By being vague and using the word 'that', and 'the one in your third quote' instead of being specific, you thought you could give yourself plausible deniability should i call you on it.
Such is not the case.

The one I said I certainly didn’t agree to, on the other hand, is this one:

C7: "Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at freefall."

"You and i agree that it did."

That was two quotes, not one.
The third quote was:

C7: "I'm just clearing up a misconception that many people have come to believe.

Par: "The other formulation (the one in your third quotation) lacks the qualifier ("most") and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning."

The above, at the time, was not “two posts back.” It was in the post immediately preceding my reply. The reason I said I certainly didn’t agree to it, is that it lacks a qualifier (“most”) and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning from that of the formulation in the second quotation. (The second quotation in this post.)

Perhaps you are the one who is hopelessly muddled.


So you agree that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall but you don't believe that WTC 7 fell at near free fall.

Incidentally, the concepts of “facts” and “claims” are hardly mutually exclusive.

Fact: something known to be true

Claim: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true

These words have significantly different meanings.

Using the word 'claim' is saying "there is no proof or evidence".

There is proof that most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall.

You agree with that statement.

Saying they are 'hardly mutually exclusive' is sophistry.

 

[Christopher7]

You're welcome. It was much larger than that.

It did not exist but it was much larger than 100 feet high and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Right

Oh, yes it is. We've all seen the hole in the pictures. Yours just doesn't seem to exist. Though of course there could be other holes, lower still, that we can't see.

By 'yours' do you mean the one described on pg 18?

By 'the hole' do you mean the holes centered on column 5 [Spak#] that we see in the video and the Spak photo?

The only damage to the south facade on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

Telling the truth is sophistry ??? I said it didn't fall at free fall. That's true. I asked how far would not be near freefall, and you didn't answer.

You were responding to my statement "Your claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie."
You left out the word 'near'.

You are a liar, sir. You modified your claim about the rate of collapse only recently. I want to know how far from free fall would no longer be "near" free fall.

Originally i thought it was 6 seconds. Then i learned that it was 6.6 seconds. I am now saying "about 7 seconds".
The point has always been
[Most of] WTC 7 fell at near free fall.

How far from free fall is not 'near' free fall, is subjective and endlessly arguable.
The point is, WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

Did you just discover that word ?

I discovered it was necessary to add 'most of' to stop the sophistry about WTC 7 not falling at near free fall.

Only a devout sophist would say WTC 7 did not fall at free fall by adding the time it took the east penthouse to fall to the time it took the rest of the building to fall.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

You’ve now tangled yourself even further. Here is your post (#2654):

Clearly and straightforwardly, it contains four quotations and the third such quotation is:

Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall. You and i agree that it did.

As I have said a number of times now, that is the formulation that lacked a qualifier; that is the formulation I said I certainly didn’t agree to.

Perhaps some of the reason for your seemingly perpetual confusion is your apparent ignorance to the meanings of extremely fundamental words. Your definition of “claim,” for instance, is quite incorrect. I suggest you consult a dictionary. Further, you seem to have taken to referring to absolutely any correction or distinction you’re held to as “sophistry.”

Finally, and on that note, might you now address my original point?

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

As I have said, the ramifications of accepting that “All of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at exactly freefall speed and landed entirely in its own footprint” are tremendously different from those of accepting that “Most of World Trade Center 7 collapsed at nearly freefall speed and landed mostly in its own footprint.” So, given how significantly the correct qualification affects our conclusions, I can’t see why you would persist in your claim that to insist on its employment is nothing more than deceitful sophistry.

You put up a straw man and knock it down, then claim sophistry.
You're a real corker.

I have never said "All" of WTC 7 collapsed at "exactly" free fall and landed "entirely" in it's own footprint, and you know it.

Most of WTC 7 fell at near free fall and landed mostly in its own footprint is a statement of fact.
It is not a claim, as you characterize it.

Most people understand the statement

"WTC 7 fell at near free fall and landed in its own footprint"

without the qualifiers required by sophistic nitpickers.

 

[Belz...]

It did not exist but it was much larger than 100 feet high and 60 to 80 feet wide.
Right

Don't scoff. That's what YOU'RE saying. You say that the gouge didn't exist because the one we've been showing you:



... is a whole lot bigger. Sure, fine. The 10-storey one looks as though it didn't exist. The 47-storey one did.

By 'the hole' do you mean the holes centered on column 5 [Spak#] that we see in the video and the Spak photo?

Yep.

The only damage to the south facade on the 9th floor was at the south west corner.

What ? How about this :



??

You were responding to my statement "Your claim that WTC 7 did not fall at near freefall is a lie."
You left out the word 'near'.

No, I didn't, because it wasn't part of your statement before.

Originally i thought it was 6 seconds. Then i learned that it was 6.6 seconds. I am now saying "about 7 seconds".

"About", giving you enough wiggle room to expand to 8, 9 or even 12 should the need arise.

How far from free fall is not 'near' free fall, is subjective and endlessly arguable.

Yes, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

The point is, WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

No, it didn't. That's been debunked ages ago. The only thing it has that looks like a CD is that it fell down. You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS Of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges. Yeah. Very consistent.

Only a devout sophist would say WTC 7 did not fall at free fall by adding the time it took the east penthouse to fall to the time it took the rest of the building to fall.

Why ? Does your definition of "7 WTC" now exclude the penthouse ?

 

[Belz...]

without the qualifiers required by sophistic nitpickers.

This post was brought to you by the word "sophistry", and by the number 8.

 

[HyJinX]

eight....eight Sophists

AH AH AHHHHHHHH!

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

I notice you haven’t addressed your previous confusion over the quotations which led you to falsely accuse me of deceitfulness and dishonesty. Nor, perhaps more importantly, have you addressed those accusations themselves.

Secondly, I’m frankly staggered that I should need to point this out to you, but it’s you and not I who has been making the allegations of sophistry. I, in fact, have been claiming that acknowlegeing the requisite qualification is anything but.

Thirdly, and somewhat ironically, I’ve never claimed that you did make that specific composite formulation of the claim. The amended version contains three different qualifying terms. The omission of any one of those terms results in significant differences in overall meaning. You seem to have omitted each one at least once at some point during the course of this thread. You’ve then accused anyone who highlights these omissions of being a “sophist.”

Fourthly, even if you did have good reason to consider such qualification to be nothing more than pedantry (which clearly you do not), what legitimate purpose could you have to so vehemently oppose strict accuracy?

Lastly, it seems you’re still labouring under your ignorance of the meaning of the word “claim.” Again, I advise you to consult a dictionary.

• Look at that automobile.
• ----It’s a Ford, actually. Stop calling it an automobile!
• But “automobile” and “Ford” are not mutually exclusive.
• ----Shut up, you sophist!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

In this thread i am pointing out that some of
Before you ask again, This thread is about the '10 story gouge', NOT CD.

The thread is too large for me to see if you have addressed this, so if you don't mind:

Do you think it's impossible for there to have been a 10 story gouge?

 

[Christopher7]

Don't scoff.

What, me scoff?

That's what YOU'RE saying.

No

You say that the gouge didn't exist because the one we've been showing you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080460a5182e337a.jpg

... is a whole lot bigger.

No, i say that because it's true.

Sure, fine. The 10-storey one looks as though it didn't exist.

Thank you very much.

The 47-storey one did.

Well now, hold on there pilgrim.

you can't see floors 1 - 9 or 15 - 25 [or 26]

FEMA Ch. 5 pg 20
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at south west corner."

What ? How about this :
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg
??

That does not show floors 1 - 9.

"About", giving you enough wiggle room to expand to 8, 9 or even 12 should the need arise.

The need shall not arise because the collapse time has been accurately calculated to within a couple tenths of a second.

No, it didn't. That's been debunked ages ago.

Horsefeathers!

The only thing it has that looks like a CD is that it fell down.

Please

You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS Of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges. Yeah. Very consistent.

Your reasoning sucks. [IMHO]

Why ? Does your definition of "7 WTC" now exclude the penthouse ?

I exclude it from the 'near free fall' of the rest of WTC 7 because the time it took the rest of WTC 7 to fall, about 7 seconds, begins when the rest of WTC 7 begins falling, not when the penthouse begins to fall.

BTW: Free fall is about 6 seconds.

Professional building implosions make buildings fall at near free fall.

They blow the interior columns first to make the building collapse in on itself.

It is customary to minimize damage to surrounding buildings but when you're doing it without permits...................WTF.

 

[Christopher7]

eight....eight Sophists

AH AH AHHHHHHHH!

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:
Lastly, it seems you’re still labouring under your ignorance of the meaning of the word “claim.” Again, I advise you to consult a dictionary.

I did, in post #2663.

Fact: something known to be true

Claim: to say, without proof or evidence, that something is true.


Re: your post #2665

C7 #2654
1) Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall and saying that it did not is a lie.
2) This is the second time..............
3) Many people here have said or implied that WTC 7 did not collapse at near freefall.

Par #2655
The idea that most of WTC 7 collapsed at near freefall speed (in other words, the formulation of your claim in your first quotation) was never in dispute.

[OK, we agree on something]

The other formulation (the one in the third quotation) lacks a qualifier ("most") and, as a result, carries a significantly different meaning.

It lacks the qualifier 'most' because people here don't use the qualifier 'most'.

It carries a very different meaning, an incorrect one.
To say that WTC 7 did not collapse at near free fall is distorting the facts.

 

[Belz...]

No, i say that because it's true.

So you deny that the 10-storey hole could very well be, in reality, the large one we see in the pictures ? Why ? Because it isn't exactly the same size as the one initially posited ?

Thank you very much.

Note the "seems" in my sentence.

you can't see floors 1 - 9 or 15 - 25 [or 26]

So what ? The hole starts from the top and the one in the lower picture is neatly aligned with it. We can safely conclude that it's the same hole, and assuming that it stops where the picture stops, it's still a 38-floor hole. But since the firefighters reported a hole that reached the ground, isn't it simpler to also assume that it DOES reach the ground and that the smoke obscured the upper floors from the firefighters' view ?

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to 9th floor facade occurred at south west corner."

Well, that's just great. His account contradicts another account. I don't know about you, but I can't tell who's right from their mere testimonies.

The need shall not arise because the collapse time has been accurately calculated to within a couple tenths of a second.

Ridiculous. You can't see the inner collapse. The whole thing took more than 7 seconds. If the supporting structure fails, how much time do you think it'll take for the outer wall collapse ?

Horsefeathers!

Yeah, those are rarer than gold!

Please

No, really. What ELSE makes it look like a CD ? You admitted it didn't fall within its own footprint and didn't collapse at free fall. You can't produce more than one "clap of thunder", and there were no visible explosions. What OTHER characteristic of CDs does it exhibit, aside form falling down ??

Your reasoning sucks. [IMHO]

Where do you see a reasoning, there ? Those are FACTS. You've admitted it didn't fall AT free fall, didn't collapse WITHIN its own footprint, you can't produce actual SOUNDS of explosions that are characteristic of CDs, and there were no large explosions SEEN except alledgedly at the very top of the building, where no one in his right mind would detonate charges.

I exclude it from the 'near free fall' of the rest of WTC 7 because the time it took the rest of WTC 7 to fall, about 7 seconds, begins when the rest of WTC 7 begins falling, not when the penthouse begins to fall.

Well, that makes your definition useless, because "7 WTC" can mean any part of the building you wish. In this case, "Most of 7 WTC" means "the part that fell at the speed I'm arguing it fell at".

Professional building implosions make buildings fall at near free fall.

Actually, the whole point of implosions is to collapse the building in a way that doesn't damage nearby structures. The speed of the collapse is irrelevant, in my opinion.

They blow the interior columns first to make the building collapse in on itself.

It is customary to minimize damage to surrounding buildings but when you're doing it without permits...................WTF.

You're assuming your conclusion, here.

Yes, building demolitions make the building fall fast. Yes, 7 WTC fell fast. But then, all this is irrelevant to CDs. Your argument is this:

A -> B
B
Therefore A.

But it's wrong. It's the same as saying this:

Dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
Therefore my cat is a dog.

Tell me, Chris. Assuming the building did collapse on itself naturally, without explosives, how much time would you expect "most of it" to take to reach the ground ?

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

If you really have consulted a dictionary as to the meaning of the word “claim,” then either you must have simply ignored the definitions it stated or one might have to seriously wonder just what kind of dictionary it was. Here’s the definition from Reference.com. I hope you find it enlightening. In any event, given that the finer points of the meanings of qualified versus unqualified formulations are still in contention, for the meantime at least, refraining from describing them as “facts” would hardly seem inappropriate.

Also, some people here claim that all manner of weird and wonderful space lasers actually exist. Others commit glaring logical fallacies in nearly every post. Others still make death threats. Whether or not people here do something has no bearing on whether it’s legitimate practise. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Further, you now seem to be saying that as I’m asserting that the statement “World Trade Center 7 collapsed at near freefall speed” is inaccurate and misleading, I must, as a result, be claiming that the statement “World Trade Center 7 did not collapse at near freefall speed” is both accurate and unambiguous. Firstly, this is an example of the false dichotomy fallacy. Opposing one formulation of the claim doesn’t necessitate explicitly championing its precise negation. Disputing the claim that “Swans are white,” for instance, hardly commits one to the idea that “Swans are not white.” Secondly, you’re already very well aware of the fact that I have no intention of asserting the above negation. My claim, once again, is simply that the observation of the requisite qualification is essential to accurate meaning.

With that in mind, I notice you say that the formulation of your claim in your third quotation (of post #2564) carries “a different meaning, an incorrect one.” Well, indeed. That’s precisely my point; that’s why it should include a qualifier.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The game here is to keep attention off the faults of the other theories so we can concentrate on the unknowns of this one. And if we can dance around the unknowns of this one and spin it to seem unlikely, we can then avoid how more unlikely all other theories are. Hence the avoidance and continual reminders that this is not about the other theories. Why would on want to open themselves to their own demise?

It's quite amusing.

 

[Christopher7]

So you deny that the 10-storey hole could very well be, in reality, the large one we see in the pictures ? Why ? Because it isn't exactly the same size as the one initially posited ?

Exactly?

It isn't "from floor 10 to the ground"

It's in the wrong place.

So what ? The hole starts from the top and the one in the lower picture is neatly aligned with it. We can safely conclude that it's the same hole,

Wrong

and assuming that it stops where the picture stops, it's still a 38-floor hole. But since the firefighters reported a hole that reached the ground, isn't it simpler to also assume that it DOES reach the ground and that the smoke obscured the upper floors from the firefighters' view ?

NIST doesn't say who made the report of the gouge, floor 10 to the ground.
On graphic on page 23, 31 and 32 shows the gouge as being between [Spak] column 5 or 6 and 9 or 10.
Your hole is centered on column 5.

Well, that's just great. His account contradicts another account. I don't know about you, but I can't tell who's right from their mere testimonies.

You would rather assume the hole continued to the ground and ignore a very specific account of a firefighter.

Ridiculous. You can't see the inner collapse. The whole thing took more than 7 seconds. If the supporting structure fails, how much time do you think it'll take for the outer wall collapse ?

Yes, the 'whole thing' took more than 7 seconds. So what?
Everything that can be seen collapses at near free fall.

No, really. What ELSE makes it look like a CD ? You admitted it didn't fall within its own footprint and didn't collapse at free fall. You can't produce more than one "clap of thunder", and there were no visible explosions. What OTHER characteristic of CDs does it exhibit, aside form falling down ??

It imploded.

It collapsed at near free fall.

The center of the debris pile is roughly in the center of the building which means it fell, roughly, straight down.
[There was too much material to be contained entirely within the original footprint]

The dust cloud is consistent with a CD.

The government collected, and is withholding form the public, over 6,000
video clips making independent analysis of the audio evidence impossible.
We are left to trust an administration that systematically distorts scientific reports.

Well, that makes your definition useless, because "7 WTC" can mean any part of the building you wish. In this case, "Most of 7 WTC" means "the part that fell at the speed I'm arguing it fell at".

Double talk
Most of WTC fell at near free fall [about 7 seconds].
You can't deny that so you talk around it.

Actually, the whole point of implosions is to collapse the building in a way that doesn't damage nearby structures. The speed of the collapse is irrelevant, in my opinion.

Get serious, damage to surrounding buildings would not be a consideration in a clandestine CD.
You can't deny that the collapse speed is consistent with a CD so you consider it irrelevant.

Tell me, Chris. Assuming the building did collapse on itself naturally, without explosives, how much time would you expect "most of it" to take to reach the ground ?

By using the word 'naturally', you are assuming [the unproven hypothesis] that the failure of a single column led to a global collapse in about 15 seconds.

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.

 

[Par]

No one knows how long it would take for a high rise building to collapse globally for any other reason than a CD because it has never happened.

I’m glad to see you say that. The platonic question it raises, of course, is: In that case, what reason do we have to think that the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse is in any way inconsistent with a non-conspiratorial sequence of events?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

If you really have consulted a dictionary as to the meaning of the word “claim,” then either you must have simply ignored the definitions it stated or one might have to seriously wonder just what kind of dictionary it was.

Microsoft word.
I quoted it verbatim.

.... for the meantime at least, refraining from describing them as “facts” would hardly seem inappropriate.

Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall.
That is a video verifiable FACT.