10 story hole in WTC 7

[maccy]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

I haven't looked back over it but I have some questions for Christopher7:

Chris, are you planning to do anything with your perceptions of WTC7 beyond arguing the toss in this thread? I don't see how stubbornly continuing to post here is going to change the world. If it's so obvious, surely there's some reasonably reputable and influential publication or media outlet somewhere in the world who will publicise what you have to say. Or maybe an academic somewhere in the world who'll write it up into an article and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?

Or are you just happy to live in a world where you, presonally, are not convinced by NIST's and FEMA's accounts so far and where repeatedly telling us this counts as some kind of victory?

 

[Christopher7]

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?

I would make the same argument in reverse.

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.
There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

"Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as 3 feet -- under severe fire exposures. ..... Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

The core columns in WTC 7 were proportionately larger to handle greater beam spans and a taller building.
The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

Columns are vertical and will absorb far less heat than horizontal framework.
It is much hotter over a campfire than it is next to one.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm amazed that this thread is still going.

I haven't looked back over it but I have some questions for Christopher7:

Chris, are you planning to do anything with your perceptions of WTC7 beyond arguing the toss in this thread?

By debating here i can refine my debating points and eliminate those that don't hold up.
For instance, the squibs don't look right, no trailing smoke.

If there is the slightest flaw in the wording of any statement i make, Belz will be all over it.
He often makes good points and I have modified statements accordingly.

All anyone in the truth movement can do at this point is spread the truth about 911 to as many people as possible.

Some who view this thread are capable critical thinking and can accept the facts i have presented as facts, others, not so much.

There are huge holes in the official story that people can easily see if the evidence is presented in straightforward and well worded manner.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I would make the same argument in reverse.

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.
There is only speculation about how office fires did what other, longer lasting fires, have not done.

The Meridian Plaza burned out of control for 19 hours.

"Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as 3 feet -- under severe fire exposures. ..... Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage."

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]

The core columns in WTC 7 were proportionately larger to handle greater beam spans and a taller building.
The larger the column, the longer it takes to heat that column up and the greater the dispersal of that heat.

Columns are vertical and will absorb far less heat than horizontal framework.
It is much hotter over a campfire than it is next to one.

No it's not the opposite. because you are trying to lead the questioning down a specific path that allows you to dictate and control it without room for discussing the whole issue. You know very well that your suggestions are far worse than anything else so you depend on leaving them out of the conversation.

Now you even claim there is NO evidence fires lead to the collapse. Well, not much contesting that that statement is completely untrue. Only speculation? Well aside from recreating the actual event, isn't everything speculation? Is the theory of evolution not speculation? What is it that you can't sum up to speculation if you eliminate enough points of discussion?

The Meridian was also concrete was it not? And if anything it shows that Steel can collapse in fire. The steel supporting floors 21 and above COLLAPSED.

And are you saying that it would be impossible for there to be a gouge from floors 10 down?

 

[Christopher7]

No it's not the opposite. because you are trying to lead the questioning down a specific path that allows you to dictate and control it without room for discussing the whole issue. You know very well that your suggestions are far worse than anything else so you depend on leaving them out of the conversation.

Debating the relative merits of to two theories is subjective and a waste of time.
OTers simply deny or dismiss any evidence of CD.


Last September i noticed a conundrum on pg 18 of the NIST Apx. L report.

That led me to look closer at all the claims that OTers make about the evidence of debris damage and fire in WTC 7.

I started this thread to debate the evidence for DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

These are summaries of statements in the government reports.

post 1883 pg 48
There was no 'gouge floor 10 to the ground in the middle of WTC 7' as described on pg 18 of the NIST report.

post 1884 pg 48
There were no diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

post 2349 pg 59
The damage to the south west part of WTC 7 did not weaken or have a significant structural effect on the area of the initiating event.

Now you even claim there is NO evidence fires lead to the collapse. Well, not much contesting that that statement is completely untrue. Only speculation? Well aside from recreating the actual event, isn't everything speculation? Is the theory of evolution not speculation?

There is indisputable geological, fossil and DNA evidence that evolution is true.
There is no evidence that DD/F brought down WTC 7.
There were office fires on several floors in the area of the initiating event, that's it.

What is it that you can't sum up to speculation if you eliminate enough points of discussion?

The lack of evidence that DD/F caused the collapse of WTC 7.

The Meridian was also concrete was it not? And if anything it shows that Steel can collapse in fire. The steel supporting floors 21 and above COLLAPSED.

That was the Windsor in Madrid, not the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia.
The light weight perimeter box beams of the upper 10 floors of the Windsor cannot be compared to the massive columns holding up a 47 story building.

And are you saying that it would be impossible for there to be a gouge from floors 10 down?

No, i'm saying the 10 story gouge described on pg 18 of the NIST report did not exist. [see post 1883]

 

[Jonnyclueless]

SO you basically cherry picked the details that help your case while dismissing all the ones that don't. I thin that pretty much clears everything up. And the irony being the part where you claim you don't want to discuss CD because everyone just dismisses your evidence.

As opposed to taking all the parts from the report that make fire and damage seem less likely and dismissing all the parts that contribute to it.

Like using one unrelated building that didn't collapse as proof it couldn't have been fire, while simultaneously dismissing another building that DID collapse from fire.

By using a part of the report as evidence that the gouge is not possible, but then dismissing another part that says it is possible.

And then the flat out denial part of simply saying things don't exist or that there is no evidence (while also saying it's lacking, thus contradicting yourself) while there clearly is overwhelming evidence.

Look, I am not smart in the engineering and science departments like the rest of the people here, but I do know a con job when I see one (a figure of speech). You can try to twist wording and jump from one pad to another and do a little song and dance to trick people, but it's not being honest. And while we all agree on Evolution, one could easily play the same game you're playing here with it too.

And THAT's why you want to avoid the subject of CD, and THAT's why you carefully worded and created the thread in such a way to protect yourself from that, not much unlike a magician will make sure people can only see his tricks from a certain angle, etc.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and the I forgot to mention the most important thing and why the goal of the thread is so important. The results are not in as to the exact cause of the collapse of WTC 7. So it's not so much an issue of being sure it was fire and damage that brought the building down so much as it is being certain it wasn't a controlled demolition.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

With regards definition: Very well. Again, however, I refer you to the Reference.com definition for an elucidation of the way in which I’ve been using the term.

Further, the idea that “Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall speed” was never in dispute. Quite plainly, it was the unqualified formulations of this statement that I claimed it wouldn’t be inappropriate to refrain from describing as “facts.”

However, I’m glad to see that we seem to have basically resolved our disputes concerning this issue. So, onto the next:

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.

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?

 

[Belz...]

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

How do you know this ? You admitted yourself that you can't see the bottom 9 floors. How can you claim certainty if you don't know ?

Wrong

What do you mean "wrong" ?

You don't think that this hole:



...which aligns nicely with this one:



...could be the same hole ?

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.

That's what I meant when I said "exactly". The person reporting the 10-floor hole may have been wrong about its placement. You know, running around debris, fire and smoke may affect your perceptions.

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

The specific account of a firefighter STATES that the hole reached the ground. The fact that his hole might be a few columns westward completely eludes you, as does the possibility that smoke may have obscured the upper floors from his point of view.

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

Good, good. I'll leave you with your own definition of "collapse".

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.

All these are consistent with a CD. They are ALSO consistent with non-CD collapses. You'd always expect a dust cloud. You'd always expect a roughly straight-down, free fall collapse under those circumstances. So far, no good.

The government collected, and is withholding form the public, over 6,000
video clips making independent analysis of the audio evidence impossible.

Annoying, but not proof of anything.

We are left to trust an administration that systematically distorts scientific reports.

Here's that word again. "This man is a thief. He systematically steals stuff. My house was broken into and my jewelry stolen. Ergo, this man stole them." That's the gist of your argument, and it is a fallacy.

Double talk

Where ?

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

I don't talk "around" it. I'm saying that you CHANGED your claim but are trying to hide that fact. I'm also saying that this NEW claim of yours means nothing because it is so vague that it could be construed to mean anything.

Get serious, damage to surrounding buildings would not be a consideration in a clandestine CD.

Precisely, which is why such a demolition would NOT exchibit "all" of the characteristics of a CD. This pretty much shows that your contention that 7 WTC's collapse does is false. Thanks for admitting that.

You can't deny that the collapse speed is consistent with a CD so you consider it irrelevant.

Of course it's consistent. I did admit it. I also admitted that, since we know the structure FAILED, we couldn't expect it to collapse much slower.

Tell me: how long SHOULD it have taken ? If it takes too long, then it'll most likely not collapse completely, will it ? If that's correct, then a global collapse pretty much HAS to come and go in a short amount of time, doesn't it ?

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.

So what you are saying is that you have no basis for comparison and can't tell if those "characteristics" are unique to CDs or not. Another admission. Good.

 

[Belz...]

Every time i present a fact that OTers cannot deny or accept, they change the subject to comparing theories, dismiss any evidence presented, and then say, "There is no evidence for CD, therefore, the official hypothesis is the more parsimonious explanation."

When you get right down to it, there is NO evidence that fires caused that first column to fail.

Even were that true, that would be precisely why we would be looking for the most parsimonious explanation.

If there is the slightest flaw in the wording of any statement i make, Belz will be all over it.

 

[Christopher7]

SO you basically cherry picked the details that help your case while dismissing all the ones that don't. I thin that pretty much clears everything up. And the irony being the part where you claim you don't want to discuss CD because everyone just dismisses your evidence.

You can call it cherry picking or quote mining if you like.

I listed facts and statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that prove:

There was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that debris damage had any significant structural effect to the area of the initiating event.

Before accusing me of dismissing evidence to the contrary, please post any statements or facts from government reports that refute the summaries i have made.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:

With regards definition: Very well. Again, however, I refer you to the Reference.com definition for an elucidation of the way in which I’ve been using the term.

I checked my Webster's Dictionary as well and your use of the word 'claim' was appropriate using those definitions.
Claim: to hold to be true against implied denial or doubt

Further, the idea that “Most of WTC 7 fell at near freefall speed” was never in dispute.

Thank you

Quite plainly, it was the unqualified formulations of this statement that I claimed it wouldn’t be inappropriate to refrain from describing as “facts.”

I would say that it is a fact, not an idea.

However, I’m glad to see that we seem to have basically resolved our disputes concerning this issue. So, onto the next:

Right

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?

It is consistant with the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions].

 

[Christopher7]

How do you know this ? You admitted yourself that you can't see the bottom 9 floors. How can you claim certainty if you don't know ?

Because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

What do you mean "wrong" ?

It is wrong to assume that the two holes are one without any evidence.

You don't think that this hole:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg

...which aligns nicely with this one:

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

...could be the same hole ?

It is possible but it should not be stated as a fact without evidence.

That's what I meant when I said "exactly". The person reporting the 10-floor hole may have been wrong about its placement. You know, running around debris, fire and smoke may affect your perceptions.

Agreed
I believe that the 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7, is a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

The specific account of a firefighter STATES that the hole reached the ground.

Please post this quote.

All these are consistent with a CD. They are ALSO consistent with non-CD collapses. You'd always expect a dust cloud. You'd always expect a roughly straight-down, free fall collapse under those circumstances. So far, no good.

There has never been a non CD implosion of a high rise building!

Here's that word again. "This man is a thief. He systematically steals stuff. My house was broken into and my jewelry stolen. Ergo, this man stole them." That's the gist of your argument, and it is a fallacy.

If it is well known that someone systematically writes bad checks, would you accept check from that person?

I don't talk "around" it. I'm saying that you CHANGED your claim but are trying to hide that fact.

Evidently you did not read post 2664

I'm also saying that this NEW claim of yours means nothing because it is so vague that it could be construed to mean anything.

There is nothing vague about

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

Actual time for the exterior walls was less than 7 seconds.

I added 1/2 second to include the screenwall and west penthouse.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

I see. So, since it’s consistent with both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial explanations for the collapse, can we agree that the issue of the time in which it took for World Trade Center 7 to globally collapse isn’t going to be helpful in determining which explanation is actually correct? (In other words: The collapse time doesn’t prove anything either way.)

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You can call it cherry picking or quote mining if you like.

I listed facts and statements from the FEMA and NIST reports that prove:

There was no '10 story gouge' as described on pg 18.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

There is no evidence that debris damage had any significant structural effect to the area of the initiating event.

Before accusing me of dismissing evidence to the contrary, please post any statements or facts from government reports that refute the summaries i have made.

Those are the only two terms that really fit.

No, NIST reported various evidence that could work towards a gouge and towards no gouge. You chose ONLY the testimony that points to no gouge. By choosing testimony as proof of no gouge but not using the other testimony as proof that there was a gouge. This is conflicting scientific method.

You use the report to say there was no gouge when the same report says there was. Again, CHERRY PICKING.

Posting info from that report how about?

The NIST preliminary report you are saying says there were no fires or damage say there was. It's all there once you stop dismissing what you don't want to hear. There's going to be conflicting information in every investigation adn there is especially going to be conflicting eyewitness testimony in every incident. You are preying on this common occurrence. This is why it is crucial that you create a thread that avoids your own theories which have far more conflicts and contradictions.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There has never been a non CD implosion of a high rise building!

So basically if something has never happened before it cannot happen in the future. Do you not see the paradox here? No building can possibly burn because at some point no building had ever burned before. Planes cannot fly because at some point a plane had never flown before.

How many highrise buildings were hit by planes or debris in the same manner and the same design and remained standing? I don't think that haas ever happened before either.

No highrise has ever been secretly CDed in front of millions of people as a plot by the government to take over the world

I guess it works both ways eh?

 

[Christopher7]

Those are the only two terms that really fit.

No, NIST reported various evidence that could work towards a gouge and towards no gouge. You chose ONLY the testimony that points to no gouge. By choosing testimony as proof of no gouge but not using the other testimony as proof that there was a gouge. This is conflicting scientific method.

Please post the evidence or testimony that you believe proves the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18 existed.

Gravy said he had such evidence but when i asked him to produce it, he went away.

The NIST preliminary report you are saying says there were no fires or damage say there was.

You must have taken Gravy's reading comprehension class.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires or debris damage in the area of the initiating event.

It's all there once you stop dismissing what you don't want to hear.

Talk to yourself much?

There's going to be conflicting information in every investigation adn there is especially going to be conflicting eyewitness testimony in every incident.

There are conflicting statements about the 10 story gouge.

There is the one statement about a gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7

There are four statements that conflict with that statement.


The choice is simple,
either you believe that the firefighters who said there was no heavy debris in the lobby area are lying

and whoever reported that the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was intact was lying

and the firefighter who said the only damage to the 9th floor facade is lying

and the Chief in charge of operations didn't notice a 100' by 60' to 80' gouge

or

The '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of other damage further to the west.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OK there. Clearly you're really smart and I am not. So I will try my best.

testimony that implies gash in building:

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you
looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it
was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. - Boyle

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."– Capt. Chris Boyle

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain
Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler

The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part
of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda

There's plenty more of those, but that should be enough.

No evidence of diesel fuel fires? The very report you use to say there isn't any says that the tanks were cracked, empty, and that there was fuel soaked into the ground. THAT is evidence.

Yes there ARE conflicting statements. As there always are. And unlike a PFT report, NIST includes ALL of it, not just the reports that support what they want, but the reports that contradict it as well. And what you are doing is trying to look at one single point at a time because you know individual points can be easily questionable. But the outcome is determined not by individual points, but by all of the evidence evaluated as a whole. I know you think you are being clever by selectively creating such a topic to allow you a divide and conquer technique, but it is not honest of you.

You have conflicting reports, but instead of you agreeing that it could go either way, you simply take the reports that support what you want (CD) and use that to say that the rest is wrong. That's called dismissing evidence. That's called cherry picking.

No one is lying, there are different people with different vantage points and different memories. Eyewitness testimony is not very accurate. That's why it has to be used as a part of the whole picture only. And you also have to factor in that the damage may not always be the same at the same time, just as the fire is not always going to be the same from beginning to end. The later in the day, the more damage and the more fire. So there are 100s of variables that will affect people's testimonies. It doesn't mean any of them are lying.

And you even claimed there was no evidence that fire could have contributed to the collapse. I think there are over 250 reports of fires from just the eyewitness testimony. That alone does not prove it was the cause of the collapse, but to say there is no evidence? THAT is dismissal.


But hey, you're the smart one here, not me...

 

[Christopher7]

OK there. Clearly you're really smart and I am not. So I will try my best.

testimony that implies gash in building:

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you
looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it
was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. - Boyle

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."– Capt. Chris Boyle

Capt. Boyle's description does not match the damage described on pg 18.

He said it was 20 stories tall.

There is no hole in the center of WTC 7 above floor 10

There is a lot of damage west of center

He also said about a third of it, right in the middle of it. Perhaps he meant vertically. That would be the case if we are to take Capt. Boyle and the other firefighters at their word.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again, you are approaching this as if you can only use one peice of evidence. Pick the one you want and hope it's right and then use it to dismiss everything else. You could just as easily use Boyles account (some of his vary themselves) and say that everything else is wrong according to that.

The idea is that you take ALL the evidence and try to figure out what happened, understanding that no individual testimony is going to be accurate. I my self have been in some traumatic events that to this day my memory of the event does not match up to what actually happened. My placement of things still is not correct according to the reports. It's very very common.

And once again, time is going to play a factor as well. Different people and different pictures taken at different times as the fires and damage change throughout the day.

And this is why it's just a preliminary report, they don't want to make such assumptions. But if there is one thing it does not do, it's rule out fire and damage as the cause. Maybe in the final they will, who knows. I don't want to assume either. but one thing they were pretty clear about is they could find no evidence of any controlled demolition. And the reason that is so important is that you are using this source as verification that fire and damage could not possibly have caused the collapse, but ignoring the same source claiming there is no evidence of any controlled demolition.

You have simply made an assumption as to what is correct and what isn't. That's something one can't do when doing honest research.