10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

You did not read post 1884 on pg 48

FEMA Ch 5 pg 28

"However, there is no physical, photographic or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system."

"The following is, therefore, a hypothesis is based on potential rather than demonstrated fact"

Please read the whole post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Of course it's a hypothesis. One of many that need to be considered. There are a lot of things that are going to have to be determined without any physical evidence because of the nature of the beach.

And you can continue to poke at individual points still. Just like you use it as a pasis to say there is no evidence of the fuel contributing, while ignoring it also saying there is no evidence o a CD.

I'm not really arguing either way, simply pointing out the fault in the whole argument. I need not reply anymore as that point has well been made. Now it's simply an issue of opinion.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

Wrong

You did not read post 2697 or 1883

There is 1 statement describing a '10 story gouge' in the middle of WTC 7​

There are 4 statements in direct conflict with that statement​

This post was brought to you by the numbers 1 and 4, and the word *********.​

​

Edited by chillzero: 

Editing word spelled to bypass censor

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And thank you for proving you didn't read my posts which addressed that quite clearly. Post #somethingorother

But I do get a sense of awe at your ability to quote post numbers. Bone chilling...

 

[Belz...]

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

How do you know since you can't see the whole thing ?

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

I did not state it as fact. I said it was quite possible. In the absence of contrary evidence it is a reasonable assumption.

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

Then the hole DID exist, albeit further west, right ?

Please post this quote.

Weren't YOU the one who quoted that in the early going of the thread ?

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

See ? I told you.

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

Of course not, since no high-rise building has ever collapsed EXCEPT due to CD before.

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

No, but I wouldn't assume that EVERY check is a fake. Of course, 9/11 wasn't about global warming...

There is nothing vague about

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.

This post was brought to you by the numbers 1 and 4, and the word ********.

Hey, that's my joke.

 

[Par]

Christopher7:

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.)

 

[BeAChooser]

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

... photo snipped ...

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.

You need a better photo and a better analysis. Because you are wrong. There is a hole (and there is no other word for it) that is at least 3 to 4 columns spacings wide in WTC 7 directly above the left corner of the structure in the foreground. There is also obvious damage to WTC 7 above the right side of the railing that is on top the left corner of the foreground structure. That damage also extends a considerable distance up WTC 7 beyond the 12th floor. And the two zones of damage would appear to be connected. Sorry ... but that image is essentially consistent with Capt Boyle's description.

Now if you go check out Spak's photo with numbered columns at debunking911.com and compare that with the drawing by NIST locating the damage in the south face, you will find the two are consistent. In fact, the drawing indicates that the left side of the upper hole should be about 6 columns to the left of the right corner of the south face. The photo by Spak showing the columns indicates the number of column spacings between the right edge of the hole I've noted above and the right corner of the building is around six.

So you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is a very large hole in the south face, pretty much where NIST said there was a hole ... pretty much where the statements of firemen indicated there was a large hole.

Why is it that 911 *truthers* won't trust their eyes?

 

[BeAChooser]

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.)

But the fact that the east penthouse mechanical room was seen sinking into the building some 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the structure came down might prove something. But I doubt Christopher7 wants to go there.

 

[Christopher7]

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.)

Collapse at near free fall is one of the unique characteristics of a CD.

The NIST hypothesis is based on fire causing the failure of one column which led to the implosion of WTC 7, mimicking a CD.

It would be more accurate to say that the NIST hypothesis assumes that faulty design caused the sudden implosion of WTC 7.

 

[Belz...]

Collapse at near free fall is one of the unique characteristics of a CD.

You are WRONG, Chris. Give it up. Many things fall at free fall without the help of explosives.

 

[Christopher7]

You need a better photo and a better analysis. Because you are wrong. There is a hole (and there is no other word for it) that is at least 3 to 4 columns spacings wide in WTC 7 directly above the left corner of the structure in the foreground. There is also obvious damage to WTC 7 above the right side of the railing that is on top the left corner of the foreground structure. That damage also extends a considerable distance up WTC 7 beyond the 12th floor. And the two zones of damage would appear to be connected. Sorry ... but that image is essentially consistent with Capt Boyle's description.

Now if you go check out Spak's photo with numbered columns at debunking911.com and compare that with the drawing by NIST locating the damage in the south face, you will find the two are consistent. In fact, the drawing indicates that the left side of the upper hole should be about 6 columns to the left of the right corner of the south face. The photo by Spak showing the columns indicates the number of column spacings between the right edge of the hole I've noted above and the right corner of the building is around six.

I noticed the poor wording but too late to correct it.

The large hole, centered on column 7 is the "large debris hole near the center of the south face around floor 14" [pg 18]

The perspective in this photograph makes it difficult to tell if that hole is connected to the vertical hole between columns 5 and 6.

The hole between columns 5 and 6 is consistent with Capt. Boyle's statement if it continues up 20 stories.

It is in line with the "Roof and upper level debris damage".

However, if that hole continued downward, the firefighter walked who walked the 9th floor along the south side, would not have been able to do so.

None of the damage it the photograph supports the massive gouge depicted in the NIST graphic as the "Approximate Region of Impact Damage by Large WTC1 Debris".

 

[Christopher7]

You are WRONG, Chris. Give it up. Many things fall at free fall without the help of explosives.

Give it up Belz

Skydivers and apples fall at freefall.

Buildings do not fall at near free fall without explosives.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Apparently they do.

What is the exact freefall speed for a building BTW?

 

[BeAChooser]

The perspective in this photograph makes it difficult to tell if that hole is connected to the vertical hole between columns 5 and 6.

Not all that difficult, if you look at the clearer photo by Spak that is found at debunking911.com. It shows what looks like damage connecting the two holes. Since I can't yet post images, why don't you post images wtc7holeanalyis_crop.jpg and wtc7.jpg found at debunking911.com. Then even your claim that the hole is between columns 5 and 6 will be seen to be false. It is much larger than that. In fact, the hole appears to cover about a third of the face ... just like the fireman WHO WAS THERE said.

By the way ... do you have an explanation for the east penthouse mechanical room disappearing into the structure about 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed? Do you have an explanation for the statements by eyewitnesses that they put a transit on the building and found it leaning well before the collapse? Do you have a explanation for the bulge that was observed between floors 10 and 13 well before the collapse? Do you have a explanation for the smoke that obscured the entire south side of the building during most of the event? Do you have an explanation why not one demolition expert (other than Jowenko) says it was a CD? Are ANY of these facts consistent with your CD theory? Just curious ...

 

[Christopher7]

Not all that difficult, if you look at the clearer photo by Spak that is found at debunking911.com. It shows what looks like damage connecting the two holes. Since I can't yet post images, why don't you post images wtc7holeanalyis_crop.jpg and wtc7.jpg found at debunking911.com. Then even your claim that the hole is between columns 5 and 6 will be seen to be false. It is much larger than that. In fact, the hole appears to cover about a third of the face ... just like the fireman WHO WAS THERE said.

You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

By the way ... do you have an explanation for the east penthouse mechanical room disappearing into the structure about 6 to 7 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed?

In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

Do you have an explanation for the statements by eyewitnesses that they put a transit on the building and found it leaning well before the collapse?

Chief Hayden said there was a bulge.
He had to put a transit on it to be sure.
He DID NOT say the building was leaning.

None of the firefighters at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

Do you have a explanation for the bulge that was observed between floors 10 and 13 well before the collapse?

The SW corner column was severed.

Do you have a explanation for the smoke that obscured the entire
south side of the building during most of the event?

Fire

Do you have an explanation why not one demolition expert (other than Jowenko) says it was a CD? Are ANY of these facts consistent with your CD theory? Just curious ...

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

There are over 100 engineers and architects who don't believe the 'official story' and are calling for an independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org

 

[BeAChooser]

You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

The truth is that we can only see Floor 8 and above in the image (and even Floor 8 is totally obscured by smoke towards the center of the face). There is clearly damage to the face of the building along column 7 even below Floor 10. The large vertical hole from which smoke is coming is clearly expanding into the line of column 6 by the time the hole gets down to Floor 8. So, again, you are wrong. The ONLY real FACT is that the image isn't clear enough to say conclusively there isn't a gouge in the building from floor 10 to the ground in the center, as you claimed. But there are certainly indications there is a hole in that region. Which is what the firemen said. But then you must think the firemen were liars.

In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

But if the interior has fallen first for whatever reason (and couldn't a failure due to fire be a reason?), then the fact that the rest of the building fell at free-fall velocity isn't remarkable ... since there would be nothing inside the structure to resist the descent. Right?

Images from the site (see photo wtc7pile.jpg from debunking911.com) clearly show that the north face of WTC 7 ended up ON TOP of the rubble pile, nearly intact. So the structure didn't collapse straight down as the CD crowd has been claiming for months. Instead it fell to the south. Infact, the south-east. Now a large hole in the south face of the building and a collapse of the interior starting with the east mechanical room on the penthouse would explain that. But a CD doesn't.

Chief Hayden said there was a bulge.
He had to put a transit on it to be sure.
He DID NOT say the building was leaning.

I didn't say that Hayden said it was leaning. But I perhaps misspoke in saying a transit showed it was leaning (as opposed to bulging). Still I'm curious ... why the bulge long before the collapse in a CD? Hmmmm?

None of the firefighters at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

Not true. Below is the URL (modified so I can post it during this probationary period) of a youtube video where you can hear a fireman named Miller saying "You see where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it. Cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it already - the structural integrity is just not there in the building. It's tough, it's.. it's.. You know we can handle just about anything, this is beyond...":

xttp://xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA (change x to h at the beginning and xxx to www later on)

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

Isn't it odd how thousands and thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in fire, steel and concrete, experts in impact, experts in seismology and experts in macro-world physics uniformly let fear of losing their jobs get in the way of pointing out *the truth* in what 911*truthers* claim is mass murder by our own government? I guess those who go into those occupations have no conscience. Right? In fact, only the lawyers, economists, janitors, philosophers and sub-atomic particle physicists of the *truth* movement have the guts to put their jobs at risk to point out *the truth*. Right?

(sarcasm)

There are over 100 engineers and architects who don't believe the 'official story' and are calling for an independent investigation.

Actually, very few of those 100 actually have a civil or structural engineering background. And there are many questions about the qualifications of those few.

For example, the ae911truth site lists Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural)" as a member and one of those calling for an independent investigation. But Mr Pegelow has a BS in civil engineering, not structural engineering. And his is a civil engineering license, not a structural engineering license. Indeed, the ae911truth website is dishonest in implying that he has a structural license. Furthermore, it turns out that Pegelow has been working for about 30 years in the oil drilling industry. He spent almost his entire life working on oil drilling platforms. He's hardly an expert on buildings, much less skyscrapers.

"Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982" from Suttons Bay, Michigan is another of those listed by ae911truth. Unusual name. Could this be the same person? "Warren Raftshol, Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Grape grower, winery owner, libertarian since 1965." And elsewhere on the web he's described as follows "Raftshol, 51, has a scraggly beard and wears wide suspenders, denim shirts and jeans. He's a man with no pretenses. Though he has a master's degree in civil engineering from Northwestern University, he chose agriculture on the family homestead. "Back in the early '80s," he reminds you, "there were no jobs."" Again, that's hardly the description of someone I'd want building my skyscrapers.

Or how about "Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC"? He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C.. He's about as qualified as you when it comes to structures, impact, fire and collapse.

And then there is "Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA" who is described on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the patriotsquestion911 website he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not mention that if he is one? There is an interview with Ted Muga on the web where he says he retired as a naval aviator in 1985 and retired as a commercial pilot in 1991. Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. Why not? And a little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims ... that there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon and that "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." Both statements are absolutely false as photos that are readily available on the internet prove. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." But that is absolutely and demonstrably FALSE. So clearly Ted is either completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred but so biased as to regurgitate the lies of the interviewer or he is totally incompetent.

So what was that you were saying about the engineers at ae911truth, Christopher?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway.

(thanks Mark)

 

[twinstead]

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

This is the kind of stuff that sickens me, Chris, and will always condemn your 'theory' to the sewers. You are implying that NO ONE in any of those fields would risk their jobs and reputations in order to bring mass murderers to justice.

None of them has a conscience, according to you. All you have are 100 or so kooks of dubious expertise whom you throw in our faces like it's supposed to make it all better.

Sad

 

[Belz...]

Give it up Belz

Skydivers and apples fall at freefall.

Buildings do not fall at near free fall without explosives.

Don't they ? AGAIN, chris, HOW FAST would the building fall if its primary supports were destroyed by fire ? If the thing actually started to collapse from non-explosives, HOW FAST would it fall ? That's an important question, and if you can't answer it, you CAN'T CLAIM that it wouldn't fall at free fall, anyway.

You are ignoring the FACT that none of the damage in this photo is where the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' was supposed to be.

And you're ignoring the FACT that you can't see below that point in that picture.

In order to get a building to 'implode', it is necessary to have the interior fall first.

Yes, and this is exactly what happened.

Any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD, would be slandered, ostracized and probably fired.

Affirming the consequent.

 

[Christopher7]

There is clearly damage to the face of the building along column 7 even below Floor 10 But then you must think the firemen were liars.

No
I am quoting firefighters who said

"no heavy debris in lobby area"
and
"only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the SW corner."

Do you think they were lying?

But if the interior has fallen first for whatever reason (and couldn't a failure due to fire be a reason?)

No, the NIST hypothesis says fire caused the failure of one column, the rest was due to poor design.

then the fact that the rest of the building fell at free-fall velocity isn't remarkable ... since there would be nothing inside the structure to resist the descent. Right?

That is how professionals 'implode' buildings.

Instead it fell to the south.

The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.
If anything, it is a little north of center.
There is rubble on Vesey and Barclay.

I didn't say that Hayden said it was leaning. But I perhaps misspoke in saying a transit showed it was leaning

A firefighter, two blocks away and a guy who works nearby thought WTC 7 was leaning.

The three Fire Chief's who thought WTC 7 was going to collapse did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene said WTC 7 was leaning.

FEMA did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

NIST did not say WTC 7 was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.


Isn't it odd how thousands and thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, [etc.]
Most people have forgotten about WTC 7. As the videos are being shown to engineers and architects they are joining the truth movement.

OTers claim that anyone who questions the official story is a kook and tries to discredit them.

Do you think Danny Jowenko is a kook?

He agrees with me that any CD expert in this country who would say WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

The experts that have joined Architects and Engineers are qualified to assess the nature of the WTC 7 collapse.