10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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

On the contrary, i have noted that the picture does not show the area where the '10 story gouge', described on pg 18, was supposed to be.

 

[Belz...]

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

Poor design against crashing, flaming skyscrapers, anyway.

The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.

Roughly <giggle>.

On the contrary, i have noted that the picture does not show the area where the '10 story gouge', described on pg 18, was supposed to be.

And so you have no basis to state that that hole didn't exist as was reported, even if we DON'T assume that the 40-odd hole is the same one.

 

[BeAChooser]

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?

Are you really quoting firefighters? It seems to me you are quoting a NIST document which states that there was "no heavy debris in lobby area." But it also states "Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade". (And there are multiple photos at debunking911.com showing there was heavy debris.) And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground", "large debris hole near center around 14th floor", and "8th/9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby." So now you don't believe your own source? (sarcasm)

If you want quotes from fire fighters, here are some ...

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ... snip ... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about 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. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Now do you believe the firefighters?

Oh and by the way, did you notice the words "Approximate", "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely" on the NIST graphic of damage? Those engineers were working from very limited hard data (i.e., photos or videos showing the south side damage). Given that, the best data may be the descriptions given by the firefighters who were on the scene. Who said there was a huge hole on the south side and raging fires. Don't you think?

the NIST hypothesis says fire caused the failure of one columns, the rest was due to poor design.

You mean those silly WTC 7 designers should have designed WTC 7 for the possibility of WTC 1 falling on it? Why don't you visit the "WTC7.htm" page at debunking911.com and tell me what you think about the images (from a video) showing what appears to be the end result of a pancake collapse between one or more columns on the south face of WTC7 (about a 1/4 of the way into the face)? It appears to extend over the entire height that was visible in the video. What about the author's contention that the pancaking of floors between the columns aligns with the location of fuel oil distribution components on the 1st, 7th, 8th and 9th floor? What would be the implication of that? Would that be poor design too, Christopher?

The center of the rubble pile is roughly in the center of the original footprint.

Visit the "pull.htm" page at debunking911.com. You'll see plenty of photographic evidence that WTC didn't collapse into it's own footprint as the CTers claim but instead toppled over to the south east ... in the direction that the huge hole in the structure was reported ... in the direction that collapse of the east mechanical room would suggest the building interior had failed due to fire. There are even images taken during the collapse that show the building clearly tilting to the south. How does a CD explain that?

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.

Curious ... the 4/02 issue of FireHouse Magazine states "Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving." And I provided you with a video where a fireman says " You see this thing leaning like this?" Isn't it odd that when it did collapse, rather than falling straight down like the CT community has insisted controlled demolitions do, it toppled over to its side with the north face of the building ending up on top of the rubble pile? Check out the "pull.htm" page at debunking911.com and you'll see what I mean, Christopher.

As the videos are being shown to engineers and architects they are joining the truth movement.

Like the four I noted? ROTFLOL! As to the rest of the civil and structural engineers that have joined, it's odd that so little is known about them. In fact, in most cases, the CLAIM that they are civil or structural engineers at the ae911truth website is all we know about them. Why is that? They still worried about losing their jobs? As to the rest of the engineers ... well maybe they should stick to subject areas that they are actually qualified to understand. Certainly an electrical engineer knows about as much as a sub-atomic particle physicist when it comes to structures, demolition, fire, materials and macro-world physics. Wouldn't you agree?

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

That's not true. There are plenty of good questions to ask about the events surrounding 9/11 and the actions of our government before and after. I certainly don't call someone a KOOK for asking them. In fact, on more than one occassion at other forums I've told people those are good questions.

The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist the hole in the outside of the Pentagon was under 20 feet in diameter even after being shown photos that prove that false. The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist the towers collapsed in 8 to 10 seconds even after being shown a video that proves that false.

The KOOK label is deserved when folks insist that all the real experts in topics relevant to structures, demolition, impact, fire, materials, seismology and macro-world physics around the world are incompetent, corrupt or cowards and that only their *truth* experts (the economists, philosophers, theologians, janitors, software developers, sub-atomic particle physicists, wine growers, and the like who have joined the *truth* movement) are to be trusted and believed.

What is sad is that the KOOKS are only making it more difficult to get the reasonable questions about 911 answered. They are the ones hindering the search for the truth by discrediting it. A great many of the leaders of the so-called "truth" movement fall into the category of KOOKS. Because they repeat nonsense that is demonstrably false or misleading. Griffin ... who the founder of ae911Truth said influenced him ... is a good example.

Do you think Danny Jowenko is a kook?

Well first, let's make sure that everyone understands that Jowenko claimed that the decision to demolish WTC 7 with explosives was only made AFTER the towers had fallen and only because WTC 7 was so significantly damaged that the owner thought it too costly to rebuild. He was not suggesting a pre-planned demolition as 99% of the CT community claims as fact. Second, Jowenko ruled out WTC 1 and WTC 2 as controlled demolitions. Funny how the CT community always fail to mention that when discussing Jowenko. Third, Jowenko made his claim about WTC 7 after being shown very limited material by a *truth* movement member during the interview. That *interviewer* failed to tell Jowenko that the east mechanical room had collapsed into the building more than 6 seconds before the start of the collapse video that he was shown. He failed to tell Jowenko that the structure had significant damage on the south side or that it had been on fire for hours and hours before the collapse. He failed to tell Jowenko that the building collapsed to the south with the north face ending up on top of the rubble, nearly intact. (The interviewer actually lied to him by telling him the building collapsed perfectly on its footprint and by telling him there was only minor damage to the building.) The interviewer failed to tell Jowenko that firemen and others had observed the building starting to fail hours before the collapse and were on record saying they thought the building would collapse.

Is Jowenko a KOOK? Yes, a little. Because he still insists his initial conclusion is right even after learning all the above extenuating facts. And because some of the other views he's expressed show he is wacky on a number of topics.

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

Why isn't he "gone"? ROTFLOL!

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

Really?

So you claim that Rob Tamaki, water and waste systems expert, is?

That Warren J Raftshol, wine grower and farmer, is?

That Charles N. Pegelow, oil platform expert, is?

That Ted Muga, naval aviator and commercial pilot, is?

Really?

ROTFLOL!

 

[twinstead]

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

Chris, this is total, utter BS, and you KNOW it

 

[Belz...]

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

I thought Chris was the expert, here.

 

[Christopher7]

Poor design against crashing, flaming skyscrapers, anyway.

There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

It was not!

The debris damage started the fires. That's all.

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

NIST did not say or infer that it did.
They mentioned it in the Summary but they did not list it as one of the possible causes of the initiating event.

And so you have no basis to state that that hole didn't exist as was reported, even if we DON'T assume that the 40-odd hole is the same one.

Belz, i have posted four statements from the FEMA and NIST reports and the Oral Histories published in the NY Times.
The completely refute the '10 story gouge' that was described on pg 18 of Apx. L

If you don't stop denying that they exist, i will have to post them again to refresh your memory.

 

[Christopher7]

Are you really quoting firefighters? It seems to me you are quoting a NIST document which states that there was "no heavy debris in lobby area."

NIST was quoting the firefighters

But it also states "Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade".(And there are multiple photos at debunking911.com showing there was heavy debris.)

True

And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground"

Yet the atrium glass, ground to floor 5, was still intact and there was no heavy debris in the lobby. Go figure.
Odd that the Chief in charge of operations at WTC 7 didn't notice that.
He said the damage was between the 3rd and 6th floors.

"large debris hole near center around 14th floor"

Can be seen in the Spak photo

and "8th/9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby."

Must have been the 8th floor because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

If you want quotes from fire fighters, here are some ...

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” "I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it. ... snip ... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about 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. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Now do you believe the firefighters?

I believe the firefighters, do you?
Hayden and Norman were talking about the SW corner.
Visconti didn't say where on the south face.
Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

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

.

I LOVE when a twoofer uses the word "evidence." Chris, in all of your posts you have not offered ANY!!

 

[Christopher7]

I LOVE when a twoofer uses the word "evidence." Chris, in all of your posts you have not offered ANY!!

The term 'twoofer' is childish.

This is a serious subject, get serious.

I have offered evidence from the FEMA and NIST reports many times.

I have also posted photographic evidence.

What other evidence is there?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.

 

[Christopher7]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.

Just because a document from an administration, that systematically distorts scientific documents, says there is no evidence of CD, does not mean there is none.

BTW: You would not accept a check from a person who systematically writes bad checks.

Why are you willing to accept as gospel, a report from an administration who systematically distorts scientific documents?

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
And regarding "South Face Damage", it also states "middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground"

Yet the atrium glass, ground to floor 5, was still intact and there was no heavy debris in the lobby. Go figure.
Odd that the Chief in charge of operations at WTC 7 didn't notice that.
He said the damage was between the 3rd and 6th floors.

As you yourself said, "NIST was quoting the firefighters."

Must have been the 8th floor because the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner.

That's not true at all. The SPAK photo you posted in #2715 clearly shows a gash in the building just to the left of the number 5 column at the 9th Floor level. It's even clearer in the image published at the debunking911 website. Smoke can be seen coming from that gash. And some say the floors are misnumbered in that image, raising the location of Floor 9 even higher. How can you claim the only damage to the facade at the 9th Floor is at the SW corner? Don't you believe your eyes?

Hayden and Norman were talking about the SW corner.

Well let's observe that Norman prefaced his comment as follows: "You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." So his statement is not indicative of no damage elsewhere on the south face.

Visconti didn't say where on the south face.

But he and Boyle were together when they were at WTC 7 so don't you think he'd correct Boyle's statement if it was in error? He hasn't and what he did say isn't at all inconsistent with Boyle's statement.

Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

What Boyle said doesn't necessarily require there was only a single hole or rule out damage below the 9th Floor. He said "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Come on Christopher ... admit that you have no evidence that there wasn't a large gouge towards the middle of the structure below the 9th floor. You can't see the area in any of the photos (yet the photos and videos we do have would certainly suggest there might be significant damage below what can be seen). You apparently can't give us the name of the firefighter who supposedly said there was "no heavy debris in lobby area". But we can give you the name of the ones who said there was a huge hole or a big chunk out of the lower floors. Plus, the building toppled towards the southeast for a reason. Couldn't damage to the structure be that reason? Least resistance and all that?

And since you like fire fighter quotes, here's a few more for you to address (or not):

According the the NYTimes, Battalion Chief Kemly said "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."

According to the NYTimes, Chief Frank Fellini said "The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing."

According to the NYTimes, Lieutenant William Melarango said "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.[/B]

According to the NYTimes, Chief Thomas McCarthy said "I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in.[/B]

According to the NYTimes, Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said "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."

And finally, here is an account you might find interesting: "Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,"

 

[Christopher7]

We're talking about the same report that also says there is no evidence of any controlled demolition right? Just want to make sure we're still using the same source for discussion.

I just checked.

There is no mention of controlled demolition in the NIST Apx. L

They never considered it.

They listed the "Least likely locations of collapse initiation"
and the "Less likely locations of collapse initiation"

Had they considered CD, they would have said why they ruled it out.

The first mention of CD was in the Final report of 4-5-05.

Pg 6: "NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles or controlled demolition."

What a surprise. They found no evidence that would implicate the administration [that systematically distorts scientific documents] in mass murder and high treason.

 

[Christopher7]

That's not true at all. The SPAK photo you posted in #2715 clearly shows a gash in the building just to the left of the number 5 column at the 9th Floor level. It's even clearer in the image published at the debunking911 website. Smoke can be seen coming from that gash.

Are you calling the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side a liar? He was very specific about the damage.
Smoke is obscuring the 9th floor.

And some say the floors are misnumbered in that image, raising the location of Floor 9 even higher. How can you claim the only damage to the facade at the 9th Floor is at the SW corner? Don't you believe your eyes?

Did it occur to you that your photo analysis is incorrect?
You will say anything, including calling any firefighter a liar, that says something that proves the 10 story gouge did not exist.

Well let's observe that Norman prefaced his comment as follows: "You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." So his statement is not indicative of no damage elsewhere on the south face.

So what?

But he and Boyle were together when they were at WTC 7 so don't you think he'd correct Boyle's statement if it was in error? He hasn't and what he did say isn't at all inconsistent with Boyle's statement.

Boyle's statement is inconsistent with a '10 story gouge'.

What Boyle said doesn't necessarily require there was only a single hole or rule out damage below the 9th Floor. He said "It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it."

Again, Boyle described a '20 story hole'

Come on Christopher ... admit that you have no evidence that there wasn't a large gouge towards the middle of the structure below the 9th floor. You can't see the area in any of the photos (yet the photos and videos we do have would certainly suggest there might be significant damage below what can be seen). You apparently can't give us the name of the firefighter who supposedly said there was "no heavy debris in lobby area".

Please
FEMA and NIST did not give the names of the firefighters.

The NIST report is the 'official report'.

Just because you have the name of the firefighter who described a '20 story hole' doesn't mean anything.

So now you think the firefighters in the FEMA and NIST reports are liars?

the building toppled towards the southeast for a reason. Couldn't damage to the structure be that reason? Least resistance and all that?

WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint. [see NIST Apx. L pg 33]

Look at the debris pile. the center of the pile is a little NORTH of center
There is more debris on Barclay than there is on Vesey

 

[cloudshipsrule]

There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

It was not!

Show me visual evidence that there was no debris damage near the columns where collapse began, or is this simply a guess. No one can say conclusively there was no damage there, not even Nist.

Debris damage WAS a factor in the way the building collapsed. Whether or not debris damage aided in collapse initiation, it certainly affected the way in which the building fell. The building may not have totally collapsed had there been less debris damage.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you calling the firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side a liar? He was very specific about the damage.

First of all, why don't you give us the name of that firefighter and the URL where he is quoted saying whatever he said. If you can.

Second, smoke is NOT obscuring the presence of a hole at the 9th floor level just to the left of column #5 in the Spak photo you posted. There clearly is a hole there ... with smoke coming OUT of it.

Just curious ... are you one of those folks who claim the hole in the outside of the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across?

Please
FEMA and NIST did not give the names of the firefighters.

They also did not say they were quoting firefighters. Funny how you can't name any of the firefighters you are claiming to *quote*.

WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint.

You seem to be having trouble interpreting photographic evidence. This site:

xttp://xxx.debunking911.com/pull.htm (replace the first x with h and the xxx with www)

has a very thorough and very convincing discussion of this issue, with many photos that clearly show that the structure toppled to the southeast. Once I reach 15 posts I'll be happy to repost some of them here to prove you are absolutely wrong.

Look at the debris pile. the center of the pile is a little NORTH of center
There is more debris on Barclay than there is on Vesey

There are much better images of the collapse than that at the website URL I gave above. They clearly show the north face of the building drapped OVER the rubble pile. That would be hard to do if the building came "straight down" as you claim. The website also has images during the collapse that very clearly show the entire building tilting to the southeast. Don't you believe your eyes, Christopher?

 

[Belz...]

There was no debris damage to or near the columns where the collapse began.

You sound like a broken record, Chris. I know this. We've already discussed this and established it to be irrelevant. Let's move on, shall we ?

OTers keep talking about the all the debris damage in order to mislead people onto thinking that it was a factor in the collapse.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse, remember ?

The debris damage started the fires. That's all.

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

I can smell the straw burning from here...

Belz, i have posted four statements from the FEMA and NIST reports and the Oral Histories published in the NY Times.
The completely refute the '10 story gouge' that was described on pg 18 of Apx. L

A witness' statement does not "completely refute" anything. It's just a piece of the evidence. And we KNOW that there was a huge hole in the building.

 

[Belz...]

The term 'twoofer' is childish.

Actually, it's spot on.

I believe the firefighters, do you?

Actually, you believe SOME of the firefighters.

Boyle described a '20 story hole', so if you believe him, then you must realize that he was not talking about the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Well, pity for your imagination, but I can easily reconcile the 10-storey hole, the 20-storey hole and the 47-storey hole.

There is no mention of controlled demolition in the NIST Apx. L

They never considered it.

Of course they didn't. It's the most ludicrous theory ever devised. Why the hell would someone demolish a building after a skyscraper fell on it, while at the same time trying to deal with this unprecedented crisis ? Words fail me.

WTC 7 did not toppel to the southeast, it fell mostly straight down and landed mostly in it's original footprint.

And then you post a picture showing that it toppled to the southeast. Again, words fail me.

 

[Christopher7]

Show me visual evidence that there was no debris damage near the columns where collapse began, or is this simply a guess. No one can say conclusively there was no damage there, not even Nist.

Show me some evidence that there was any damage to the area of the initiating event.

NIST has 25 photographs and 2 videos of the south east part of WTC 7.
They will not release them until the 'investigation' is done.

There is NO evidence of debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

If NIST had any, they would have included it in their 'progress' report.

They have had over 6,000 photos all along.

They showed photographs of every side of WTC except the south east side.

Why?

Debris damage WAS a factor in the way the building collapsed. Whether or not debris damage aided in collapse initiation, it certainly affected the way in which the building fell. The building may not have totally collapsed had there been less debris damage.

Wrong!

WTC 7 collapsed 1/2 second after the remainder of the core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse collapsed.

Danny Jerwenko is a CD expert.
He said that if you blow the core columns, the building will fall.
That is what happened.
Perhaps you think you know better than him.

NIST Apx. L pg. 33
"The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building. From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly facade structure. This failure sequence suggests that the interior of the building collapsed before the exterior."

i.e. WTC 7 fell mostly straight down.

The author of debunking 911 seems to think he knows better that the experts at NIST.

He said "Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and the middle the path of least resistance."

The Spak photo clearly shows that there was NO 20 story hole in the middle of WTC 7.

There is a hole around column 5, well to the east of the middle.
Part of the facade appears to be hanging from column 5.

He goes on to say
"What will they say now?"

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in it's own footprint" you might say.

Actually, NIST did say it landed mostly within it's own footprint

They DID NOT say that it fell over.

They said it IMPLODED [fell IN on itself]

All the photos of the debris pile clearly show that the debris pile is mostly within the original foot print.
There was overspill, of course, because there was too much debris to be contained entirely within the original footprint.

 

[Gorgonian]

This thread has drinking game written all over it.