10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

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

Since you can't deny that

there was no heavy debris in the lobby

or that

the atrium glass [ground to floor 5] was still intact

you're going to nitpick and babble about the word *quote*

So what?

Facts are facts!

These two statements prove that:

There was NO 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on the same page.

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)

See my last post

 

[BeAChooser]

Danny Jerwenko is a CD expert.

So are you willing to go on record saying you agree with him that the demolition of WTC 7 was a spur of the moment decision by Silverstein after the collapse of the WTC towers damaged WTC 7?

So are you willing to go on record saying you agree with him that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT pre-planned, controlled demolitions?

Oh ... and by the way ... there are dozens of other CD experts and not one of them seems to agree with Danny Jowenko about WTC 7. Not one.

From aerial photos, the debris visible on top of the pile is mostly facade structure.

So explain to us how the north facade could end up on top of the debris pile if the structure didn't topple to the southeast?

There is a hole around column 5, well to the east of the middle.

Looks to me like you are using the term "well to the east of the middle" just as loosely as Boyles may have used the term "middle". The middle of the south face would appear to be around column 7 or 8 ... not all that far away. Perhaps Boyle came to the conclusion that it was near the middle because the lobby is actually "well to the east of the middle" too. At least Boyle had the excuse of being in a very confused and tense situation with smoke and fire everywhere. What's yours?

 

[BeAChooser]

you're going to nitpick and babble about the word *quote*

Nitpick? You CLAIMED those are statements by firefighters yet the NIST report doesn't actually say that and you can't seem to provide the name of the firefighters who said those things. Were you just making that up?

There was NO 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 as described on the same page.

Based on what? A "quote" by a firefighter whose name you can't even provide? ROTFLOL!

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

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.

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?

The video shows the north facade buckling out near the bottom, damaging the building to the north, and the top part falling south [landing on top of the debris pile].

The building did not fall over in both directions at once.

He says:
"To put it simply, the building DID fall over backward and to the south-east"

Since the front was the south side, backward would be to the north.

So he has the building falling over to the north and the south-east at the same time.
That's nuts.

FEMA said that WTC 7 imploded, that is, it fell IN on itself.
NIST says that it landed mostly in it's own footprint.
The photos confirm this.
i.e. it fell mostly straight down.


WTC 7 DID NOT FALL OVER!

As for the north facade;

Some fell north, some fell south.

some [bs] fell out of the kookoo's mouth.

 

[Christopher7]

Nitpick? You CLAIMED those are statements by firefighters yet the NIST report doesn't actually say that and you can't seem to provide the name of the firefighters who said those things. Were you just making that up?

Oh master of sophistry and point avoiding

NIST does say that firefighters led people out of the building.....no fires....reported as they left floor 8...... no heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited.....
Your reading comprehension is very poor indeed.

Based on what? A "quote" by a firefighter whose name you can't even provide? ROTFLOL!

1) NIST did not give the names, nor should they
2) It does not matter what their names were
3) It does not matter if it is a direct quote or a paraphrase
The point is:

There was no heavy debris
in the lobby area

 

[twinstead]

Chris do you believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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?

So if they are distorting the documents, then your claims have no merit sicne the evidence you are using form them must be distorted.

And this of course being opposed to what your organizations do right? No distortions form your end what so ever...

 

[Christopher7]

Chris do you believe that WTC1 and 2 were CD?

You wouldn't be trying to change the subject to avoid admitting that there was

no heavy debris in the lobby

would you?

 

[Christopher7]

So if they are distorting the documents, then your claims have no merit sicne the evidence you are using form them must be distorted.

Very good point

That insipid piece of misleading dribble that i have come to know and love contains little pearls of truth here and there.

The analysis [if you can call it that] is based on the absurd hypothesis that the failure of a single core column would lead to the total collapse of a modern high rise building.

However, the data about the location and progression of the fires, backed up by photographs, is accurate.
The data about the location of the diesel fuel tanks, pipes and generators is also accurate.
The data about the debris damage is accurate insofar as the area of the initiating event is concerned.
I take the statements of the firefighters at face value unless there is clear reason to doubt them.
The only statement i have found to be false is the one about the 10 story gouge described on pg 18.
NIST does not say if it was a firefighter that made that statement.


If they couldn't find anything in the 6,000 photos they have withheld from the public for nearly 6 years, including 25 of the south east face, it is excessively doubtful they will, at this late date, discover anything significant.
Perhaps you believe they are so bloody incompetent that they missed vital information in those photographs in the two years they had to study them before releasing their 'preliminary' report.


I don't belong to any organizations.
I used to be a Democrat [until they rolled over and played dead last week ]
but that does not qualify as an 'orginization'.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh master of sophistry and point avoiding

Sophistry? There's nothing deceptive about my statements. And I've backed up everything I've claimed. What's deceptive is claiming that something is a quote by a firefighter when it fact you have nothing to support that assertion. What is deceptive is claiming the only damage to the building on the 9th floor was on the SW corner when a photo clearly shows a gaping hole just to the left of column #5. What is deceptive is claiming the members of ae911truth are qualified with regards to structures, demolition, impact, materials, fire and macro-world physics when you clearly can't support that claim. What is deceptive is ignoring the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse more than 6 seconds before the rest of the structure fell. What is deceptive is ignoring the fact that Jowenko says WTC1 and WTC2 were NOT controlled demolitions when I'm willing to bet you believe they were. No, Christopher ... the only master of sophistry around here is you.

 

[Christopher7]

Sophistry? There's nothing deceptive about my statements. And I've backed up everything I've claimed. What's deceptive is claiming that something is a quote by a firefighter when it fact you have nothing to support that assertion. What is deceptive is claiming the only damage to the building on the 9th floor was on the SW corner when a photo clearly shows a gaping hole just to the left of column #5.

So, based on your photo analysis skills, you think the firefighter who

"walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, [and reported that] the only damage to the 9th floor facade was to the southwest corner"

is a liar.


Administration apologists avidly avoid any anomalies adversely altering assumed affirmations and acrimoniously assail any adversary advising against accepting administration assertions.

 

[slingblade]

Alliterative announcements are asinine.

 

[BeAChooser]

I used to be a Democrat [until they rolled over and played dead last week ]

You and Cindy. ROTFLOL!

 

[Belz...]

Come on, Chris:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2714211&postcount=2737

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2714221&postcount=2738

 

[Belz...]

i.e. it fell mostly straight down.


WTC 7 DID NOT FALL OVER!

Chris, you seem to be now obsessed with playing with words, and contesting things only because they weren't precisely, exactly as they were initially described. Where is this going to take this thread ? What's your point ?

We've seen the hole, we seem to agree that it could be the one described. Ergo we can just forget about the 10-floor one, assuming it is the same, and move on.

 

[twinstead]

You wouldn't be trying to change the subject to avoid admitting that there was

no heavy debris in the lobby

would you?

Hey, just trying to change the pace and give you an out to talk about something else, since you have argued nothing but semantics with no real evidence since the OP.

Well, you had your chance. Now, perhaps you could name some names of firemen whose testimony support your theory and we'll compare it to the names of the firemen whose testimony supports ours.

Then we can gather up all the other evidence and testimony of that day and we can compare them side-by-side talk about how your evidence presented so far would stack up in a court of law.

I submit it would be destroyed the first day. How do you think your evidence would stand up in a formal court?

 

[Christopher7]

Alliterative announcements are asinine.

BeAChooser:

ROTF? laugh out loud?

 

[Christopher7]

We've already discussed this and established it to be irrelevant. Let's move on, shall we ?

No and No.

Debris -> Fires -> Collapse, remember ?

It ain't necessarily so.

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.

Four witness statements do completely refute the 10 story gouge.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, it's spot on.

Grow up

Actually, you believe SOME of the firefighters.

I take firefighters statements at face value unless there is reason to doubt them.
NIST did not say the '10 story gouge' was from a statement by a firefighter.

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

So, based on your photo analysis skills and a couple assumptions,
you think the firefighter who said

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

is a liar.

Words fail me.

So does logic and reason.

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

Not to mention eyesight.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, you seem to be now obsessed with playing with words, and contesting things only because they weren't precisely, exactly as they were initially described. Where is this going to take this thread ? What's your point ?

We've seen the hole, we seem to agree that it could be the one described. Ergo we can just forget about the 10-floor one, assuming it is the same, and move on.

There is NO evidence of "a gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, floor 10 to the ground" anywhere.