10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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.

Do you think we should disregard the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they didn't give the names of the firefighters?
Get serious.

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?

Four statements refuting one statement and the total lack of evidence to back up that one statement would stand up in a court of law.

 

[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 ?

There was no gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7.

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.

I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.
Column 5 is not in the middle of the south side, the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

 

[twinstead]

Four statements refuting one statement and the total lack of evidence to back up that one statement would stand up in a court of law.

So you say there's only ONE statement that supports our theory, and four that support yours????

Oh how I wish this could be tried in a court so I could rub your little arrogant nose in the results...

 

[Christopher7]

So you say there's only ONE statement that supports our theory, and four that support yours????

Oh how I wish this could be tried in a court so I could rub your little arrogant nose in the results...

I was refering to the '10 story gouge' [as if you didn't know]

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

Given what these photos show?

Yes. Or he was misquoted by the folks at FEMA (who didn't demonstrate all that much competence in this matter by the way). Or perhaps we just have a different view of what SW corner means. Hard to know which since we don't know the name of this supposed firefighter and that claim is found nowhere else.

It's amazing how you are willing to believe supposed statements from firefighters that are not named but ignore those from firefighters that actually are named.

In any case, since you don't want to tell us whether you think WTC1 and WTC2 were CDs, I'm curious whether you'll tell us whether you think the demolition of WTC 7 was pre-planned or something decided after the collapse of the towers?

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.
Column 5 is not in the middle of the south side, the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

It's humorous how you type in an authoritative tone on this subject, almost as if you were at WTC7 the day of the attack as a photo-journalist. Well, were you there that day? Did you check out the building with your own peepers that day to assess damage before the collapse?

No? Then stop stating information as fact when you don't know for a fact that said information is in fact a fact. Got it?

My aunt, Molly, was there. She said there was a hole at least 78.3 feet wide from the 11th floor to the ground. She even saw a rat climbing around the hole looking for food, and saw the words "This is Floor #11 600V UL" on some cables that were exposed. (This is standard information found on important cables in expensive buildings, but you already knew that.) I know she wouldn't lie. Do you believe my aunt Molly?

 

[twinstead]

Cloudshipsrule, you say 'authoritative tone' I say 'arrogant tone'

Tomayto, tomahto, I suppose.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Is it 'pecan' or 'pecan'?

 

[Christopher7]

Given what these photos show?

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig7_02.jpg

Yes. Or he was misquoted by the folks at FEMA (who didn't demonstrate all that much competence in this matter by the way). Or perhaps we just have a different view of what SW corner means. Hard to know which since we don't know the name of this supposed firefighter and that claim is found nowhere else.

It's amazing how you are willing to believe supposed statements from firefighters that are not named but ignore those from firefighters that actually are named.

I am not ignoring any statements.

None of the statements in Firehouse Magazine say there was a gouge floor 10 to the ground.

Boyle's dessription of a 20 story hole obviously NOT in the middle [column 8] of WTC 7 as this photo clearly shows.

Will you guys ever run out of reasons to deny any evidence that you can't deal with?

Now you want to ignore, or consider less valid, all the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they did not name the fire fighters.

BTW, they did not name the person who said there was a 'gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor10 to the ground'.

Are you going to ignore, or consider that one less valid too?

 

[twinstead]

Now you want to ignore, or consider less valid, all the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports because they did not name the fire fighters.

BTW, they did not name the person who said there was a 'gouge 60 to 80 feet wide, floor10 to the ground'.

Are you going to ignore, or consider that one less valid too?

Do you DARE accuse us of ignoring evidence that contradicts our positions?

You have some nerve! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Christopher7]

stop stating information as fact when you don't know for a fact that said information is in fact a fact. Got it?

If you don't consider the statements in the FEMA and NIST reports to be factual, then how can you claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire?

The NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] is largely based on those statements.


Other than Chief Fellini, we don't know the names of the people who made the statements in the next post.

That includes the '10 story gouge, 40 to 60 feet wide' statement.



Here's a FACT

The hole to the left of column 5 is nowhere near the area of the initiating event.

 

[Christopher7]

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Report Appendix L pg 18

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"


Evidence that the '10 story gouge' was a misinterpretation of the actual damage

pg 18

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed."

[a gouge floor 10 to the ground would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby 40 to 60 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]

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


FEMA Report pg 20

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


Oral Histories: Chief Frank Fellini
[in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

When it fell [WTC 1] it ripped steel out from between the third and the sixth floors....."



NIST ignored the two statements on the same page that were in conflict with the '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face' and the statement in the FEMA report.

They then showed this 'damage' in the graphic on pg 23 as "Possible region of impact damage" and again on pages 31 & 32 as "Approximate region of impact damage"

In the Summary item 3) they describe the damage attributed to this gouge [columns 69, 72 and 75] as Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think Christopher is simply so used to how the truther sites only use testimony that supports their case and hide the testimony that doesn't support their case. When a legitimate source provides all the testimony regardless of conflict or not, this can be confusing.

And when someone comes from the mindset of trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion, such as the two sites do, it can seem suspicious to have conflicting testimony from the same source. As if it's some accident or that the source didn't realize it.

This also explains why the jump to conclusions when the report has not even been released yet.

Afterall, Prison Planet never had eyewitness testimony that conflicted. All their witnesses all heard "bombs", etc.

 

[BeAChooser]

Christopher, I'm more than willing to admit there are inconsistencies in the descriptions of damage at WTC 7. The NIST report even admits this. So given the lack of clear images of the south side, we aren't going to resolve this at this time. So I'd like to delve into what you really believe happened. Do you believe the demolition of WTC 7 was pre-planned (i.e., planned and set up before the planes hit the towers) or a spur of the moment decision after the collapse of the towers (because of the damage to WTC 7) ... or something else? In other words, let's get to the heart of the matter.

 

[Belz...]

No and No.

Well, if you keep changing your mind between posts, what's the point ?

It ain't necessarily so.

But you admitted it was a reasonable hypothesis.

Four witness statements do completely refute the 10 story gouge.

Actually, no, they don't. Thousands of witnesses would not "refute" reality.

Grow up

'Grow up' ? So grown ups can't use humour, is that it ? I suppose you think all parodies are childish, too ?

I take firefighters statements at face value unless there is reason to doubt them.

That's a clean path to being wrong, because "reason" to doubt them is based on your own personal preferences.

So, based on your photo analysis skills and a couple assumptions,

Nope. Just simple reasoning.

you think the firefighter who said

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

is a liar.

False dichotomy. I think he was wrong.

Words fail me.

So does logic and reason.

'Grow up'.

 

[Belz...]

There was no gouge, floor 10 to the ground, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7.

Yeah. I wasn't born at 20:29, either.

I agree that we should forget about the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide' described on pg 18.

Good. Let's move on to the REAL hole, then.

the hole is not 60 to 80 feet wide and it does not continue to the ground.

I thought we shouldn't make statements such as these without evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

Will you guys ever run out of reasons to deny any evidence that you can't deal with?

You think that's what it's about ? Please stop trying to guess what's going on in other people's heads. You're very bad at it.

 

[Christopher7]

I think Christopher is simply so used to how the truther sites only use testimony that supports their case and hide the testimony that doesn't support their case. When a legitimate source provides all the testimony regardless of conflict or not, this can be confusing.

What hidden testimony?

We have discussed Boyle's damage description.

Belz and i agree that Boyle was probably describing a '20 story hole' left of column 5 and not the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Do you know of any testimony that supports the single, unnamed source of the statement

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

?

 

[Belz...]

Belz and i agree that Boyle was probably describing a '20 story hole' left of column 5 and not the '10 story gouge' described on pg 18.

Actually I said he probably described the huge hole you can see in this picture:



Which seems to be the same hole as in this one:


But the upper stories of which were obscured by smoke from his point of view.

Get your opinions straight. And mine

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually I said he probably described the huge hole you can see in this picture:

There are some great images of that hole here:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html