10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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

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

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6080465c0fe5a465c.jpg
But the upper stories of which were obscured by smoke from his point of view.

Get your opinions straight. And mine

I have it straight.

The hole in the second picture is to the left of column 5.

The holes seen in the two photos are NOT the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7' described on pg 18.

 

[slingblade]

Almost 3,000 posts, and still the argument does not progress.

(Walks down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.

Is all that really--really--what you intended, Chris? Because it's about all we've had.

 

[twinstead]

Is all that really--really--what you intended, Chris? Because it's about all we've had.

In actuality, when one holds an untenable position as fiercely as Chris does, that's about all one can do.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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"

?

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?

 

[JimBenArm]

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?

Actually, there is a point. It's taken me a while to figure it out, but here it is.
ChristopherA is famous for having the longest thread here by a person named Christopher. Christopher7 is jealous, and wants that title for himself. So, until this thread exceeds that of ChristopherA, it will continue.

 

[DGM]

I wonder if he'll keep this up until the final report comes out. Why again is he arguing this from the interim report?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

 

[Christopher7]

What hidden testimony? Exactly.

And yes it was Boyle who made the quote you are referring to. This is not an issue of question. And if you go back and read my previous posts you will see numerous references to that same damage.

But again, because it is inconvenient to your little bomb theory, which is ALSO shown to be non-existent in the very same document you are cherry picking quotes from, of course it's not reliable to you. The testimony that contradicts it however is absolutely most convenient since it allows you to have an excuse to dismiss the testimony you don't want to see.

And so the endless circle of mindless banter goes on and on and we all pretend this is an actual argument or conversation. What's the point?

There are 4 statements in conflict with the one [unnamed source] statement about a 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

You banter on about cherry picking but you have posted no statements or other evidence to support the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.


Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence.

There was NO gouge, floor 10 to the ground, as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

 

[Christopher7]

I wonder if he'll keep this up until the final report comes out. Why again is he arguing this from the interim report?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Because the release final report just got postponed again. Now they are saying "the end of the year".


The FACT that the 10 story gouge would have left a 60 to 80 foot wide pile of heavy debris in the lobby is not going to change.

The FACT that it would have taken out much of the atrium [ground to floor 5] is not going to change.

The statement of the firefighter who reported "the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the south west corner" is not going to change.

The Chief of operations at WTC 7 reported "steel ripped out between the 3rd and 6th floors"

None of this will change in the ever elusive 'Final' report.


You desire to ignore existing evidence in the interim report [and elsewhere] that there was 'No 10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] until the final report comes out,
yet you believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F based on that same 'interim' report.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

There are 4 statements in conflict with the one [unnamed source] statement about a 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7.

You banter on about cherry picking but you have posted no statements or other evidence to support the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.


Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence.

There was NO gouge, floor 10 to the ground, as described on pg 18 of NIST Apx. L.

So let me get this straight. The number of arguments determines the validity? Is there a mathematical formula for that? It could also be that 4 people are wrong and 1 is right. Or it could be that they are all wrong. Or it could be that they are all right. Take your pick. Obviously you already did. And instead of considering them all and waiting for the real analysis, you have already decided exactly what happened. You just found an easy way to try and dismiss what you don't want to hear rather than consider the possibilities. You wlaready know what you want to believe, so what does it matter?

And when the final report comes out, you will do the same thing. You will look at the contradicting reports (of which there will be ) and use it so you can simply pick the evidence you want to use. Just like you carefully hand worded this thread so you could guide the conversation into a direction that you wanted it to lead into rather than an actual discussion. No having to deal with the onslaught of even greater contradictions in your proposals when you weed that conversation out and go on a mindless banter over simple opinion that you want to try to somehow convince everyone else is fact.

Simply saying there was no gouge does not make it true, no matter how dishonest you are with yourself. And if there wasn't it also does not in any way mean the building could not have collapsed without explosives. And these guys who sure know a lot more than you would certainly be able to detect that.

Oh but let me guess your answer for that outcome: They're all in on it and paid to say such things. Right? Just like those magical explosives which somehow just left no evidence either. Yes, so long as you simply limit the topic of discussion you don't have to be held responsible for your claims and you can use empty rhetoric to make up for it such as:

"Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence."

While again quoting one page and ignoring others.

Stop ignoring the evidence begin used to refute opinion.

 

[Christopher7]

So let me get this straight. The number of arguments determines the validity? Is there a mathematical formula for that? It could also be that 4 people are wrong and 1 is right.

Not in this case.

Or it could be that they are all wrong. Or it could be that they are all right. Take your pick. Obviously you already did. And instead of considering them all and waiting for the real analysis, you have already decided exactly what happened. You just found an easy way to try and dismiss what you don't want to hear rather than consider the possibilities. You wlaready know what you want to believe, so what does it matter?

Talk to yourself much?

I did not know that the 10 story gouge OTers kept talking about was a misrepresentation of the facts until i read the NIST report and found two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

And when the final report comes out, you will do the same thing. You will look at the contradicting reports (of which there will be ) and use it so you can simply pick the evidence you want to use.

I have listed ALL the statements concerning the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to have been.

Simply saying there was no gouge does not make it true

The 4 statements that are in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge make it true.

"Accept as true, or refute the following with evidence."

While again quoting one page and ignoring others.

Stop ignoring the evidence begin used to refute opinion.

You keep saying i'm ignoring evidence. Where is it?

Post your evidence if you have any.

 

[BeAChooser]

So Christopher ... 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? Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue.

 

[Belz...]

I have it straight.

The hole in the second picture is to the left of column 5.

The holes seen in the two photos are NOT the '10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide, in the middle of WTC 7' described on pg 18.

They're not a 10 storey hole, but they may be the 10 storey hole that was described, only larger.

 

[DGM]

yet you believe that WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F based on that same 'interim' report.

Actually because it is only an interim report I tend to lean more toward the eyewitness reports. The majority of which point away from any form of controlled demolition.
Besides the fact that I have not heard a single convincing argument as to WHY the building was destroyed.

 

[Christopher7]

/showthread.php?postid=2704131#post2704131

So Christopher ... 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? Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue.

The issue in this thread is the lack of evidence for the official theory.

There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.
There are 4 statements in conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is evidence that there was no fire in the NE generator room.

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

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fires causing a core column to fail.
There is evidence that vertical support columns are not significantly affected by severe fire exposure.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2704131#post2704131

The 'Final report' has been delayed until the end of the year.
So now you can say "wait for the final report" for another six months.

OTers want to ignore all existing evidence that disproves the 'official hypothesis' until the 'final report' comes out while, at the same time, quoting any statements they believe support that hypothesis.

 

[BeAChooser]

So Christopher ... 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? Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue. You apparently don't believe there was an innocent reason for the collapse. So what do you believe? Let's see if you can defend *your* *theory*?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Not in this case.

Talk to yourself much?

I did not know that the 10 story gouge OTers kept talking about was a misrepresentation of the facts until i read the NIST report and found two statements on the same page that were in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge.

I have listed ALL the statements concerning the area where the 10 story gouge was supposed to have been.


The 4 statements that are in direct conflict with the 10 story gouge make it true.


You keep saying i'm ignoring evidence. Where is it?

Post your evidence if you have any.

Not in any case and apparently you indeed like to talk to yourself. At least you finally got the point.

So statements were in contradiction with each other, and you have this magical power to know which one is the correct one. I see. What kind of magic would this be?

4 statements in contradiction to 1 do not make it true. Once again, please tell me what is the mathematical formula you say doesn't exist in this case, but clearly are using to make such an absurd claim. is it 4:1? Is it 2:1? And as always, you are ignoring the fact that they could all be right and they could all be wrong. You're merely assuming the one you want is right.

Where is the rest of the evidence? In the rest of the report that you conveniently want no one to discuss.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The issue in this thread is the lack of evidence for the official theory.

There was no 10 story gouge as described on pg 18.
There are 4 statements in conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.

There is no evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
There is evidence that there was no fire in the NE generator room.

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

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of fires causing a core column to fail.
There is evidence that vertical support columns are not significantly affected by severe fire exposure.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2704131#post2704131

The 'Final report' has been delayed until the end of the year.
So now you can say "wait for the final report" for another six months.

OTers want to ignore all existing evidence that disproves the 'official hypothesis' until the 'final report' comes out while, at the same time, quoting any statements they believe support that hypothesis.

I think you just summed it all up. There has been no "official theory" yet and you are already saying it's wrong. Far be it for you to wait for the facts to come in, you already made your decision.

The rest of us will wait for there to actually BE an "official story" so we can make a proper assessment instead of hopefuly guessing such as yourself.

And you will continue to ignore all the evidence that proves your claims wrong and continue to avoid any conversation that makes it painfully obvious.

 

[Christopher7]

4 statements in contradiction to 1 do not make it true. Once again, please tell me what is the mathematical formula you say doesn't exist in this case, but clearly are using to make such an absurd claim. is it 4:1?

4>1

....they could all be right

That would be impossible as the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby and taken out much of the atrium glass.

and they could all be wrong.

The firefighters who were leading people out of the building gave a very detailed report of what they observed.

There is NO reason to doubt the accuracy of what they reported.

You're merely assuming the one you want is right.[/quote]
[bolding mine]

No, the 3 statements of professional firefighters and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.

Where is the rest of the evidence?

Here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2717417#post2717417

If you have any other evidence or statements to offer, please do so.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

4>1
That would be impossible as the 'floor 10 to the ground gouge' would have left a pile of heavy debris in the lobby and taken out much of the atrium glass.


The firefighters who were leading people out of the building gave a very detailed report of what they observed.

There is NO reason to doubt the accuracy of what they reported.

You're merely assuming the one you want is right.

[bolding mine]

No, the 3 statements of professional firefighters and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.


Here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2717417#post2717417

If you have any other evidence or statements to offer, please do so.[/QUOTE]

So 4:1 is the formula? If there are 4 witnesses, they overrule one? Or is it a smaller number?

No it would not be impossible for them to all be right. They could be reporting the building from different points of time. The damage could have changed over the course of the 7 hours, so the ones contradicting the gash, could have been reported before it existed.

And what you mean is that the firefighters who tell you what you want to hear give a very detailed description, and the ones who don't help you, don't give a detailed description.

There is no reason to doubt the testimony of the people who tell you what you want to hear. And the people who counter what you want to hear are all to be dismissed based on the people who tell you what you want to hear. You're pretty easy to figure out, no question about that.

I on the other hand am not assuming anyone is right or wrong, only YOU are. And not only that, you are trying to present it as fact rather than your biased opinion that it is.

And as has already been pointed out, the source that you don't want to listen to was not unnamed, it was also a firefighter. AND there were many, they just aren't all listed in that report, which is not a final or official one.

Once again, if you want that evidence, you can go back and read it. But why bother, it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. But sooner or later you will have to be honest with yourself.

 

[BeAChooser]

No, the 3 statements of professional firefighters [/SIZE][/SIZE]and 1 statement by an unnamed source, clearly outweigh the 1 statement by an unnamed source.

Shouldn't that principle also apply to what demolition experts SEE in viewing videos and images of what happened that day? Seems to me the number of demolition experts who say the structures were not CD's far outnumber those who do. Same goes for structural engineers. So, Christopher, are you ready to concede that the collapse of the towers and WTC 7 were NOT controlled demolitions ... using the principle you've cited above? ROTFLOL!