10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

As I said we all know that the SW corner of the building suffered major damage, the corner columns were ripped out. We also know for a fact that the building was leaning as a result of the damages to the south face.

A firefighter, two blocks away, thought WTC 7 was leaning.

No one at the scene said the building was leaning.

FEMA and NIST did not say the building was leaning.

WTC 7 was not leaning.

The stairwell is on the west side of the building, we know that as well do we not?

As i said before, we don't know that.
However, the evidence indicates that it was.

Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving

from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

We also know for a fact that WTC 1 fell while these men were in the stairwell.

True

For the fact that when they lined a transit up on the building it was leaning or bulging? Get real Chris. You know it was.

Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner that ran up several floors.
[they had to put a transit on it to be sure]
He did NOT say WTC 7 was leaning.

Simply another possibility
On the other hand you have even less basis for assuming any explosive demolitions.

The elevators in the hallway north of the shaft are evidence of an explosion.

It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.

Well perhaps less likey but not without precedent that day.

Bankers Trust was about 100 feet closer to a falling Trade Tower and the gouge was about 30 feet deep.

Oops. perhaps you are correct. Ok bounced out off the south side. It is still one possibity and requires only events that are known to have occured such as the damage to the building.

Bounced?

You refuse to accept that falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall 80 feet from the front of the building.

True, I consider it a possibility.

The key words here are 'falling', 'two' and 'sideways'.

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

You refuse to accept that what they heard could have been an explosion.

I simply accept that , in this world and in the English language , that many is the time that loud sounds and rumblings have been described as an explosion and given the FACT that WTC1 fell whiule they were in the stairwells that it is extremely likely that the "explosion" was the effect of the debris damaging the building only a couple dozen feet from where they were.

It is possible, but unlikely, that what they heard was debris hitting the building.
Several large pieces of debris hit WTC 7. They would have sounded like a series of explosions.

An explosion next to column 65 on floor 8 could eject the elevator cars into the hallway north of the shaft and damage the west stairwell, filling it with smoke.

Could, but there is no evidence to support this contention.

Two elevator cars in the hallway north of the shaft is evidence of an explosion.

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence.

You can site alternate explanations but you cannot rule out that what they heard could have been a explosion.

On the other hand if it were there then according to your take on the way the building would react, it would have NO effect on the initiation of collapse yet appears to be the first "explosion" that occured in the building.

Correct

No other FF's who entered the building report any evidence of such an explosion either and the ones who came for Jenkins and Hesh were some of the first in the building.

Wrong
The firefighters who rescued Jenkins and Hess* were the last firefighters in the building.
They are no doubt the ones who reported the elevators in the hallway north of the elevator shaft.


* I got 'Hesh' from the video .... wrong, Barry clearly said Hess, so i looked it up.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Falling debris could not eject two elevator cars sideways thru a wall.

This is one of the most false statements you have made. Tons of debris falling from 1000 feet in the air can pretty much do what it wants to do.

 

[Christopher7]

This is one of the most false statements you have made. Tons of debris falling from 1000 feet in the air can pretty much do what it wants to do.

What it wants?

Falling anything cannot break the laws of physics.
It would take a tremendous amount of lateral force to knock two elevator cars thru a wall.

Can you admit that what Michael and Barry heard could have been an explosion?

Can you admit that what ejected two elevators sideways thru a wall, 80 feet from the front of WTC 7, could have been an explosion?

 

[twinstead]

What it wants?

Can you admit that what Michael and Barry heard could have been an explosion?

Anything is possible. The problem is, you are the one declaring that what they heard indeed WAS an explosion and should be used as evidence as such, because frankly you have to in order to build your little fantasy.

What we are saying is it could have been anything, therefore useless as evidence of CD.

 

[Christopher7]

Anything is possible.

That's a half answer.
Can you actually admit that what they heard could have been an explosion?

The problem is, you are the one declaring that what they heard indeed WAS an explosion and should be used as evidence as such,

Post #3181

It is possible, but unlikely, that what they heard was debris hitting the building.

Evidence: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.
The two elevator cars in the hallway north of the shaft is also evidence [a sign] of an explosion.

A case is built on many pieces of evidence that are not, in and of themselves, proof.

What we are saying is it could have been anything, therefore useless as evidence of CD.

You are saying that anything less than proof is not evidence.
Such is not the case.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yet no evidence of explosives have been found. Isn't that interesting?

 

[Christopher7]

Yet no evidence of explosives have been found. Isn't that interesting?

When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

If this is a criminal investigation, the destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.

If this is a scientific investigation, there is no reason to release some photographs and withhold others.

 

[Drudgewire]

Evidence: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.

It's faulty evidence. Two people saying they heard an explosion is considered good evidence if they're the only two people capable of hearing it. Two people out of thousands hearing it is another matter altogether.

Psychics give SIGNS of the existence of BS every day, hell it's what puts food on their table.

 

[GlennB]

....

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

.....

I had no ida of that. Is this a FOIA issue? Can you provide a link confirming this?

 

[twinstead]

When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.

What? When faced with evidence we can't accept, we shift to the obvious lack of evidence?

What the heck does that mean?

What he means is that there is a conspicuous lack of physical evidence. You agree, obviously, because all you have to say is "the physical evidence was destroyed".

What the heck does THAT mean?

Are you saying that no evidence of CD is to be expected after a CD because it destroys all its evidence, or it was somehow 'destroyed' on purpose?

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

Yea. Not that I doubt you, but where do you get this information?

 

[Norseman]

Bankers Trust was about 100 feet closer to a falling Trade Tower and the gouge was about 30 feet deep.

Originally Posted by C7
It is extremely unlikely that falling debris could penetrate 60 feet into WTC 7, much less knock two elevator cars sideways, thru a wall, 80 feet form the front.

If you look at the figure on page 6-5 in the FEMA report on the Bankers Trust building you will see that the gouge was more on the order of 46 feet deep.

If you then look at the floor plan for floor 8 - 45 on page L-6 in the NIST progress report on WTC 7, you will se that the distance between the elevator banks and the south front is only 36 feet in WTC 7.

It is correct that the Bankers Trust building was 100 feet closer to WTC 2 than WTC 7 was to WTC 1. But the collapse in WTC 1 initiated about 180 feet higher than the collapse in WTC 2. That should compensate for some of the remoteness.

Then we have WFC 3 that was located even further away from WTC 1 than WTC 7. But a large exterior column tree from WTC 1 hit the southeast corner about 25 floors above the ground as you can see on page 7-5 and 7-6 in the FEMA report.

When I look at the picture of the gouge that GlenB posted in post #3172 in this thread, it is not a great leap of imagination to think that debris also could have entered the shaft of one of the elevator banks. A large piece of exterior column from WTC 1 falling down the elevator shaft could easily knock an elevator car or two sideways like a billiard ball if the car is hit off center.

It is even a possibility that one or more columns in the core of WTC 7 was cut or weakened by debris from WTC 1.

 

[Christopher7]

I had no ida of that. Is this a FOIA issue? Can you provide a link confirming this?

http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm


How do I make a FOIA request?
Submit your request in writing to the NIST FOIA Office at the following address or via e-mail to foia@nist.gov.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Catherine S. Fletcher, FOIA & Privacy Act Officer
100 Bureau Drive, STOP 1710
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1710
301 975-6056


Call and ask them for photographs of WTC 7

 

[twinstead]

Chris. All you've shown is that the FOIA exists. We all know that. The question was how do you know those 6000 photos and 6000 video clips exist?

 

[Norseman]

Two people saying they heard an explosion is evidence [a sign] that there was an explosion.

Christopher7, people use all kinds of words to describe violent events they expirience. They can say it was like an explosion, an earthquake or a crash for instance. I just depends on their frame of reference.

What do you make out of this witness account:
"It looked like the World Trade Center had exploded. I saw rocks and pebbles coming down. As I was running I got pelted in the head by rocks and concrete...."

Of course, the World Trade Center was only used as a frame of reference by the witness to describe what he experienced.

Here you have a witness that was inside WTC 7 when WTC 2 collapsed and close by when WTC 1 collapsed. Start at "Life Safety is No. 1". His use of the word missile to describe the collapse of WTC 1 could easily be misused by CT´ers who believe that WTC 7 was hit by a missile.

All available information indicates that Hesh and Jennings used the word explosion to describe what they experienced when WTC 1 collapsed.

 

[Christopher7]

It's faulty evidence. Two people saying they heard an explosion is considered good evidence if they're the only two people capable of hearing it. Two people out of thousands hearing it is another matter altogether.

Are you calling them liars?

These are statements made on 911 by people who were in WTC 7.

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

This explains why there are not more earwitnesses.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

When faced with evidence you can't accept, you shift to the lack of physical evidence.

The physical evidence was destroyed.

NIST is withholding over 6,000 photos and over 6,000 video clips until the investigation is finished.

If this is a criminal investigation, the destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.

If this is a scientific investigation, there is no reason to release some photographs and withhold others.

Ah yes, the conjecture that I can't accept. I tell you what Chris. Why don't you bring up a lawsuit against NIST and see what a court of law thinks of your such evidence? If it's as strong as you claim it to be, you should have no problem. Am I wrong?

The evidence was destroyed? Can you prove that? Of course not. Again, see how well that argument holds up in a court room where you can't dodge issues and pretend that conjecture is facts.


Show me how many investigations publish all of the info before the investigation is done. Please go ahead and list them all here for us.

What I would like the most is to see you debate your arguments with real engineers and with the engineers working on the NIST investigation. But unfortunately they would not take your claims seriously enough to bother. I imagine when the investigation is complete and they can make a complete presentation they will have a public hearing. Until then you can continue to take pot shots at a report that doesn't yet exist.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Are you calling them liars?

These are statements made on 911 by people who were in WTC 7.

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

This explains why there are not more earwitnesses.

A lot of people have reported seeing Elvis. Are they liars? Does Elvis live?

How could there NOT be explosions in a building that is on fire and collapsing? I would be willing to bet there was air as well, and concrete and steel. I bet there were explosiives. No wait, no explosives found, never mind.

 

[twinstead]

We agree that the 'explosions' took place about the time WTC 1 collapsed.

So, that is pretty convenient for both of us, huh? You can claim that the sound of the collapse covered the explosions, and we can claim that it was the collapses that caused the damage you attribute to the explosions.

Exactly how does that make your case any stronger?

 

[MaGZ]

The "New Footage" video has been around for a while. In it, Michael Hesh said "Another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion! and we were trapped on the 8th floor. Smoke, thick smoke wrapped(?) around us for about an hour and a half"

At what time did Hess and Jennings say this explosion happened in WTC 7?

 

[twinstead]

A lot of people have reported seeing Elvis. Are they liars? Does Elvis live?

Are you suggesting that Elvis isn't alive?????