• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
cloudshipsrule said:
You don't know that. NIST doesn't know that.
Click to expand...
Yes they do.

They had two years to gather the data.
They have pictures of the south east face.
No heavy debris or debris damage was reported anywhere inside WTC 7

If there was evidence of damage to the area of the initiating event, they would have included it in the progress report.

Just using the evidence we have:

[FONT=&quot]Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]
[the face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke]

No heavy debris damage to east half of south face was reported.

Debris would have to enter between columns 8 and 11 (Spak#) to damage the core columns in the area of the initiating event.
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3880/sfacegraphic3np6.jpg

 There is no large hole or other significant damage to this area between floors 12 and 16.
[/FONT]
 
No they DON'T know that. What Chris is trying to do is to say that if something wasn't reported or seen, that it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to know the condition of every inch of the building simply from accounts. Especially since the closer the time came to collapse, the fewer people were around. He is also assuming that when something was reported, that it never changed at any point.

These are all faulty arguments, which is why his claims aren't taken seriously. NIST doesn't know the entire assessment of damage. They can't, and they don't need to. Just lik Chris does not feel he needs to find any evidence of demolitions to conclude there were demolitions. The same infantile tactic could easily be used against his arguments, but he is taking advantage of talking to logical people who would not stoop to his same behavior.
 
Chris, this has been going on so long I forgot the original point.

Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?

For example, the bridge in Minneapolis shouldn't have fallen but it did.

No disrespect intended; I just want to make sure I keep up and don't go in circles.
 
Actually his original point was that there was no hole on the south side of the building. Of course that has been completely disproven by the video footage showing a massive gash that spans what is likely most of the side of the building. So now he has moved onto other points.
 
C7 said:
No heavy debris or debris damage was reported anywhere inside WTC 7
Click to expand...

Except by Barry Jennings, he was quite clear in that regard

Can you please explain why thousands of onlookers and all video and sound recording equipment that day did not pick up multiple and huge explosions like the ones on the Implosion Site that you told me to go and look at?

Also, because you seem to be ignoring it, where do I get some of the silent explosives?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Actually his original point was that there was no hole on the south side of the building. Of course that has been completely disproven by the video footage showing a massive gash that spans what is likely most of the side of the building. So now he has moved onto other points.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in fact I had said that with the statements that NIST included in its prelim report that it was likely that the gash was not 10 storeys high.
However, with the video you refer to I would have to change my mind on that. The video does seem to indicate a very tall gash in the south face.

Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything in the area of the (visible) initiating event.
 
jaydeehess said:
Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything in the area of the (visible) initiating event.
Click to expand...

Chris handwaves masterfully that video away as if it is totally meaningless to what happened to WTC7 that day.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
No they DON'T know that. What Chris is trying to do is to say that if something wasn't reported or seen, that it doesn't exist. But we all know that it's impossible to know the condition of every inch of the building simply from accounts. Especially since the closer the time came to collapse, the fewer people were around. He is also assuming that when something was reported, that it never changed at any point.
Click to expand...
The debris damage did not change after 11:30 a.m.
[FONT=&quot]11:30 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.
Looking from southeast corner of the south face:
Fire was seen on floor 12 on the south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke. [NIST Apx. L pg 24]

The face below floor 12 was not covered by smoke

[/FONT]There was access to the area in front of the south east corner.
pedbridge2smnl2.jpg


pedbridge3nh7.jpg


NIST interviewed over 100 witnesses.
[FONT=&quot]
No significant debris damage to east half of south face was reported.
[/FONT]
NIST doesn't know the entire assessment of damage.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that.
 
So unless a witness reported it, it isn't possible? Is that what you are saying?

And you are also saying it's not an assumption that NIST knows the entire assessment of damage? Guess that helps their claim of their being no evidence what so ever of any kind of demolition.
 
GT/CS said:
Chris, this has been going on so long I forgot the original point.
Click to expand...
The original point of this thread is:

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L, doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' gouge, floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

Who believes that there was a '10 story gouge' and who does not?

ETA 'gouge'
 
jaydeehess said:
Indeed, in fact I had said that with the statements that NIST included in its prelim report that it was likely that the gash was not 10 storeys high.
However, with the video you refer to I would have to change my mind on that. The video does seem to indicate a very tall gash in the south face.
Click to expand...
The video does NOT show the gouge described on pg 18:

Floor 10 to the ground, in the middle of the south face.

The video does not show that area.

It shows damage further west above the 8th floor.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Chris has seen that video and contends that even if it is there that it means nothing* because the stresses produced by removing that portion of the building would not , in his opinion, be contributing anything* in the area of the (visible) initiating event.
Click to expand...
How, in your opinion, could damage to the south west face have a significant structural effect* on the core columns in the east end of the building?
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Names and sources of people who don't subscribe to your theory and therefore have no reason to say anything about it ? Sure...
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course.

I would suggest, Chris, that you keep to trying to provide evidence to support your theory instead of demanding we find people who don't agree with you.

The ONLY reason anybody would have to make any comment at all on it would be if it contradicts the 'official story'. The sad thing about that little fact is folks like you like to take that as a tacit agreement with your theory until they specifically come out against it.

Of course then that opens them up to be called shills, or stupid, or 'in on it' or whatever truthers are calling people who dare disagree with them nowadays.

Very carefully crafted, if I say so myself.
 
Christopher7 said:
How, in your opinion, could damage to the south west face have a significant structural effect* on the core columns in the east end of the building?
Click to expand...

The issue here is if YOU are indeed qualified to have the opinion that damage to one part of the building could NOT have had any structural effect on another part of the building. You want to hear about some experts who may disagree with you?

Well, perhaps you could ask the experts consulted by Popular Mechanics in the Structural Engineering/Building Collapse section of This list.

These are some folks who may disagree with you. Perhaps you could contact a couple of them and tell them that you know better.
 
Christopher7 said:
The original point of this thread is:

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L, doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' gouge, floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]

Who believes that there was a '10 story gouge' and who does not?

ETA 'gouge'
Click to expand...

That is not the point of the thread, it's just the question you asked. Do you think I didn't read the opening post?

What is the point of the thread? What are you trying to prove or what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal by continuing this nit-picking dialog that will never go anywhere or prove anything?
 
GT/CS said:
That is not the point of the thread, it's just the question you asked. Do you think I didn't read the opening post?

What is the point of the thread? What are you trying to prove or what do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal by continuing this nit-picking dialog that will never go anywhere or prove anything?
Click to expand...

You have a good point, since Chris was answered on the first page "eye witnesses and video evidence suggests that there was indeed a large area of damage to WTC7. Was it exactly 10 stories? Who knows? Who cares?".

Yet the thread rolls on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom