10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Barry Jennings claims please, he is very specific about the damage inside the looby area and the hole he was taken out?

Barry's statement seems to conflict with the firefighters who rescued him.

He is in conflict with the statement he made on 9/11 when he said:

When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.
I was left there hanging.
I had to climb back up.

This was the most intense moment. One he would remember all his life.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you describe this experience as:

"Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

The two statements are irreconcilable. IMO
As i have said before, i take all witness statements at face value unless there is a reason to doubt their statements.


On the other hand, when two people make the same statement;

We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!

another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion!

that should be considered more compelling than a statement by one person.


BTW: Barry “the landing that we were standing on gave way.”
Mr. Hess did not say he was left hanging.
How could both men ‘forget’ about the most traumatic moments of the experience when interviewed on 9/11.



Please respond to post #3540 before asking another question.
Thank you

 

[GT/CS]

I am focused on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] which is original point of this thread.

You are avoiding the point by talking about me.

Will you please respond directly to this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
[FONT=&quot]"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground"
is true
Both cannot be true.

So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[5 with Fellini][/FONT]

I thought I told you what I believe but if it will make you happy (and I want to make you happy because you seem to be unraveling) we'll do it again.

I believe there was significant damage to the building from falling debris. I don't know if the "gouge" was 20 stories or 8 stories so I can't answer your question about a "10 story gouge".

How about answering my question from a while back?
"Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?"

 

[Christopher7]

I believe there was significant damage to the building from falling debris. I don't know if the "gouge" was 20 stories or 8 stories so I can't answer your question about a "10 story gouge".

You skated around the question but you did not answer it.

Do you believe the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] existed as described, or was it a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

How about answering my question from a while back?
"Are you claiming that WTC7 couldn't have fallen without cd or shouldn't have fallen without cd?"

When you give a straightforward answer about the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18], i will respond to your CD questions
here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

 

[Unfit4Command]

Hey Chris, what does NIST say about the '10 story gouge' in their Final Report on building 7?

 

[Christopher7]

Hey Chris, what does NIST say about the '10 story gouge' in their Final Report on building 7?

Skating, sidestepping, Is anyone here honest enough to give a straightforward answer?

 

[Belz...]

Spam, spam, spam.

 

[funk de fino]

Barry's statement seems to conflict with the firefighters who rescued him.

He is in conflict with the statement he made on 9/11 when he said:

When we reached the 8th, or the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way.
There was an explosion and the landing gave way.
I was left there hanging.
I had to climb back up.

This was the most intense moment. One he would remember all his life.
Put yourself in his shoes. Would you describe this experience as:

"Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."

The two statements are irreconcilable. IMO
As i have said before, i take all witness statements at face value unless there is a reason to doubt their statements.


On the other hand, when two people make the same statement;

We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion!

another gentleman and i walked down to the 8th floor where there was an explosion!

that should be considered more compelling than a statement by one person.


BTW: Barry “the landing that we were standing on gave way.”
Mr. Hess did not say he was left hanging.
How could both men ‘forget’ about the most traumatic moments of the experience when interviewed on 9/11.



Please respond to post #3540 before asking another question.
Thank you

Barry Jennings said the lobby looked like King Kong had wrecked it and that he got taken out a hole in the wall by the first responders

You said earlier that there was no major damage in the lobby, he says there was

This is all I need to know because you are the one who used him as a witness and now you are doubting him

I am not interested in your little games, you refuse to answer all questions put to you that show your theory to be mixed and muddled and incorrect

This is what I am focuing on why do I need to answer on something that is of no relevance to me?

I believe that the building was damaged by debri quite severely and fires started that burned on many floor for many hours and this weakened the building and it came down. I have seen photos of the damage, photos of the fires, i have seen testimonies about both. There is nothing else I have seen or heard that can take the place of the official theory in my eyes at the moment. This is without the final report. You have shown nothing except word games and playing with the prelim report. If there are slight mistakes in it then fine but overall the theory that I see is acceptable to me. Nothing you have contradicts it.

If you had videos of the building falling with huge and multiple explosions from CD like on Implosion world, you then had thousands of witnesses who said they seen and heard these explosions, then you had numerous experts saying that after reading the full report and looking at all evidence that they believed it was CD then you would have a case. You have nothing like this. Your main witness you have you now have to discount. The videos I have seen have no explosions. There are not thousands of witnesses to the explosions. The final report is not out and the only demolition guys you have only saw a couple of videos that you claimed you knew which ones but in fact later claimed you did not know.

How many WTC7 videos are being witheld C7?

 

[GT/CS]

You skated around the question but you did not answer it.

Do you believe the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] existed as described, or was it a misinterpretation of other damage further west.


When you give a straightforward answer about the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18], i will respond to your CD questions
here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2301403#post2301403

I believe the firefighters who say there was a huge gouge in the bulding and the lobby was a disaster area. I cannot pinpoint exactly where the gouge was, and neither can you, but it really doesn't matter. I also believe the firefighters who looked at the wall through a transit and saw that the building was leaning.

I have no desire to waste my time debunking your "facts" because it's been done time and time again on these threads. You would just ignore the evidence anyway, just as you have in the past.

I am more interested in why you ignore most of the evidence but look for and religiously latch onto, tiny details that you think prove your point.

So I'll ask again, what is your point? Are you trying to tell us that 7 shouldn't have fallen without cds or are you trying to tell us that it couldn't have fallen without cds? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your altogether and you're trying to tell us something else. If so what is it?

 

[tsig]

Skating, sidestepping, Is anyone here honest enough to give a straightforward answer?

Yes.

 

[jaydeehess]

I came into this discussion believing that WTC 7 was a CD.
You [all] came into this discussion believing it was not.

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the accepted position amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage). The idea of it being a CD came later when some of us stumbled upon the conspiracy theories. I have seen the supposed evidence for a CD and found it wanting to say the least.

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table,
and analysis of fire behavior.

yes it did since the original question is put to rest with the images of a gouge that is highly suggestive of exactly what is described.
Here is part of what i have accomplished:

The evidence for the '10 story gouge':

NIST Appendix L pg 18 [22 on pg counter]
"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 60 to 80 feet wide from the south facade to the elevators]


FEMA Chapter 5 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..." [Do you think he did not notice a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 ?]


NIST ignored the three statements on the same page that were in conflict with the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged outfrom floor 10 to the ground" 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

The statements are not mutually exclusive unless you REQUIRE that they all agree 100%

Oddly you do not accept all of Jenning's ststement but are unwilling to acknowledge that the FF's statements are all estimates of damages they saw in conditions of dust and smoke. To that end you even have tried to deny the existance of dust and smoke.

The varying assesments of the height of the gouge are from people who were operating in a dust and smoke clouded enviroment and giving statements about things they might have only looked at for a few minutes in a very busy and emotional day.

The FF who walked along the 9th floor did so most likely along the hallway and opened office doors and called for anyone who may still be inside. His first duty, to locate possible persons in the building.

The FF's who stated no heavy debris in the lobby were looking at a lobby that was basically monchromatic, from one end of the lobby. Their first duty ,it is supposed, at that time was to escort civilians out of the building. Their look at the lobby was cursory at best.

debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact

The atrium is quite wide and existed in two parts, east and west. It is quite possible for part of the atrium glass to be intact whereas the person making that statement may well not actually state that what he meant was that some of the glass was intact. In fact it is folly to expect that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. Look at the bloody pictures of the building Chris. the greatest damage occured on lower floors and the Cirone pictures show the debris in the street and broken windows on the north side of WTC 6. You cannot honestly expect that all of the atrium windows were intact and therefore the part of the statement that the atrium glass was intact can be shown to not mean that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. In fact given that it is included in the same statement that says that a gouge went down to the ground level illustrates that the statement does not refer to ALL of the atrium glass.

 

[Christopher7]

Barry Jennings said the lobby looked like King Kong had wrecked it and that he got taken out a hole in the wall by the first responders
You said earlier that there was no major damage in the lobby, he says there was

Wrong
A statement in NIST Apx. L said there was no debris in the lobby

This is all I need to know because you are the one who used him as a witness and now you are doubting him

I believe what he said on 9/11 because Michael Hess said the same thing.

I am not interested in your little games, you refuse to answer all questions put to you that show your theory to be mixed and muddled and incorrect

Wrong, i answer questions about CD in the C7 --- C4 thread.

This is what I am focuing on why do I need to answer on something that is of no relevance to me?

You refuse to acknowledge that that the '10 story gouge [as described on pg 18] was a misinterpretation of other damage further west.

The '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] was the most serious damage mentioned in the NIST report. That damage was shown in the graphics on pg 23, 31 and 32 and mentioned in the summary as
"Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 80, and/or 81"

It is very relevant.

I believe that the building was damaged by debri quite severely and fires started that burned on many floor for many hours and this weakened the building and it came down. I have seen photos of the damage, photos of the fires, i have seen testimonies about both.

That's your reasoning. There was debris damage and fires.
That's a general statement. It ignores the FACT that there was no debris damage to or near the area where the collapse began.

There is nothing else I have seen or heard that can take the place of the official theory in my eyes at the moment. This is without the final report. You have shown nothing except word games and playing with the prelim report. If there are slight mistakes in it then fine but overall the theory that I see is acceptable to me. Nothing you have contradicts it.

I have listed 5 statements from official reports that contradict the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18].

If you had videos of the building falling with huge and multiple explosions from CD like on Implosion world, you then had thousands of witnesses who said they seen and heard these explosions,

You choose to ignore the visual evidence for want of sound evidence.

Danny Jowenko, and the 2 professors of structural analysis and construction, did not consider the lack of sound a problem.

then you had numerous experts saying that after reading the full report and looking at all evidence that they believed it was CD then you would have a case. You have nothing like this.

There are now 168 architects and engineers who have looked at the evidence and have concluded that WTC 7 was a CD.
They do not consider the lack of sound a problem.

Your main witness you have you now have to discount.

Wrong, wrong
He is not 'my' witness nor is he a 'main' witness.
He is a witness.

The videos I have seen have no explosions.

The videos show the top half or start after the collapse began.

 

[Christopher7]

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the accepted position amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).

WRONG!

The accepted position is: The working hypothesis "appears possible".

The idea of it being a CD came later when some of us stumbled upon the conspiracy theories. I have seen the supposed evidence for a CD and found it wanting to say the least.

The idea came to my mind when i saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

 

[lapman]

That's your reasoning. There was debris damage and fires.
That's a general statement. It ignores the FACT that there was no debris damage to or near the area where the collapse began.

The damage could have easily overstressed the trusses in the area where the collapse began.

You choose to ignore the visual evidence for want of sound evidence.

Danny Jowenko, and the 2 professors of structural analysis and construction, did not consider the lack of sound a problem.

The 2 professors do not state that it was absolutely a CD. Danny looked at a muted video so he would have assumed the sound of the explosives was there. He did not see the east penthouse collapse 8.2 seconds prior to the collapse. He did not know the extent of the fires or of the diesel fuel storage in the building. So he was basing his opinion on very limited data.

There are now 168 architects and engineers who have looked at the evidence and have concluded that WTC 7 was a CD.
They do not consider the lack of sound a problem.

Please provide a link to all 168 articles that state this. How many of the address the east penthouse collapse? How many address the diesel fuel storage?

 

[GT/CS]

Chris, someone (sorry I don't remember who it was) had an interesting comment on another thread that applies here.

Do you know that a portion of the pentagon collapsed some time after the plane hit it? Do you agree that a portion of the pentagon did collapse without any further outside influences? If you agree that it collapsed why did it do so? Could it have been because of the fires?

Be sure to answer this question after you reply to my other one.

Thanks

 

[Christopher7]

The damage could have easily overstressed the trusses in the area where the collapse began.

Source?

The 2 professors do not state that it was absolutely a CD.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".

Danny looked at a muted video so he would have assumed the sound of the explosives was there. He did not see the east penthouse collapse 8.2 seconds prior to the collapse. He did not know the extent of the fires or of the diesel fuel storage in the building. So he was basing his opinion on very limited data.

There was no doubt in his mind.

He is an expert, you are not.

He knows far better than you how much data he needs to say it was a CD.

Please provide a link to all 168 articles that state this. How many of the address the east penthouse collapse? How many address the diesel fuel storage?

Good point.

I overstated the wording. My bad.
[emphasis mine]
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.


You also made a good point about Craig not hearing the 'clap of thunder' that Daryl heard.

This conflict of statements brings one of these two statements into question.

Thus lessening the sparse evidence of explosions.

There is still this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

and this

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

If you wish to discuss the issue further [/FONT][FONT=&quot]i will respond here:[/FONT]
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498320#post2498320


Would you please respond to post #3531
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2942714#post2942714


Chris
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

It started out on the '10 story gouge' [as described on pg 18] but has since covered diesel fuel fires, fire progression and time table, and analysis of fire behavior.

yes it did since the original question is put to rest with the images of a gouge that is highly suggestive of exactly what is described.

Wrong
There are NO images of the middle 1/4 to 1/3 of the south face, floor 10 to the ground.
There are NO images that 'suggest' such a hole existed there.
This image shows that there is no heavy damage east of column 5, above floor 10, other than the large hole around floor 14 just west of center as described on pg 18.

The statements are not mutually exclusive unless you REQUIRE that they all agree 100%

Wrong

The ground to floor 5 part of the atrium is between the pedestrian bridge on the right and the promenade on the left
[Spak columns 9 - 12]
The 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 cannot co-exist with:

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact"

The damage is 1/4 the width of the south face but it starts several floors above the atrium [floor 8 +or-] and stops above the 5th floor.
Any 'to the ground' damage would have to be west of column 9.

There's still the fact that any 'to the ground gouge' would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

And the problem with the Chief in charge of operations failing to notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep.

Oddly you do not accept all of Jenning's ststement but are unwilling to acknowledge that the FF's statements are all estimates of damages they saw in conditions of dust and smoke. To that end you even have tried to deny the existance of dust and smoke.

Barry and the firefighters saw the lobby at the same time.
The firefighters said there was no heavy debris, just a white dust coating and wires hanging from the ceiling.
Barry said the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had stepped on it.
Thats very colorful but not very descriptive.
Furthermore, Barry said:
[FONT=&quot]When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. [Trade Towers]
[/FONT]

The FF who walked along the 9th floor did so most likely along the hallway and opened office doors and called for anyone who may still be inside. His first duty, to locate possible persons in the building.

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side."

The FF's who stated no heavy debris in the lobby were looking at a lobby that was basically monchromatic, from one end of the lobby. Their first duty ,it is supposed, at that time was to escort civilians out of the building. Their look at the lobby was cursory at best.

You have no idea from where or for how long they looked at the lobby.

The atrium is quite wide and existed in two parts, east and west. It is quite possible for part of the atrium glass to be intact

Yes, the east part could be intact and the west part could be partly or totally broken.

In fact it is folly to expect that ALL of the atrium glass was intact. Look at the bloody pictures of the building Chris.

It would be folly to believe there was a 10 story gouge in the same place where they describe damage between the 8th and the 5th floors and the atrium glass intact.

the greatest damage occured on lower floors and the Cirone pictures show the debris in the street and broken windows on the north side of WTC 6. You cannot honestly expect that all of the atrium windows were intact and therefore the part of the statement that the atrium glass was intact can be shown to not mean that ALL of the atrium glass was intact.

Double talk.
The statement is clear "noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
They meant the atrium glass between the pedestrian bridge and the promenade, from the ground to floor 5, was intact.

In fact given that it is included in the same statement that says that a gouge went down to the ground level

Wrong
That was a separate statement.

 

[jaydeehess]

WRONG!

The accepted position is: The working hypothesis "appears possible".

How about I change what i said to:

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the working hypothysis amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).
Better??

The idea came to my mind when i saw this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ

,,, and you came to this then by first seeing a bare glimpse of what occured. You can barely see that the upper structures were involved first, you see nothing of the lower portion and only the north side.

Oddly enough I saw the same(or similar) video in the evening of Sept 11(IIRC) and did not have the thought that it must be a demolition. Instead I quite considered that it succumbed to the effects of the fires and damage incurred through the day. Later, when the NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT stated that their working hypothysis was exactly that I had and still have, no reason to doubt it.

You go on and on about what is in the NIST report (appendix l) yet fail miserably to note the many references to the FACT that this is a preliminary report.
(bolds mine)

The working collapse hypothesis has been developed around four phases of the collapse that were
observed in photographic and videographic records: the initiating event, a vertical progression at the east
side of the building, and a horizontal progression from the east to west side of the building, leading to
global collapse.
From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears
possible:...........

The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:....

The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses
become available.
........

There are many possible collapse scenarios that have been postulated in the preceding section. Many of
the scenarios will not produce the observed sequence of global collapse events and can be classified as
unlikely. Likely collapse scenarios will be identified through analyses that test the postulated phases of
collapse against observations. It is equally important to test scenarios that are not predicted to match the
observed data. The testing of the postulated collapse scenarios will be conducted through hand
calculations, simplified nonlinear thermal-structural analysis, and full nonlinear thermal analysis.

Yet somehoiw you KNOW that it was a CD that brought the building down and claim that there is more compelling evidence for such a senario.
You make these claims while also proclaiming that NIST is being deliberatly obfuscating and producing reports specifically designed to hide the supposed fact that it was a CD. In this way when the final report does come out and states that a CD was one of the least likely senarios you will simply slander the NIST researchers once again and include them all in the group that is in-on-it.
It seems odd then that all of your construction projects are not circular in nature given that your arguements concerning WTC 7 are certainly circular in nature.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wrong
There are NO images of the middle 1/4 to 1/3 of the south face, floor 10 to the ground.
There are NO images that 'suggest' such a hole existed there.
This image shows that there is no heavy damage east of column 5, above floor 10, other than the large hole around floor 14 just west of center as described on pg 18.

jaydeehess:
The varying assesments of the height of the gouge are from people who were operating in a dust and smoke clouded enviroment and giving statements about things they might have only looked at for a few minutes in a very busy and emotional day.

In other words Chris these reports are not EXACTING. Make it 1/6th the width and slightly west of center and it matchs what is seen in the pictures.

The ground to floor 5 part of the atrium is between the pedestrian bridge on the right and the promenade on the left
[Spak columns 9 - 12]

ONLY if you absolutly insist that the report is 100% accurate but because it isn't you claim inconsistency.

There's still the fact that any 'to the ground gouge' would leave heavy debris in the lobby.

once again you INSIST that F's exiting the building would simply have to have been able to see the entire lobby and make a full assessment of it from their vantage point as they aided civilians out of the building. It stands to reason that they were not in the process of making a thorough survey of the lobby if they were escorting civilians. Their first order of business was to get the civilians out and to safety.

And the problem with the Chief in charge of operations failing to notice a gouge, 120 feet high, 60 to 80 feet wide, and 30 to 40 feet deep.

Again, if in fact it was exactly those dimensions and he could see the entire building and if he was refering to the same damaged area.

Barry and the firefighters saw the lobby at the same time.
The firefighters said there was no heavy debris, just a white dust coating and wires hanging from the ceiling.

No, they said that there was no heavy debris visible as they exited the building. You stretch this to mean that they surveyed the entire lobby and found no heavy debris.

Barry said the lobby was totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had stepped on it.
Thats very colorful but not very descriptive.

It hardly means that there was no heavy debris in the lobby though.

Furthermore, Barry said:
When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion. That’s what forced us back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing. [Trade Towers]

If one listens to his account it is not clear when it was that he saw both buildings standing, before they started down the stairs or when they got to the 8th floor window. There are no windows in the stairwells unless you wish to subscribe to MaGZ's suggestion of other stairwells not in evidence as existing.
They most certainly are not both still standing when they went through the lobby unless their estimate (and I assume they both had watches) of the amount of time they were in WTC 7 on the 8th floor. In fact if they were on the 8th floor from some time after the 23rd floor was empty and for an hour and a half we absolutly know that both towers were down by then.

"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side."

Which does not mean that he walked along the southernmost wall of the building. In fact he could not have unless he was chopping through intervening walls.

You have no idea from where or for how long they looked at the lobby.

Neither do you. However as I said above they were in the process of escorting civilians out. That certainly means that their first course of action was to get those civilians OUT of the building, not stand around and make a good visual survey of the lobby.

Yes, the east part could be intact and the west part could be partly or totally broken

.

we agree

It would be folly to believe there was a 10 story gouge in the same place where they describe damage between the 8th and the 5th floors and the atrium glass intact.

Yes, why do you insist then that the atrium glass that was intact must be in the same place as the damage?

Double talk.
The statement is clear "noted that the atrium glass was still intact"
They meant the atrium glass between the pedestrian bridge and the promenade, from the ground to floor 5, was intact.

Wishful thinking on your part that is predicated upon the "middle" of the south face actually being centered on the south face of the building.

Wrong
That was a separate statement.

It is in the same bulleted item in the NIST report. Is that more clear to you?

 

[Christopher7]

How about I change what i said to:

One could be quite expected to come to this discussion with the view that it was not CD. It is the working hypothysis amoung all those involved in the most comprehensive investigations that the building succumbed to damages brought on by the collapse of the towers(both immediate damage and fire damage).
Better??

Yes, but, you don't know what 'all those involved' think individually.

and you came to this then by first seeing a bare glimpse of what occured. You can barely see that the upper structures were involved first, you see nothing of the lower portion and only the north side.

Oddly enough I saw the same(or similar) video in the evening of Sept 11(IIRC) and did not have the thought that it must be a demolition. Instead I quite considered that it succumbed to the effects of the fires and damage incurred through the day. Later, when the NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT stated that their working hypothysis was exactly that I had and still have, no reason to doubt it.

Do you believe the statement on pg 18 describing a '10 story gouge in the middle of the south face' or do you believe the 5 statements that are in conflict with that statement?

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes, but, you don't know what 'all those involved' think individually.

Neither do you. However it would be very wishful thinking on your part to believe that there are those amoung them that would be in any way close to agreement with you on CD of the building.

Do you believe the statement on pg 18 describing a '10 story gouge in the middle of the south face' or do you believe the 5 statements that are in conflict with that statement?

Did you have trouble reading my recent posts concerning those statements?