10 story hole in WTC 7

[jaydeehess]

In typical OCT fashion, you have completely twisted what I wrote.

I quote you directly:

Galileo wrote:

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

The most likely cause of a blast would be an explosive, as this was a terrorist attack.

You do not say that NIST is investigating possible blast events, not hypothetical blast events, not the effect of possible blast events. You say NIST is investigating the blast event. That context would indeed mean that NIST has identified a specific blast event. They have not stated such, you have. You are twisting the NIST statement. I have not twisted yours at all, merely pointed out what you are doing to NIST's.

If you mis-stated what you intended then by all means clarify the point. So far you have stuck by your original statement and that is in error.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris is pointing out that the debris damage has nothing to do with core columns # 79, # 80, and #81 failing, nor does an office fire at 2:30 P.M. have anything to do with them failing either.

A much simpler scientific explanation is that explosives set by terrorists took out those columns.

"You either are with us, or with the terrorists."
George Bush (2001)

Simple in the way that Biblical creation is simpler than evolution, but let'sw not get started on that since there are several threads in other sub-forums on this site dedicated to it.

Although the damage would be stressing columns other than the ones that did fail first it would also be stressing the entire core. If the column(s) that failed were under a greater load to capacity ratio originally then they would be predisposed to fail first rather than the ones under direct duress from the missing columns. If a girder relived the cantilever load at one point it would be transfering that load to the next core to perimeter span. It seems that Chris expects that these redistributed and altered loads just disappeared into the ether.

 

[Galileo]

Thank you for the reply but Chris needs to speak for himself. Oh, sorry, maybe he just did.

Oh, I forgot to mention, the terrorists also turned the fire alarm system off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11.

 

[GT/CS]

Oh, I forgot to mention, the terrorists also turned the fire alarm system off in WTC 7 at 6:47 A.M. on the morning of 9/11.

Thanks for that input Galileo7.

 

[Christopher7]

Will you please respond directly to this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...14#post2942714

Either the 4 statements i listed are true
Or the 1 statement about the
[FONT="][SIZE=3]"[U]middle[/U] 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"
[B] is[/B] [B]true[/B]
[/SIZE] [B][SIZE=3]Both cannot be true.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=5] So, what do you believe? The one statement or the four?
[/SIZE] [/B][SIZE=3][5 with Fellini][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

[QUOTE="GT/CS, post: 2947866, member: 18355"]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?"

The question is NOT "how big was the gouge"

The question is "where was the gouge?"

Was it "in the middle" as described on pg 18 or was it a misinterpretation of damage further west?


I believe, as millions of others do, that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did without explosives.

I have answered your question directly.
Please answer mine directly.

 

[jaydeehess]

Shall we review what the NIST report stated:

After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7 promenade structure at the third floor level

I assume Chris has no problem with that.

• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

...or that, other than to state that perhaps it extended from the 18th to the ground floor.

•

Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

.........or that

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

hmmm, now we get to Chris' buggaboo. Let's label each

1)− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

2)− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

3)− 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

4)− 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

Well if they are all taken to be exacting description then yes they conflict.
However two of them describe the width as 1/4 the width of the south face. This is an estimate of course. The south face was about 250 feet wide , one quarter of that would be 62 feet. One fifth would be 50 feet and one sixth would be 42 feet. All very large. It would be difficult to get a real good sense of the dimension of the hole/gouge given that one cannot back off from the building too far and it is dusty and smoky. However we do at least have two reports of a wide hole in the building.
Now one says ground to 5th floor and one says to the 10th. While on the face of it this is in conflict it certainly could be an error on both person's part. If in fact it was to the 8th floor both might characterize it as they did. Conversly the report of the hole going to the 5th floor may well be a report of what the person could see while the true height was masked by dust and smoke.
We also have the report of a hole at the 14th floor. It is not particularily neccessary that this be part of the same damage in the other two reports.
the last one is very interesting. On the 8th floor the south wall was missing and more light was visible to the west of this position suggestive of damage to the west of it. We already have two reports of damage that reachs from the ground to near the 8th floor occuring in the "middle" of the building as seen from the outside and this would back that up as an observation from the inside. Trouble is there are several elevator banks, it could have occured at any of them.

Then we get :
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building

Possibly Jennings and Hess from the 8th floor. They don't mention others and we don't know who the persons were who were on the 7th floor.

• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

I assume Chris has no problem with that

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

Or that. It does back up the idea that there were FF's on the 7th floor.

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

That is in some conflict with Jennings description of the lobby. IF, as Chris insists, a large gouge would mean that heavy debris absolutly must be in the lobby then these FF's must not have been able to see the entire lobby. The SW corner was gouged out down to the ground floor so according to Chris there should have been heavy debris visible. Perhaps the FF's could not see through the unlit, dusty lobby all the way to the SW corner. In that case how far could they see well enough to make the determination of no heavy debris? 100feet? 150? 200? 220?

FACT is that all of these eyewitness reports are anecdotal, not precise measurements. Chris insists they are contradictory but they are only if one insists they be precise.

 

[GT/CS]

The question is NOT "how big was the gouge"

The question is "where was the gouge?"

Was it "in the middle" as described on pg 18 or was it a misinterpretation of damage further west?


I believe, as millions of others do, that WTC 7 could not have fallen the way it did without explosives.
I have answered your question directly.
Please answer mine directly.

I told you that I don't know exactly where the gouge was. I wasn't there and didn't see it, but since there is no reason for the investigators to be dishonest about its location I am going to trust them to have it figured out when the final report is published. If, at that time, I think the report doesn't make sense I'll post my concerns right here. This is a skeptics web-site after all.

Since you (and millions of others ) believe that the building was taken down by a cd why does the gouge even matter? Even if NIST is off by a few feet in their preliminary report one way or the other what difference does it make?

So again, why are you going on, and on, and on, and on, about the location of the gouge? It doesn't matter exactly where it was or exactly how high it was because you won't accept anything but your belief in a cd. And it seems that you would rather blow a gasket by obsessing about it than just wait for the report.

 

[Christopher7]

I assume Chris has no problem with that.

Quote: • Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18

...or that, other than to state that perhaps it extended from the 18th to the ground floor.

This photograph shows damage to the right of the corner column on floors 14 and 15.

In this photograph, the corner column is missing at floors 14 and 15.

In either case, the stress would primarily be to core columns 58, 59, 60 and 63, pulling them to the south west on the damaged floors.

• Quote:
Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.

That damage was shown to be over 20 floors in this composite photo:

Quote:
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:


hmmm, now we get to Chris' buggaboo. Let's label each

1)− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

2)− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14

3)− 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

4)− 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

You left out:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• 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
and
[FONT=&quot]“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."
[/FONT]

Well if they are all taken to be exacting description then yes they conflict.
However two of them describe the width as 1/4 the width of the south face.

Right

Now one says ground to 5th floor and one says to the 10th.

Wrong

One says the debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, started several floors above the atrium, [either the damage went up from there or stopped above floor 5] Noted the atrium glass was still intact.
"the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor)" [not the damage]

This is in agreement with:
middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face

But is in conflict with:
was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground

For both these statements to be true, the gouge had to be west of column 23 [NIST#].

 

[jaydeehess]

the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor)" [not the damage]

well it could be read both ways. There are typos and incorrect paragraph structure in the report.

We have gone through the atrium glass part before and you continue to insist that this report means what you want it to mean.

You left out:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• 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

Wrong. Why did you only read the first half of my post?

and
[FONT=&quot]"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."[/SIZE]
[/FONT]

True, I left that part out. My bad, but it means little given that the 10 storey report is not supposed to be a precise measurement. Please re-read my post.

 

[Christopher7]

well it could be read both ways. There are typos and incorrect paragraph structure in the report.

We have gone through the atrium glass part before and you continue to insist that this report means what you want it to mean.

"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"

Definitely poor sentence structure, but (extended from the ground to 5th floor), clearly describes the atrium, not the damage.
"noted that the atrium glass was still intact" was to clarify that the damage was above the atrium.

Also, how could the damage extend from the ground to the 5th floor if it started several floors above the atrium ?

Wrong. Why did you only read the first half of my post?

My bad
Didn't have time to answer the whole post, should have at least read it.

True, I left that part out. My bad, but it means little given that the 10 storey report is not supposed to be a precise measurement. Please re-read my post.

Done

However we do at least have two reports of a wide hole in the building.

Wrong, we have one report of a 10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width and one report of damage 1/4 the width starting several floors above the atrium.

If in fact it was to the 8th floor both might characterize it as they did. Conversly the report of the hole going to the 5th floor may well be a report of what the person could see while the true height was masked by dust and smoke.

see above
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
Looking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number*) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
[corrected to the 12 floor in Final 4-5-05]

The area below the 12th floor was not covered by smoke.

They had at least 3 hours to view the south side and watch the fire on floor 12 as it progressed eastward.
The dust from WTC 1 had settled long before that.

Possibly Jennings and Hess from the 8th floor. They don't mention others and we don't know who the persons were who were on the 7th floor.

NISTNCSTAR1-8 pg 110 [164 on pg counter]
It was a security officer.

• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8

I assume Chris has no problem with that


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

Or that. It does back up the idea that there were FF's on the 7th floor.

Correct

• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
That is in some conflict with Jennings description of the lobby. IF, as Chris insists, a large gouge would mean that heavy debris absolutly must be in the lobby then these FF's must not have been able to see the entire lobby.[/quote]
That's a possibility.
Here 's a video of the lobby after WTC 2 collapsed and before WTC 1 collapsed.
[FONT=&quot]http://loosechange911.com/download/wtc7_lobby.mov

Note the broken glass on the first floor [and possibly the 2nd floor] of the atrium.
Also note that the lobby is open end to end and the TV camera is seeing in available light
If Barry and the firefighters came down the east stairway, they might have missed heavy debris at the west end of the building, but not in the middle because of all the south facing atrium glass would provide plenty of light.

Barry said that both Towers were still standing when they got back to the 8th floor.
[/FONT][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][FONT=&quot]
BTW, the floor plan of floor 3 is on pg 9 of the Final 4-5-05
pg 9 [13 on pg counter] of Apx. L shows floor 2 as floor 3 and has 1 & 2 reversed on pg 8 [as you have pointed out]
[/FONT]

The SW corner was gouged out down to the ground floor

Wrong

so according to Chris there should have been heavy debris visible. Perhaps the FF's could not see through the unlit, dusty lobby all the way to the SW corner. In that case how far could they see well enough to make the determination of no heavy debris? 100feet? 150? 200? 220?

Beyond the atrium ground to 5th floor.

 

[Christopher7]

I told you that I don't know exactly where the gouge was. I wasn't there and didn't see it, but since there is no reason for the investigators to be dishonest* about its location I am going to trust them to have it figured out when the final report is published. If, at that time, I think the report doesn't make sense I'll post my concerns right here. This is a skeptics web-site after all.

Point taken

*If the administration did it, that would be a compelling reason to falsify the report dontchathink?

Here's another conundrum

*******************************************************

Since you (and millions of others ) believe that the building was taken down by a cd why does the gouge even matter? Even if NIST is off by a few feet in their preliminary report one way or the other what difference does it make?

I thought you'd never ask.
NIST attributed a great deal of damage to that gouge.

The inside part [1/4 the width] would have left the atrium glass intact but would have left a huge pile of debris right in the middle if the lobby, and the gouge would have let in plenty of light.

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
• No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas
• No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th Floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• [FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

 

[GT/CS]

Point taken

*If the administration did it, that would be a compelling reason to falsify the report dontchathink?

I'd like to since, as I told you beore, I'm a complete and total Bush hater and I'd love to see him fry for something, but I think it is impulsive and senseless to blame everything on "the administration", and taking WTC7 down with a cd just isn't credible IMHO. In fact, I'd say it is 100% impossible due to the issues I've previously stated.

That said, if you can tell me how someone went into the building and rigged it for a cd, while it was on fire, using silent explosives, I'll agree with your cd theory 100%.

 

[Christopher7]

I'd like to since, as I told you beore, I'm a complete and total Bush hater and I'd love to see him fry for something, but I think it is impulsive and senseless to blame everything on "the administration", and taking WTC7 down with a cd just isn't credible IMHO. In fact, I'd say it is 100% impossible due to the issues I've previously stated.

Statement of personal incredulity.

That said, if you can tell me how someone went into the building and rigged it for a cd, while it was on fire, using silent explosives, I'll agree with your cd theory 100%.

You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again, if you listen to the recording of Barry recounting his tale is it by no means obvious that when he states, for the second time, that both towers were standing that he means that they were standing when he was on the 8th floor.

He first states that they were both standing before they started down the stairs.

I do not for one instant believe that what he experienced is anything other than the collapse of WTC 2.

I cannot see the video of the lobby. Too bad, I'd like to. My work computer blocks all video except that which pertains to work and my home computer's power supply just bit the dust.

refresh my memory Chris. on what page of this thread did we already cover those two photos.

 

[alexg]

Statement of personal incredulity.

You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

Faked? Explain why one must be faked. If you mean that the damage appears to be more extensive in the picture taken from above then I think you are going to need to analyze the two very carefully and detail your assertion. In the lower view smoke obscures the damaged area too much to determine how much damage there is. If you put a a straight edge on the corner you will see that the apparent corner of the lower damaged area, which should in fact lack a proper corner, is not in line.

I think the upper photo has a distorted aspect which makes the damage appear to come in further than it actually does. Count the windows and you will see what I am talking about.

What does NIST actually say about the depth of the corner damage? Their diagram seems in keeping with what we see and does not take advantage of the seeming exaggerated effect of the upper photo.

 

[GT/CS]

Statement of personal incredulity.

You ignored the conundrum and changed the subject.

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you can't keep a coherent thought. What photos are you talking about?

I'm ready to change my mind Chris just show me any little scrap of evidence that someone wired the building with silent explosives. That's all that matters. The size of the hole makes no difference. The only things that are of any importance are the explosives. Who placed them, how did they do it, why didn't they make any noise? Let's go, everyone's waiting.

 

[Christopher7]

Once again, if you listen to the recording of Barry recounting his tale is it by no means obvious that when he states, for the second time, that both towers were standing that he means that they were standing when he was on the 8th floor.

What part of
[FONT=&quot]When I got to the 6th floor, there was an explosion.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]That’s what forced us[/FONT][FONT=&quot] back up to the 8th floor. Both buildings were still standing.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]don't you understand?[/FONT]

 

[Dave Rogers]

One of those photos is a fake.

Your thoughts?

The building was burning for eight hours, and IIRC firemen at the scene reported further localised collapses as the fire progressed. Could it be that the two photos were taken at different times, as the very different lighting levels suggest, and that in between the two photos part of the corner of the building had fallen off?

Dave

 

[Christopher7]

Faked? Explain why one must be faked. If you mean that the damage appears to be more extensive in the picture taken from above then I think you are going to need to analyze the two very carefully and detail your assertion. In the lower view smoke obscures the damaged area too much to determine how much damage there is.

In the first photo, the corner column and the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 are intact.
In the second photo. the corner column and the first two windows on the west side are gone on the floors 14 and 15.

If you put a a straight edge on the corner you will see that the apparent corner of the lower damaged area, which should in fact lack a proper corner, is not in line.

If you put the straight edge on the west side of WTC 7, the corner lines up.

I think the upper photo has a distorted aspect which makes the damage appear to come in further than it actually does. Count the windows and you will see what I am talking about.

? The upper photo shows no damage to the west side in floors 14 and 15.

What does NIST actually say about the depth of the corner damage? Their diagram seems in keeping with what we see and does not take advantage of the seeming exaggerated effect of the upper photo.

Whatever NIST says about the damage has no effect on what the photographs clearly show.
The corner and first two windows on floors 14 and 15, on the west side, are intact in the first photo and missing in the second .

 

[alexg]

In the first photo, the corner column and the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 are intact.
In the second photo. the corner column and the first two windows on the west side are gone on the floors 14 and 15.

If you put the straight edge on the west side of WTC 7, the corner lines up.

? The upper photo shows no damage to the west side in floors 14 and 15.

Whatever NIST says about the damage has no effect on what the photographs clearly show.
The corner and first two windows on floors 14 and 15, on the west side, are intact in the first photo and missing in the second .

The corner column is not intact. A stright edge demonstrates this. You can also see this my measuring the space between the window and the corner.

There is plenty of window damage in the area you describe. It does appear to be a little worse in the first photo, I grant yo that, but I am quite sure this is due to the different aspect and angle of the shot. You have failed to demonstrate anything is faked.

There is simply too much smoke in the second photo and it is also shot almost straight on to the corner so any gauge of depth is difficult at best.

There is also the possibility of something haven fallen off in the time between the two shots.

In any event you are very far away from demonstrating any fakery with these two very different photos.