Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[RedIbis]

You've definitely provided videos that hint at the gash, which I hadn't seen before. Thank you. You haven't provided photos, and I have not seen any images of fires that are larger than the six-window one.

As for the gash that seems to be there behind the smoke, I would need a clearer picture. Hard to believe that columns ejected from the "natural" collapse of WTC1, over building 6, and across Vesey Street could take out such a clean, rectangular, vertical section of building when all other debris damage was more organic, random, asymmetrical. A partial or incomplete implosion would make more sense.

There's some pretty wild speculation that the gash is the result of interior column collapse. But I tend to agree that it's far too symetrical to be from debris damage or column collapse.

 

[alienentity]

In other words, the Google searches you just did now which did not turn up images of raging fires, nor any images of a huge gash.

Where are the photos? Saying "i'm not gonna do your homework for you" is a little late, after you've already made a counter-claim that photos and video show these fires and the structural damage. If you make the claim, you better back it up.

Weird that you could take such an aggressive position but simultaneously be unaware of the evidence.
Have you read any of the FDNY testimony? It is replete with descriptions of the extent of the fires and the giant 'gash'...

Here are some photos of the gash and the large quantity of smoke pouring from the S face of the building (can you guess why hardly anybody was in the region directly to the S of WTC 7? Here's a hint: GZ)

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

 

[scrummie02]

Side of Sanity and Reason:
------------------------------
ASCE, NIST, CTBUH, and other associations/groups agree with the official explanation for building 7, that it was brought down by untreated prolonged multifloored fires.

The photographic and video evidence supports this position, as does the modeling that NIST used in their investigation.

Witness saw the building leaning and with a bulge in its side, prior to collapse.

There was no series of visible flashes, or a timed series of audible explosions in the moments prior to the collapse (as seen in all traditional tall building controlled demolitions).

There was no evidence of det cord, or explosive residue found.

NISt conducted modeling using independent software that determined that the window breakage pattern did not match what would be seen with explosive detonation significant enough to weaken the columns significantly enough for collapse. The absence of the subsequent noise of such a blast in the witness testimony aids in confirming such.


On the side of "the truth"
------------------------------
A crowd of architects and engineers who have provided NO EVIDENCE, THEORY, or SCIENCE OF THEIR OWN, don't agree with the NIST conclusions. They have stated that the 2.25 seconds of free fall, in the middle of the collapse, of the North Face of the building is proof of a controlled demolition. They provide no calculations, science, or proof of any kind, to back it up.

The truth movement claims that because WTC looked like a CD to the untrained eye, and no other skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire alone, that it must have been a CD that brought down WTC7.


That about sums it up...let the reader decide.

TAM

Let it be stated there isn't one peer reviewed document that supports the twoofers claims. All of the reputable organizations you listed support the official mainstream explanation.

Let's also add - all of the interviews done with NYFD and NYPD not one reports seeing a demo team in the area or going into the area after the firemen left WTC7.

According to Nigro, they stopped rescue operations at about 330 PM that day. He along with a few first responders were interviewed and are quoted saying the same thing - the building looked like it was going to collapse.

Now...if we're to believe the twoofer theory, one fireman or police officer would have said something along the lines of a demo team being at WTC7 about the time it collapsed. Unfortunately for the twoofers not one has stepped forward that was at the scene to corroborate their story.

So we have the two following options:
All NYFD and NYPD employees are lairs and in on the conspiracy

Or

The demo teams are so stealthy they managed to sneak in and set up all of these complex explosive and detonate them and not one police officer or fireman saw it.

 

[T.A.M.]

You've definitely provided videos that hint at the gash, which I hadn't seen before. Thank you. You haven't provided photos, and I have not seen any images of fires that are larger than the six-window one.

As for the gash that seems to be there behind the smoke, I would need a clearer picture. Hard to believe that columns ejected from the "natural" collapse of WTC1, over building 6, and across Vesey Street could take out such a clean, rectangular, vertical section of building when all other debris damage was more organic, random, asymmetrical. A partial or incomplete implosion would make more sense.

See above for photos and analysis of...

TAM

 

[scrummie02]

There's some pretty wild speculation that the gash is the result of interior column collapse. But I tend to agree that it's far too symetrical to be from debris damage or column collapse.

And this conclusion is derived from your extensive background in engineering and demolition?

 

[T.A.M.]

Weird that you could take such an aggressive position but simultaneously be unaware of the evidence.
Have you read any of the FDNY testimony? It is replete with descriptions of the extent of the fires and the giant 'gash'...

Here are some photos of the gash and the large quantity of smoke pouring from the S face of the building (can you guess why hardly anybody was in the region directly to the S of WTC 7? Here's a hint: GZ)

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Now both of us have linked to those...hopefully he will go and look.

TAM

 

[GlennB]

Not sure if this is what we're talking about, the trolling levels are strong here, but ..... a composite of video clips

 

[alienentity]

There's some pretty wild speculation that the gash is the result of interior column collapse. But I tend to agree that it's far too symetrical to be from debris damage or column collapse.

The logical assumption is that it was a failure of a large section between columns, possible involving column failure. Consult the building diagrams.

But your idea that it is too 'symetrical' (sic) is not supported by any evidence, nor is it logical.

 

[alienentity]

Let's return to your original false assertion:

And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button. Why would that be? When they were taking pictures of just about everything else.

Your assertion was proven to be false, so now you're imposing other conditions (moving the goalposts) on the evidence, arbitrarily, I might add..

As for the gash that seems to be there behind the smoke, I would need a clearer picture.

You don't get to impose this condition, since GZ was directly to the South, and obviously there were very few people but rescue workers (not surprisingly they weren't hanging around snapping pictures from the cameras they didn't happen to bring to the disaster site). There was a great deal of thick smoke pouring from WTC 7's nonexistent fires (sarcasm at Truther denials of fact) so you don't get a 'clearer picture'.

What you can't do is show that the obvious vertical feature isn't a gash.

It was also described by numerous FDNY personnel. Are you going to deny this fact as well? I hope not.

 

[alienentity]

Now both of us have linked to those...hopefully he will go and look.

TAM

Indeed. But the denial force is strong with this one.

 

[carlitos]

Implosion? With silent implosives?

 

[ergo]

I think the first photo on this page,

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Is a better photo of the Gash that is spoken of.

The video (2nd thing down) on this page appears to contradict the photo immediately above it. Segment 0:40 - 0:45 shows an edge of the building which is filled in with building in the photo.

And of course the very colourful NYPD photo contradicts everything else, including the video you had me look at above.

The first two images on the page you cite, the photo and the video, are of the SW corner? With west on the left and south on the right? If so, then the NYPD photo cannot be of the SW corner. The orientations are completely different.

Edit: actually, never mind. The NYPD photo must be showing us the west face.

Very confusing and contradictory images for WTC7.

 

[ergo]

Let's return to your original false assertion:

Wrong. (As usual.)

Here was my question and challenge:

Yes, so where are the pictures? We have photos of extensive damage of every building on site and many off site. Why don't we have a similar number of photos of WTC 7's damage? I can find only one, and its authenticity is suspect.

Show me some pictures (plural) of this structural damage. While you're at it, show me the raging fires.

 

[alienentity]

Wrong. (As usual.)

Here was my question and challenge:

Whoops, you must've missed the part where I quoted you. Here it is again:

'And no one else of the hundreds, possibly thousands of people taking pictures that day found WTC7 fires or this supposed "huge gash" worthy of a click of their camera button'

You said you had only found one picture.....now you have been shown several.

But of course you refuse to apologize for your rudeness and unwarranted sarcasm, as well as for the sheer ignorance of your statements. Your bluster doesn't help your cause.

Look in the mirror. It is you who has dug the hole, and it is you who is stuck at the bottom of it. Don't blame us.

 

[carlitos]

Indeed. But the denial force is strong with this one.

Try big fonts?

It was also described by numerous FDNY personnel. Are you going to deny this fact as well? I hope not.

 

[ergo]

You said you had only found one picture.....now you have been shown several.

Um, two. One in addition to the one I already knew about.

 

[GlennB]

Um, two. One in addition to the one I already knew about.

Could you tell us how many you want, from what angles, what distance, and with what definition? But above all say why. Because the ones you have are clear as a bell.

Otherwise we're all just wasting time serving (what appears to be) your overwhelming sense of entitlement. So far your endless demands for attention suggest you're not at all serious about wanting to learn about this subject.

 

[twinstead]

So let me get this straight. No matter what the firemen said, no matter what the other evidence says, no matter what the images that have been given to ergo show, until he is shown a picture that meets his specifications the entire event didn't happen.

Ridiculous. The damage was on the side of the building where no cameras were. It is an unrealistic expectation--and done quite on purpose.

 

[Horatius]

So let me get this straight. No matter what the firemen said, no matter what the other evidence says, no matter what the images that have been given to ergo show, until he is shown a picture that meets his specifications the entire event didn't happen.

Ridiculous. The damage was on the side of the building where no cameras were. It is an unrealistic expectation--and done quite on purpose.

Yep. It seems he expects that, on a day when literally hundreds of firefighters had died just hours before, someone on the scene should have said, "Okay, boys, I know that building looks like it's going to collapse, and we've cleared the whole area in anticipation of that event, but before we go, could someone nip in there real quick and get good, clear photos of everything? What's that? No, of course the massive cloud of smoke that is concealing everything won't be a problem!"

 

[ergo]

If the damage was from WTC1, then there would have been several hours in which that gash would have been right there, gaping at everyone. No one caught an image of it? Surely there must be something in those 80 gigs of video.

I believe the reports of the firefighters. However, even in the few provided, there are contradictions. Most of them only speak about "corner" damage. No one mentions a long vertical hole the length of the building right smack in the middle of the south face. And only one mentions any significant fires. The interviews also were conducted well after the event, almost a year after.

On top of this, some corner damage is not going to cause the bldg to fall in the manner it did. If it causes any collapse, it would be a partial collapse or a leaning collapse in the direction of that damage.

And why was no firefighting done?