10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[funk de fino]

Charles Goyette(CG) PM(Davin Coburn)

PM: When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was...about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it... Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower...

CG: ...So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

PM: ...We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate....

CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

PM: Correct.

CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ...What did you see there that I can't see?

PM: Just what was described.

Davin Coburn is stating that he saw pictures that show, "about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it." If there were pictures that showed this, why would there be so much confusion about where the damage was located? Why can't we see these pictures?

Those are not NIST statements. The NIST report at the time called this damage probable or approximately as did Sunder. C7 proved it by posting it and those pictures had a lot of smoke in them so it was difficult to be definite as to the exact location.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Stack 10 grains of sand on top of one another, and drop one grain through the rest.

See the difference? I think you don't....and that's sad.

Stacking "ten grains of sand" to the collapse of a full-sized office building well... needless to say the difference is quite substantial. Your comparison is akin to taking a toy car crash:



and comparing it to a macro-scaled crash between two full sized cars:



The scale of the two produce very different results, I don't think you've grasped this.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Just to let you know. Debunking is not a group of guys sitting in a forum saying things like 'how does a fireman know what an explosion sounds like?' or 'what the heck does a female ambulance driver know about explosions?' ...or 'bodies hitting concrete sound like explosions'....or any crappy stuff like that. THAT is NOT debunking squat -- just so you know.

Just as hanging out on an internet forum examining youtube videos does not constitute "research".

 

[KreeL]

Wow, I think you are starting to get it, Nobbs.

I guess I am still waiting for a logical explanation of why the north tower 'fell' at double the magnitude of it's twin.

 

[GlennB]

I guess I am still waiting for a logical explanation of why the north tower 'fell' at double the magnitude of it's twin.

What do you mean by 'magnitude' here?

And are you simply accepting the analysis of the website where you read this stuff (please don't pretend you did the calculations yourself) as correct?

 

[beachnut]

Wow, I think you are starting to get it, Nobbs.

I guess I am still waiting for a logical explanation of why the north tower 'fell' at double the magnitude of it's twin.

You failed to show that is true. You failed to explain information for each foundation and location to surrounding earth formations. You failed to model typical errors and accuracy of the system.

You failed to talk about how the towers fell. You failed to show anything so far. You can’t help and correct anything posted back to you. Why do you have zero evidence to support your delusional assertions? What were your assertions in the first place, and how are they related to the OP?

Are you, or do you think you are close to the OP topic? Can you expand on and explain that model of sand again?

You may have more than a 10-story hole in your story. What is your story and how is it related to the OP?

 

[Christopher7]

Those are not NIST statements.

Correct.

This time it's Davin Coburn of PM magazine lying about pictures of something that did not exist.

The NIST report at the time called this damage probable or approximately

Actually it was Possible and Approximate.

as did Sunder.

Wrong! Sunder did NOT say "possible" or "approximate". He stated the damage as a FACT and you already know that so don't get on that merry-go-round again.

[FONT=&quot] NIST's Sunder tells PM. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [/FONT]

 

[stateofgrace]

Correct.

This time it's Davin Coburn of PM magazine lying about pictures of something that did not exist.

Actually it was Possible and Approximate.
Wrong! Sunder did NOT say "possible" or "approximate". He stated the damage as a FACT and you already know that so don't get on that merry-go-round again.

[FONT=&quot]NIST's Sunder tells PM. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." [/FONT]

Chris, I don't get this, the word you claim was not used is in the very quote you used. The fifteenth word from Sunders is "approximately".

Am I missing something here?

 

[Baylor]

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Unlike Chris, you're missing alzheimer's.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, I don't get this, the word you claim was not used is in the very quote you used. The fifteenth word from Sunders is "approximately".

Am I missing something here?

My bad, he did say ' . . . approximately 10 stories - about 25% of the depth was scooped out."

He did NOT say "possibly" he said "was". Therein lies the lie.

 

[GStan]

Ahhh...yes....Trutherism: Building semantic arguments since 2002.

 

[twinstead]

So, what if he would have said "possibly scooped out" to complement his "approximately 10 stories", Chris? Would you not be quibbling about EXACTLY how big the 'gash' was, and accept that there was a big freakin' hole in the side of the WTC7 whose exact dimensions weren't exactly known?

Ouch. Semantics. Love it. He said APPROXIMATELY 10 stories. Isn't what this thread is all about? About 25% of the depth of that approximation WAS scooped out. How is that a lie? If it was 5 stories, 5 stories WAS scooped out. If it was 15 stories, 15 stories WAS scooped out.

I just don't get it. What am I missing?

 

[HawksFan]

I just don't get it. What am I missing?

Fear. Fear and paranoia. Paranoia and fear. Ah, the two things you are missing is fear and paranoia...and teen angst. The three things you are missing is fear, paranoia, and teen angst...and an almost fanatical hatred of the government. Ah ha, amongst those things you are missing are such diverse elements as fear, paranoia, teen angst, and almost fanatical hatred of the government...and a love for Alex Jones.

<sigh>I'll come in again...

 

[twinstead]

Fear. Fear and paranoia. Paranoia and fear. Ah, the two things you are missing is fear and paranoia...and teen angst. The three things you are missing is fear, paranoia, and teen angst...and an almost fanatical hatred of the government. Ah ha, amongst those things you are missing are such diverse elements as fear, paranoia, teen angst, and almost fanatical hatred of the government...and a love for Alex Jones.

Python ROCKS!

 

[HawksFan]

Yes, they certainly do. Now, if only we could actually use the phrase "and now for something completely different..." around here.

I'm actually worried about using the phrase "and time for the penguin on your telly to explode" as some truther may acutally run with it as proof of CD or some such.

Oh, damn, now I've done it

 

[funk de fino]

My bad, he did say ' . . . approximately 10 stories - about 25% of the depth was scooped out."

He did NOT say "possibly" he said "was". Therein lies the lie.

And he said "On about" despite you saying he did not. Thats two false claims you have made regarding this statement.

Your english is terrible. He is saying an approximate amount of the building was scooped out. This is true.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Wow, I think you are starting to get it, Nobbs.

I guess I am still waiting for a logical explanation of why the north tower 'fell' at double the magnitude of it's twin.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you referring to double the acceleration? Twice the force? Energy expended? What exactly do you mean by "double the magnitude"? Please be careful with your words.

Speaking of which, a nitpick. "It's" is a contraction for "it is". If the sentence doesn't make sense by replacing "it is", leave out the apostrophe.

ETA: Oh, and why do you put "fell" in quotation marks? Are you saying it didn't really fall? Improper use of quotation marks is another pet peeve of mine.

 

[jaydeehess]

I guess I am still waiting for a logical explanation of why the north tower 'fell' at double the magnitude of it's twin.

Mackey already did that.

The margin of error in Richter estimates is 0.2. In other words the Richter number is accurate to within approx a factor of 2 in the amount of energy released.

Unless you can dispute the margin of error for these figures it is you who is pwned.

 

[Christopher7]

So, what if he would have said "possibly scooped out" to complement his "approximately 10 stories", Chris?

That would have been OK, but he did NOT say "possibly" he said "was".

Would you not be quibbling about EXACTLY how big the 'gash' was, and accept that there was a big freakin' hole in the side of the WTC7 whose exact dimensions weren't exactly known?

No, the exact size is not important.

He said APPROXIMATELY 10 stories. Isn't what this thread is all about? About 25% of the depth of that approximation WAS scooped out. How is that a lie? If it was 5 stories, 5 stories WAS scooped out. If it was 15 stories, 15 stories WAS scooped out.

It's about the FACT that the huge gouge he was said "was scooped out" did not exist. The significance is, the graphic attributes damage to 4-6 perimeter columns and 3 core columns to this non existent gouge. That is the most severe damage and the only damage to core columns. People here were saying that this was a contributing factor in the collapse. They were intentionally misled by Mr. Sunder in a national publication.


ETA: funk, "on about" referrers to exact size. That is not the problem. The lie is about the existence of the huge gouge, not it's exact size.

 

[KreeL]

"The margin of error in Richter estimates is 0.2"

Source? 2.1 vs. 2.3 inside the same bathtub. Same distance.

Mackey did not want to answer because he already knew what was coming. The magnitude of the north tower compared to the south tower cannot be explained without an outside energy source. Something made the north tower a much larger production.