10 story hole in WTC 7

[uk_dave]

If the corner of a framed structure 'sags' what do you suppose that does to the remainder of the structure?

 

[CHF]

A visible bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning.

It means the SW corner is sagging.

Deputy Chief Hayden did not say the building was leaning.

For the building to lean, the bulge would have to run all the way across the west and south sides at a minimum.


So that's your case? Some guy thought it was leaning.

Look at all the photographs of WTC 7.

Can you see the building leaning in any of them ?

Chris, do you know what a transit reading is?

 

[jaydeehess]

In this thread i am pointing out that some of that evidence is incorrect.


No. Because i believe WTC 7 was a CD

Before you ask again, This thread is about the '10 story gouge', NOT CD.

A point you have made several times and yes, I get it.

However your continued attack on this minute detail should have you also just as concerned with the very large detail that the CD theory has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief. Your one sided attack on niggling detail show you to be insincere about finding out any 'truth' about the events of 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

The word 'massive' is what's in question here.
There are 4 statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.
Therefore:
It didn't exist.

That is a leap of logic not backed up by anything other than your preconceived belief in CD.

you believe the firefighters who said there was
"no heavy debris in the lobby" were mistaken

Which was reported by FF's who can be placed at the western end of the building but cannot be shown to have gone east along the south side. I also gave a senario in which heavy debris need not be in the lobby but still have caused significant damage to perimeter columns. Deeper damage may well have occured on higher floors while other floors only received perimeter column damage.

"debris damage across 1/4 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." was mistaken

Since there is the internally inconsistent statements that the atrium was heavily damaged and that the glass was intact we can assume that the person meant that some of the glass was intact. This person does indeed state damage down to the ground floor accross a wide part of the building actually partially backing up the other claim.

"walked the 9th floor along the south side folowing the collapse of WTC1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner." was mistaken

Which only calls into question the 10th storey part of the other claim. There is no reason to expect that the 10th storey part of the statement was meant to be exact is there?

and Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesy,
doesn't know the difference between:

"ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors"
and
"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out [30 to 40 feet deep] from floor 10 to the ground"

Again I point out it depends on how well he could see the damage and where he was at the time and exactly what he was getting at.

 

[Andúril]

Something about the damage to the south face:

 

[Christopher7]

If the corner of a framed structure 'sags' what do you suppose that does to the remainder of the structure?

The load is transfered to the surrounding columns, but the building does not lean.
In order for the biulding to lean, most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns must become shorter. ie: buckle.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, do you know what a transit reading is?

Yes.
Deputy Chief Hayden used a transit to confirm the bulge in the SW corner.

 

[Christopher7]

A point you have made several times and yes, I get it.

However your continued attack on this minute detail

The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

"The building was leaning" is not a minute detail.

"None of the steel from WTC 7 was inspected" is not a minute
detail.

You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief.

Wrong.
My attack on the amount of debris damage based solely on statements from official government documents.

 

[jaydeehess]

You have repeatedly stated that you believe that it was CD and attack the impact/fire theory soley based upon your preconceived belief.

Wrong.
My attack on the amount of debris damage based solely on statements from official government documents

WRONG,

You begin with "it was CD". You were careful to only state that when it was dragged from you but it is patently obvious that was your starting point.
From there you attempt to mine any detail that even hints that the impact and fire damage theory is not quite as supposed. To this end you attack a preliminary report. You attack the idea that the NIST requires a 10 storey, 30 foot deep gouge starting at ground level when in fact NIST's probable collapse sequence does NOT require it. You mine any comment by anyone that suggests that there could not be any damage to the core columns in question choosing to deliberatly ignore all those that do corroborate the idea of such column damage. You attempt to minimize the debris damage and the fire damage.

You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.

On the other hand if you could come up with any evidence at all that suggests CD as a better solution to the collapse of WTC 7 I would like you to show it. There simply is no equally good evidence of CD to match that of debris impact/fire having caused the collapse.

FACT is that all you can do is pick at details and then claim that CD makes more sense without having any evidence FOR CD.

The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

Fact is that such is the extent of reported damage. NIST does not state that it was as extensive as that , just that it was reported.

Now you wish to move away from appendix L it seems.

_________________________-

Bulge or lean, however you wish to characterize it, it is quite apparent that the loss of the SW corner would put a great deal of stress on the structure and that the SW corner offered no support to the structure. It is also quite apparent from witness accounts that there were other perimeter columns severed on the south face. That given, it is would be highly unlikely that portions of the south wall of the building would not in fact lean. It can be noted that although the western part of WTC 7 collapsed down to the south, the eastern portion went down to the west and north, a fact that may be addressed in the final WTC 7 report. To my mind it illustrates that the greater damage was done to the central and western portion of the south face. When the collapse progressed the east portion separated from the western portion along the 'kink' line. The building perimeter east of that kink was intact and this may have played a role in that portion damaging buildings to the north. The east section's perimeter would be weakest only on its western extent, the core of the building, and the eastern section would be mostly predisposed to fall to the west. The western portion was very weak on the south side and thus that section of the building was already predisposed to go southward when it collapsed.

 

[Christopher7]

That is a leap of logic not backed up by anything other than your preconceived belief in CD.

4 statements in conflict with 1 statement is not a leap.

Which was reported by FF's who can be placed at the western end of the building but cannot be shown to have gone east along the south side.

They didn't need to go east, just a few steps to the south from the stairs to see the debris from the gouge.
[see pg 6 for location of stairs & pg 31 for location of debris damage]

I read, in a government report, that the stairs exited directly to the outside. ie: a hallway. The firemen would have to exit this hallway to enter the lobby.

Your senario is, they didn't take these few steps and look at the whole lobby, they reported on what they saw from the stairway [or hallway door]
Possible, but unlikely.

"no heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from celing areas were observed" [NIST Apx L pg 18]

I also gave a senario in which heavy debris need not be in the lobby but still have caused significant damage to perimeter columns. Deeper damage may well have occured on higher floors while other floors only received perimeter column damage.

The debris from that huge gouge would have ended up in the ground floor lobby.
If it took out the south wall 60' to 80' wide, any floors attached to it would have been taken down with it.
The pile would be 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep [into the building] and would contain the huge piece or pieces that made the alleged gouge along with the stuff it ripped out.

Since there is the internally inconsistent statements that the atrium was heavily damaged and that the glass was intact we can assume that the person meant that some of the glass was intact. This person does indeed state damage down to the ground floor accross a wide part of the building actually partially backing up the other claim.

Damage to a wall and the wall was gone are quite different
The damage in this statement says "5th floor to the ground"
Totally inconsistant with the "10 story gouge"
[The graphic on pg 23, 31 & 32 shows a gouge 60' to 80' feet wide and 30' to 40' deep]

Which only calls into question the 10th storey part of the other claim. There is no reason to expect that the 10th storey part of the statement was meant to be exact is there?

Good point
If it were only 8 stories high, then it would not be in conflict with the "only damage to south side of the 9th floor was at the SW corner."

Chief Fellini, who was in charge of operations at West and Vesy,

Again I point out it depends on how well he could see the damage and where he was at the time and exactly what he was getting at.

Part of Chief Fellini's job was to assess the damage to WTC 7.
Do you think he missed the most serious damage to the south side ?
[a gouge 100' high by 60' to 80' wide by 30' to 40' deep]

 

[Christopher7]

WRONG,

You begin with "it was CD". You were careful to only state that when it was dragged from you but it is patently obvious that was your starting point.

My starting point has been patently obvious all along.
My 'attack' on the 'evidence' OTers state in these debates is based on statements in government reports.

From there you attempt to mine any detail that even hints that the impact and fire damage theory is not quite as supposed.

There's not quite a 10 story gouge that took out columns 69, 72 & 75.

To this end you attack a preliminary report. You attack the idea that the NIST requires a 10 storey, 30 foot deep gouge starting at ground level when in fact NIST's probable collapse sequence does NOT require it.

In the graphic on pg 31 they show columns 69,72 and 75 as being damaged by the larger damage area [80' wide by 40' deep]
In the summary, statement 3) they list the failure of the columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A as possible components in the initiating event.

Without the 10 story gouge, none of this damage would have occuerd.
ie: Debris damage did not contribute to the initiating event.

You mine any comment by anyone that suggests that there could not be any damage to the core columns in question

Yes

choosing to deliberatly ignore all those that do corroborate the idea of such column damage.

No

You attempt to minimize the debris damage and the fire damage.

Just the debris damage

You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.

The sequence is not in question.

 

[uk_dave]

The load is transfered to the surrounding columns, but the building does not lean.
In order for the biulding to lean, most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns must become shorter. ie: buckle.

hmmmm interesting. I wonder if you really understand what load transfer actually means?

Let's say you have a horizontal beam which is supported by columns at either end and in the middle.

Now take away that middle column.

The load which was being shared by three columns is now being shared by two.

If the corner of a building sags, it means the loading capacity of that corner is compromised.

The remaining structure has a degree of redundancy which allows it to retain structural integrity, provided that the load which is now being carried by it does not exceed those design parameters.

But the sagging of the frame is introducing new stresses on the remianing structure, in that it is now being asked to not only accept an increased share of the load, but is also restraining that part of the structure which is sagging.

So the remaining framed structure, acting as a whole, is :

1. Weakened by some amount of structural damage

2. Weakened by some amount of fire

3. Under greater loading now that part of the structure has failed

4. Under greater loading now that part of the structure has moved

Transfer of load isn't a mechanical operation whereby some device calculates that a structural element is failing and so somehow transfers that load to adjoining members.

It is a natural progression similar to the beam supported by three columns.

 

[twinstead]

All I see here is the standard "chip away at the official story with real or imagined inconsistencies and declare a theory with no evidence the winner by default" technique.

What I'd like to see is less nitpicking to death a preliminary report and a few inconsistent eye witness accounts, and more evidence of CD.

 

[JonnyFive]

The idea that the NIST report is wrong about the gouge is totally irrelevant if your idea of CD doesn't hold water.

I'd love to know why no one heard the charges if it was CD. On every video I've seen of a real demolition, the charges are extremely loud and easily heard even on a crappy camcorder microphone. The sound is absolutely nothing like anything heard at the time of the WTC7 collapse.

Given all that, what kind of charges were they using, and what evidence do you have to support that?

I'm just asking questions.

 

[jaydeehess]

C7 writes

The sequence is not in question.

I did not say you questioned the sequence. Perhaps you'd care to read the whole sentence.

You have attempted to claim that NIST included all the reported damage in order to mislead the reader yet it is obvious that few who read the whole report, or indeed just a significant portion of it, believe that this greatest extent of reported damage was neccessary for the NIST probable sequence of collapse to be accurate.

 

[Belz...]

The word 'massive' is what's in question here.
There are 4 statements in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' statement.
Therefore:
It didn't exist.

Non sequitur.

We do not have physical evidence

You're right. WE don't.

 

[jaydeehess]

WTF I seem to have an entire post missing.

 

[jaydeehess]

Good thing I back up some of my posts. This is the one that went missing

C7 writes:
My starting point has been patently obvious all along.
My 'attack' on the 'evidence' OTers state in these debates is based on statements in government reports.

That is your stated starting point for this thread. Are you now denying that you entered into this particular discussion without the original bias that it was CD that caused the collapse?

Personally I could indeed accept a theory of CD if there were any evidence but there isn't. In fact the empirical evidence argues against CD. No sounds or sights of cutting charges going off for instance.

On the other hand there is a computer sim to show which columns were involved and circumstantial evidence for debris/fire induced collapse that corroborates the simulation.

There's not quite a 10 story gouge that took out columns 69, 72 & 75.

Possibly. There may not be debris damage as extensive as a 10 storey 30 foot deep gouge in the building. There were reports of other damage such as the hole at the 14th floor as well.

In the graphic on pg 31 they show columns 69,72 and 75 as being damaged by the larger damage area [80' wide by 40' deep]
In the summary, statement 3) they list the failure of the columns 69, 72, 75, 78 and 78A as possible components in the initiating event.

I don't have access to my own computer right now but IIRC the graphic on pg 31 simply shows ,again, the extent of the reported damage which does extend to those columns but the damage to those columns is NOT associated solely with the report of a 10 storey gouge.

No

Well then where's the beef? There is corroborating evidence of debris damge that would place structural damage at the columns in question.

The debris from that huge gouge would have ended up in the ground floor lobby.
If it took out the south wall 60' to 80' wide, any floors attached to it would have been taken down with it.
The pile would be 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep [into the building] and would contain the huge piece or pieces that made the alleged gouge along with the stuff it ripped out.

As I said before the damage may well have been greater on some floors than others and indeed may well have been less extensive on lower floors than higher up. 5th floor was a heavy mech floor and debris could easily have ended up there or in the street rather than in the lobby. It is also very likely that all the windows for 60 -80 feet accross the face of the building were gone and that on a few floors it could be seen that the damage went in for several tens of feet which prompted the FF to characterize it as a 60 - 80 foot wide 30 foot deep gouge. Once again the literal reading of this statement is included in the report because to do otherwise would require a parsing of the statement that is not called for given that it is NOT required to be exact in order for the sequence to be as discovered via the sims.
Your characterization of where the debris should be assumes that the report has to be 100% accurate and that NIST requires that it be 100% accurate.
(there's the minute detail)

Your senario is, they didn't take these few steps and look at the whole lobby, they reported on what they saw from the stairway [or hallway door]
Possible, but unlikely

IIRC they also had civilians with them who they were evacuating. Seems to me that it would not be SOP for them to abandon these civilians at the door and go and investigate the lobby. Possible but unlikely.

Part of Chief Fellini's job was to assess the damage to WTC 7.
Do you think he missed the most serious damage to the south side ?
[a gouge 100' high by 60' to 80' wide by 30' to 40' deep]

Was it Fellini's job to report an accurate description of the damage to the building? If so then this must be only part of a much larger statement. In all the hub-bub I may have missed that. Do you have a link to his full report?

Once again I can say that Fellini's account is one of several accounts.

 

[Belz...]

The 10 story gouge [100' high, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep is not a minute detail.
It is the most serious damage to WTC 7 that was reported.

"The building was leaning" is not a minute detail.

Again: why did they have the area evacuated and a perimeter set up if they didn't expect the building to collapse ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Again: why did they have the area evacuated and a perimeter set up if they didn't expect the building to collapse ?

Why obviously because the higher ups in the New York City Fire Dept. were in on the insurance fraud perpetrated in bringing down this building by controlled demolitions and they knew it would be coming down. Therefore they cleared people back from it, and lied to the regular firefighter as to why.

After all it is soooo very common for fire dept's to
a ) use explosives to bring buildings down
b ) be complicit in covering up for insurance frauds