10 story hole in WTC 7

[apathoid]

One person.
Do you know of any one else who thought WTC 7 was leaning ?

The only document i have from October '06 is the Technical Summary and they don't mention the damage to the south face.
Your source ?

..Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

 

[Gravy]

One person.
Do you know of any one else who thought WTC 7 was leaning ?

FDNY auxiliary member Paul Isaac Jr., who posted as "Sentinel" here, but I don't believe he is a credible source in general. His account is, at least, exaggerated:

I was ther at proximity to see the 20 floor gash in WTC 7. The WTC building was listing south about 20 degrees. Source

The only document i have from October '06 is the Technical Summary and they don't mention the damage to the south face.
Your source ?

Then you have some homework to do. It's your issue. I've given you a big hint. Proceed.

 

[Christopher7]

FDNY auxiliary member Paul Isaac Jr., who posted as "Sentinel" here, but I don't believe he is a credible source in general. His account is, at least, exaggerated:

I agree.
20 degrees? i don't think so

Then you have some homework to do. It's your issue. I've given you a big hint. Proceed.

If you have something to offer to this debate

Offer it

Don't make a claim and refuse to give the source


ETA: There are pictures and videos of WTC 7, some taken late in the afternoon.
There are no pictures if this 'lean'

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

 

[Gravy]

If you have something to offer to this debate

Offer it

You may want to read my 109-page paper on WTC 7. There's a revised version up that has some more information and corrects a bad formatting error that caused the previous version to be much too long. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (.doc file) or PDF http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Don't make a claim and refuse to give the source

You've got some nerve. I already did your work for you by sending your findings to NIST when you were afraid to do so. Now it's time for you to become involved in finding answers about your issue.

 

[Gravy]

Off topic a bit, but tonight on the news I saw a brief clip of WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11, apparently shot from the balcony of WTC 2. It was high quality and easily the clearest view I've seen of the smoke pouring out of the building. I'd like to see more of that footage. Unfortunately I only saw it in passing and don't know what network carried it. That's the kind of thing NIST has access to. If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos.

 

[uk_dave]

If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos.

We'll have a whip round.


BTW, Christopher 7:

Do you not see any contradictions in your theory and your statements....

Do you understand that in order for the building to 'lean', most of the exterior columns and all the interior columns would have to become shorter ie: buckel.

and

He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

......?

 

[Belz...]

well, I believe that there was a BIG hole.. as to its size, its anybody's guess. that the report of "10 story" size is a combination of several reports by eyewitnesses..

WHICH WAS STATED IN THE NIST PRELIMINARY REPORT!

Deep breaths, gal. Deep breaths.

 

[Belz...]

Read it. It's about WTC 1, 2 & 7.
It clearly states [pg 2 & 9] that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7"

Yes. I was asking about that because, were it only about 1 and 2, it might explain the quote.

I do not believe the damage allegedly done by the '10 story gouge' is required for the sequence to have occured.

Irrelevant.

It's not a mater of wining or losing.

That made me chuckle. Mater of wining.

He said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did NOT say the building was leaning

By your own admission these should go hand-in-hand.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Off topic a bit, but tonight on the news I saw a brief clip of WTC 7 on the afternoon of 9/11, apparently shot from the balcony of WTC 2. It was high quality and easily the clearest view I've seen of the smoke pouring out of the building. I'd like to see more of that footage. Unfortunately I only saw it in passing and don't know what network carried it. That's the kind of thing NIST has access to. If you have $13,700 you can buy copies of all their 9/11 footage and photos.

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?

 

[Coritani]

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?

Possibly because it's EVIL GUBMINT FALSIFIED AND DOCTORED FOOTAGE.

Well, that seems to be the general mindset of twoofers.

 

[Christopher7]

You may want to read my 109-page paper on WTC 7. There's a revised version up that has some more information and corrects a bad formatting error that caused the previous version to be much too long. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc (.doc file) or PDF http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

I read the part about WTC 7.
There is no mention of the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground." [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

You've got some nerve. I already did your work for you by sending your findings to NIST when you were afraid to do so. Now it's time for you to become involved in finding answers about your issue.

I looked, couldn't find anything from NIST for Oct '06
If you have something you would like to share, please do so.

NIST revised its south face damage assessment.

What is their revised assessment ?

 

[Gravy]

How was it smoking if WTC2 was still intact?

Sorry, I meant WFC2: World Financial Center.

About the $13,700 worth of footage...if the Loose Change folks are really as dedicated to the truth as they say they are, why don't they put some of their money into investments like this, instead of complaining that the mean old gubmint won't hand it over for free?

Because the rights for commercial use aren't included. Also because they don't give a damn about research.

What is their revised assessment ?

Where should you go for that information?

 

[Christopher7]

#447
BTW, Christopher 7:

Do you not see any contradictions in your theory and your statements ?

There is no contradiction.
If the building were leaning, the bulge would extend all the way down the west and south sides.

Hayden said "we saw a bulge in the SW corner......You could actually see, there was a visible bulge, it ran up 3 about floors"

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.
Thats why they had to put a transit on it to be sure.

 

[Christopher7]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Where should you go for that information?

I went here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

 

[uk_dave]

There is no contradiction.
If the building were leaning, the bulge would extend all the way down the west and south sides.

Hayden said "we saw a bulge in the SW corner......You could actually see, there was a visible bulge, it ran up 3 about floors"

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.
Thats why they had to put a transit on it to be sure.

If a vertical straight line turns into a vertical curved line, would the distance between the top and bottom points of that line be....

a. The same whether it is straight or curved
b. Shorter
c. Longer

If your answer is (b) then you have to concede that for the framed structure to 'bulge' the height of that part of the structure has decreased.

If the height of one part of the structure has decreased, then the structure will have moved.

 

[Christopher7]

If a vertical straight line turns into a vertical curved line, would the distance between the top and bottom points of that line be....

a. The same whether it is straight or curved
b. Shorter
c. Longer

If your answer is (b) then you have to concede that for the framed structure to 'bulge' the height of that part of the structure has decreased.

If the height of one part of the structure has decreased, then the structure will have moved.

No

The structure above the bulge has sagged, the rest of the building has not.

The walls cannot bow [become curved] because they are attached to all the floors which will not compress inward or expand outward.

For a building to lean, the walls must buckle.

 

[uk_dave]

No

The structure above the bulge has sagged, the rest of the building has not.

The walls cannot bow [become curved] because they are attached to all the floors which will not compress inward or expand outward.

For a building to lean, the walls must buckle.

I love your certainty about the behaviour of a steel framed structure.

If the structure has 'sagged' above the bulge in the wall, it follows that the wall supporting that structure has shortened. Therefore the loads of that part of the wall are no longer being adequately supported by the bulging wall.

Since the sagging structure above the bulge is also connected to the remainder of the upright structure, it further follows that the sag is pulling on this remaining structure. Since the movement has not been resisted by the remaining structure (in other words the structure above the bulge is not acting like a cantilever because its weight has caused the bulge in the first place) then it is reasonable to conclude that the remaining structure has also moved.

If the remaining structure had remained resolutely upright, there would be no sagging and bulging witnessed.

But, of course with your certainty that things 'cannot' and 'must' do the things you imagine, I suspect everything I just wrote will be lost on you.

 

[Gravy]

I went here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

I said where should you go for that information?

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't sound like a real big bulge.

So first you needed a bulge, now you need a bigger bulge ?

Change the rules of the game often ?