10 story hole in WTC 7

[JimBenArm]

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

Change the rules of the game often ?

Only everytime he evades another question.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Just noting that they had to put a transit on it to be sure there was a bulge

Change the rules of the game often ?

No

 

[Pardalis]

Is it me or this thread is looking more and more like the never ending "realistice" thread?

 

[Christopher7]

Only everytime he evades another question.

The question posted in the beginning of this thread is:
Have you read the NIST Appendex L, and if so,
do you believe that the

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out floor 10 to the ground"

in spite of 4 other statements that are in conflict with that statement.
[see post #94]
Will you answer or evade ?

 

[JimBenArm]

Jaydeehess says that anyone who takes the time to read the NIST report Apendex L

doesn't believe that there was a 60' to 80' hole floor 10 to the ground in WTC 7 [as described on pg 18]
[post 801 Some simple Tower 7 questions thread]

Who believes that there was a '10 story hole' and who does not?

Ah, trying to change the parameters again. This is the opening post, dude.

There was only one question posed, not two.

The answer is "no". I don't think it was 10 storeys. Probably bigger or smaller, but not exactly 10 storeys. Happy?

Also don't think it makes a rat's patootie how big it was. This thread is the biggest waste of time, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (27 if you're curious)

Why do you expend all this energy on this? Do you think if the hole is proven to be smaller, it's going to prove it was brought down by CD? Really? If so, you've got a 10-storey hole that needs filled!

So give it up!

Anything else I can mock you for?

 

[Coritani]

Is it me or this thread is looking more and more like the never ending "realistice" thread?

Well, both of them have 'Christopher' in their name...

 

[JimBenArm]

Well, both of them have 'Christopher' in their name...

And they both have their pet delusions. The only things missing is a make-believe documentary, and C-4 coated rebar.

How about it, Chris? Going to make it another 10,000 post thread with nothing inside?

 

[Christopher7]

Ah, trying to change the parameters again. This is the opening post, dude.

There was only one question posed, not two.

The answer is "no". I don't think it was 10 storeys. Probably bigger or smaller, but not exactly 10 storeys. Happy?

Not quite. Was it a gouge, floor 10 to the ground [30' to 40' deep at the bottom] ?
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?

Also don't think it makes a rat's patootie how big it was. This thread is the biggest waste of time, like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

This particular rats patootie is credited with 'possibly' taking out columns 69, 72 and 75, which were then mentioned as 'possible' componets that may have led to the iniating event.

(27 if you're curious)

I knew that

 

[beachnut]

That's an evasive answer.
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?


This particular rats patootie is credited with 'possibly' taking out columns 69, 72 and 75, which were then mentioned as 'possible' componets that may have led to the iniating event.

I knew that

JamesB reminded me that it all boils down to the following basic fact.

Cartman: They aren't going to find out who did it, but they will make up a scapegoat, send him to detention, and make us all believe it. It will be 9/11 all over again.

Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really, well did you know that over 1/4th of the people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes, I am saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards.

Stan: At least 1/4th.

Kyle: Let's take a test sample. There's 4 of us, you're a retard. That's 1/4th.

So I bet the hole was bigger than 10 stories and the fire was giant. (I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC7. I can watch you solve the CT which never happen; You could just use building fire failure. Very simple, and you are still getting no where after 5 years.)

 

[Christopher7]

So I bet the hole was bigger than 10 stories

To the ground, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep ?
This is the key point.
Was it that massive or was this a misinterpretation of damage described by others.

 

[Belz...]

Just noting that they had to put a transit on it to be sure there was a bulge

So ? You said there should be a bulge, and now you're saying it should be more obvious. Exactly HOW obvious would it have to be to satisfy you ?

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out floor 10 to the ground"

Well, unless you've been living under a rock since 9/11 you might have seen pictures that clearly show SOME amount of damage to the south face, and it wasn't just broken windows.

Not quite. Was it a gouge, floor 10 to the ground [30' to 40' deep at the bottom] ?
Do you believe that it was as described [more or less] on pg 18 and depicted on pg 23, 31 & 32 ?

What's this obsession with "belief" ?

 

[twinstead]

I'm still waiting for Christopher7 to stop trying to chip away at the official story with irrelevant discussions about semantics and minutiae, and actually describe an alternate theory and provide compelling evidence to support it.

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, we don't get many CTers who actually change their minds. Must be a medication problem.

 

[JonnyFive]

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.

Well, I think at this point we're at "small, enclosed room stuffed with rotting pig carcasses" bad, so yeah, that would be nice.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC7.

That's a good point. Christopher7, how many people who were at WTC7 on 9/11 have you spoken with? If the answer is "none", I would ask: Why? Don't you really WANT to know what happened?

 

[A W Smith]

What is it about people named Christopher and their obsession with a singular detail?

 

[jaydeehess]

Once again, This thread is about the incorrect statements in support of the debris damage/fire hypothesis.
I am not going to debate CD's in this thread.

We still have the movement claim to clear up.
Then we can discuss the fires.

I do not think that FDNY had anything to do with, or knowledge of, the explosives.

No, we've covered the original topic of this thread. Time to move on. The point about the amount of lean/bulge is not part of the NIST appendix L and so not part of the original thread topic.

Therefore you have already allowed yourself to move beyond the original topic. That being the case and it also being just another bit of minutiea (how much did it bulge? .... 27! ) I'd prefer that you get equal time to defend your belief.

I'd like to know what evidence you would cite as corroborating the contention that this was an explosive demolition.

 

[jaydeehess]

I do not think that FDNY had anything to do with, or knowledge of, the explosives.

Well its good to know then that at least you don't buy into the CT characterization of Larry Silverstein's "pull it".

 

[Christopher7]

So ? You said there should be a bulge, and now you're saying it should be more obvious. Exactly HOW obvious would it have to be to satisfy you ?

The point is: The small bulge in the SW corner does not mean the building is leaning as some try to imply.

Well, unless you've been living under a rock since 9/11 you might have seen pictures that clearly show SOME amount of damage to the south face, and it wasn't just broken windows.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f40b1821b.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f46e6103d.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_608045b9f49226817.jpg

There was damage to the south side of WTC 7
The SW corner and the roof and upper level.
[as depicted on pg 31 {see post 468} and in the photographs you posted]
There was also a large hole near the center of the south face around floor 14 and steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors

however, the most serious damage mentioned in the NIST report:

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

DID NOT EXIST

There are 4 statements in direct conflict with that statement

see post #94

What's this obsession with "belief" ?

This incorrect statement on pg 18, it's depiction on page 31 and 32 as approximate region of impact damage by large debris from WTC 1, and it's inclusion in the summary, has led many people to believe this misinterpretation of the actual damage.

Do you believe the 1 statement or the 4 statements ?

 

[Christopher7]

I'm still waiting for Christopher7 to stop trying to chip away at the official story with irrelevant discussions about semantics and minutiae

The 10 story gouge in the middle of WTC 7 is the most serious damage in the NIST report.

and actually describe an alternate theory and provide compelling evidence to support it.

That would be a breath of fresh air for CTs in this forum.

Don't hold your breath.
Had you bothered to read some of this thread before posting, you would have noticed that i have repeatedly said "i'm not going to discuss CD's on this thread"

I know that many of you would like to avoid acknowledging that this 10 story gouge did not exist by changing the subject.

Do you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 existed

or: [after reading post #94]

do you think it is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses ?