10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

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

And I know why. The vast preponderance of evidence supports the 'official story' no matter what you spew on this forum, and you know it. The only way for you to deal with that is:

1. Chip away at insignificant things to try to bring doubt down on it
2. Not discuss CDs at all, or any alternative theory at all, on this thread (CT 101)

I submit that your disagreement with the official story of 911, and WTC7 in particular is not based on scientific study, or witness accounts, or even common sense.

It is based on ideology pure and simple. Ideology hidden under the guise of 'finding the truth'.

Dude. You have already found your truth, and no amount of evidence or science will dissuade you.

Fair enough. But at least call a spade a spade.

 

[Christopher7]

I cheated, I talked to someone who walked right by WTC 7

Easy to say but impossible to verify

 

[twinstead]

Easy to say but impossible to verify

LOL Sound familiar?

 

[Arus808]

.. i dont know why people continue to argue with someone who refuses to even understand the report that he is trying to argue against.

the NIST report clearly states that it had conflicting reports as to the size of the hole, and they dETERMINED that size based on testimony from eyewitnesses, video and photos taken of the damage. ALL are subjective.

What you call a BEST freaking GUESS.

Christopher, would please take a course in reading comprehension 101, basic scientific investigation (taught to most 5th graders) and come back when you've demonstrated that you can at least understand what you are reading.

 

[Christopher7]

And I know why. The vast preponderance of evidence supports the 'official story' no matter what you spew on this forum, and you know it.

I disagree

The only way for you to deal with that is:
1. Chip away at insignificant things

The 10 story gouge is NOT an insignificant thing.

to try to bring doubt down on it

Yes

2. Not discuss CDs at all, or any alternative theory at all, on this thread

Right.

I submit that your disagreement with the official story of 911, and WTC7 in particular is not based on scientific study, or witness accounts

Dude, my disagreement is based on 4 eyewitness accounts.
Please read post #94

Dude. You have already found your truth, and no amount of evidence or science will dissuade you.

Talk to yourself much ?

Fair enough. But at least call a spade a spade.

I would call 4 statements that are in direct conflict with 1 statement, a preponderance of evidence.

 

[Christopher7]

.. i dont know why people continue to argue with someone who refuses to even understand the report that he is trying to argue against.

the NIST report clearly states that it had conflicting reports as to the size of the hole, and they dETERMINED that size based on testimony from eyewitnesses, video and photos taken of the damage. ALL are subjective.

What you call a BEST freaking GUESS.

That guess includes a large gouge that did not exist.

Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris
[matches the "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out"]

Christopher, would please take a course in reading comprehension 101, basic scientific investigation (taught to most 5th graders) and come back when you've demonstrated that you can at least understand what you are reading.

There are 4 statements in conflict with the 10 story gouge statement
Have you read them ? [see post #94]
If you have, do you think the 4 eyewitness statements are incorrect,
or is the 1 statement a misinterpretation of the damage described by others ?

 

[Arus808]

with every post, you again show you do not possess reading comprehension.

They did their BEST GUESS on how big the hole was based on:
EYEwitness testimony,
VIDEO footage and
PHOTO evidence.


Please repeat that to yourself 21000000 times until you understand what that means. NO where in that list, is an "or".

 

[apathoid]

I would call 4 statements that are in direct conflict with 1 statement, a preponderance of evidence.

Just out of curiosity, how many statements are there that describe a 10 story gouge(from floors 18 to 8) in the SW corner?
What if there was no photo of this particular gouge(there is but a single photo that shows it), would you be denying its existence as well, Chris?

 

[Christopher7]

with every post, you again show you do not possess reading comprehension.

They did their BEST GUESS on how big the hole was based on:
EYEwitness testimony,
VIDEO footage and
PHOTO evidence.

Talk to yourself much ?

pg 17
"The following information about the damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building."

pg 18
"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals."

 

[Christopher7]

Just out of curiosity, how many statements are there that describe a 10 story gouge(from floors 18 to 8) in the SW corner?
What if there was no photo of this particular gouge(there is but a single photo that shows it), would you be denying its existence as well, Chris?

So many questions

So few direct answers

I will be glad to answer your question if you will just take a few minutes and read post # 94.

Then state weather or not you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, exists.

 

[beachnut]

So many questions

So few direct answers

I will be glad to answer your question if you will just take a few minutes and read post # 94.

Then state weather or not you believe the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18, exists.

What is your conclusion over all? What made WTC7 fall?

You should ask some people from 9/11 what they saw; I cheated, someone told me the hole was bigger than 10 stories; I will sell you the name. I have to send my kids to college so they are not as dumb as CTers.

It is going quick hurry and buy the info! (you could learn about FDRs before you take the word of those CT pilots; BTW why are only a few pilots looking for truth? you know the pilots like the scholars are liars)

 

[Arus808]

Talk to yourself much ?

pg 17
"The following information about the damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of people in or near the building."

pg 18
"Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals."

OMG, you're being purposely obtuse.
Arguing with someone who is arguing the semantics of a preliminary report is unproductive. Why dont you wait till the final report is released? Why spend all this energy on what is contained in a "first" draft report?

 

[Christopher7]

What is your conclusion over all? What made WTC7 fall?

Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

You should ask some people from 9/11 what they saw; I cheated, someone told me the hole was bigger than 10 stories; I will sell you the name. I have to send my kids to college so they are not as dumb as CTers.

Do you really think that everyone debating this issue should track these people down and ask them what they saw ?
Someone told you. BFD. Easy to say, impossible to verify.
Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

 

[Christopher7]

OMG, you're being purposely obtuse.
Arguing with someone who is arguing the semantics of a preliminary report is unproductive. Why dont you wait till the final report is released? Why spend all this energy on what is contained in a "first" draft report?

Because it contains a major error that has led many people to believe that the debris damage to the south side of WTC 7 was far worse than it actually was.

This is not a mater of semantics. The 4 statements are clearly in conflict with the '10 story gouge'.

 

[apathoid]

Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

"....the atrium glass was still intact"

How about NOT quote mining, Chris. Here is the full quote:

NIST:"-debris damage across one-fourth 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."

"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby"

Given the description of damage above, the lobby was below the damage point. Makes sense...also note the word heavy. That would indicate that there was some damage in that area.....see the bottom of this post.

"Acording to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WCT 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner."

Fair enough, but I haven't seen this account mentioned anywhere else or corroberated to any extent, by your logic - we must throw it out. Besides, even if this account is accurate, it says nothing about the South facade from floors 8 to the lobby.


And here is the whole section, in context. Remember Chris - context is important..

• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

-middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
-large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
-debris damage across one-fourth 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
-from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west[/LIST]

Note that they freely admit there are conflicting descriptions of the damage.



And what about these statements?

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

.....

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

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

Is Captain Boyle a liar?



http://johnii2.tripod.com/wtc7.jpg

Have a look at the photo above and explain to me why you are having such a hard time believing there was a sizable hole in WTC7. I dont think you appreciate how close 7 was to 1.

And theoretically speaking, if there was a 50-ish story building in close proximity to WTC2 (perhaps the distance WTC7 was to WTC1) that had a noticable gouge scooped out of it - would you be more inclined to believe that there was a similar gouge in WTC7, given the similarity of the Towers collapses, the similar sizes of the 2 buildings, and similar proximity to said buildings with a WTC Tower ?

If yes, I give you the Bankers Trust:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/BTflyingcolumns.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

Furthermore, how would you characterize the debris in the lobby of this building? Heavy?
I wouldn't say so, but that's me...
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_B.Trust_lobby.jpg

 

[beachnut]

Nice try at changing the subject.
This thread is to point out the flaws it the debris damage/fire hypothesis. [set of assumptions]
In particular, the non existence of the '10 story gouge'

Do you really think that everyone debating this issue should track these people down and ask them what they saw ?
Someone told you. BFD. Easy to say, impossible to verify.
Do you expect everyone to believe you and ignore the 4 official statements that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge' ?

Sad to think you can not even state your conclusions and how it ties to the hugh hole in WTC7 where all the smoke from fires feed from 20,000 gallons of fuel was coming out for hours past the safety factor of the steel.

I have read your post over and over about NIST and find we can have what NIST said and a big hole with no problem. But I am just a simple Engineer, professional soldier, pilot, and computer nerd.

Why are you unable in a few post to learn that you are not able to prove a conclusion you fail to make known past your idea you have already failed to prove as the theme to this thread.

If you can not prove your thread topic, how can you prove anything?

I do not want to change your failed thread idea; I wanted to know where you were trying to go? As most CTers you are unable to work with witness statements and come to a reasonalbe conclusion or relate where you want it to go. You keep going back to post 94 as your proof all other statements are false or faulty based on the very information we keep feeding you and you ignore.

You failed to make me see why your evidence makes a large hole in WTC7 false. As you go on it becomes easier to see how a big hole could be hidden in the smoke yet seen by those fleeing on the ground in the very area. Yet even if a big hole is not in the WTC7, there were hugh areas where tons of smoke were leaving due to giant fires which destoryed the building. I can see hugh amounts of smoke from WTC7 all day until it fell.

So your CT final conclusion which remains a mystery has been false for 5 years before you even state it here. Proven wrong before you post it by the real event 9/11. Woke up got out bed... jlpm

 

[Christopher7]

How about NOT quote mining, Chris. Here is the full quote:

NIST:"-debris damage across one-fourth 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."

Debris damage across the face is quite different from a gouge 30 to 40 feet deep.
Damage, ground to 5th floor is quite different from a gouge floor 10 to the ground.

Given the description of damage above, the lobby was below the damage point. Makes sense...also note the word heavy. That would indicate that there was some damage in that area.....see the bottom of this post.

What part of 'floor 10 to the ground' don't you understand ?

according to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occured at the south west corner

source: FEMA Report, pg 20

Fair enough, but I haven't seen this account mentioned anywhere else or corroberated to any extent, by your logic - we must throw it out.

Wrong
The FEMA Report is an official government document, just like the NIST Report.
All the statements are only mentioned once, including the '10 story gouge'

Besides, even if this account is accurate, it says nothing about the South facade from floors 8 to the lobby.

Good point [previously made by jaydeehess]
That cuts the gouge down to 8 stories and creates doubt as to the accuracy of the statement.

And here is the whole section, in context. Remember Chris - context is important..

Note that they freely admit there are conflicting descriptions of the damage.

Right, but then they proceed to ignore the 2 statements on the same page that are in direct conflict with the '10 story gouge', and the statement from the FEMA Report [they may not have had the Oral Histories but they should have]

Then they show the damage described in the '10 story gouge' statement, in the graphic on pg 23, 31 and 32.
Then, in the Summary, they mention that damage as "possible components" in the initiating event.

And what about these statements?


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

Is Captain Boyle a liar?

Captain Boyle's statement is in conflict with 5 official government and FDNY statements, including the '10 story gouge'.
He either misinterpreted what he saw or he overstated what he saw.



http://johnii2.tripod.com/wtc7.jpg

Have a look at the photo above and explain to me why you are having such a hard time believing there was a sizable hole in WTC7. I dont think you appreciate how close 7 was to 1.

Do you enjoy deceiving yourself with photographic perspective?

WTC 1 and WTC 7 were approximately 350 feet apart! [NIST Apx. L pg 3]

And theoretically speaking, if there was a 50-ish story building in close proximity to WTC2 (perhaps the distance WTC7 was to WTC1) that had a noticable gouge scooped out of it - would you be more inclined to believe that there was a similar gouge in WTC7, given the similarity of the Towers collapses, the similar sizes of the 2 buildings, and similar proximity to said buildings with a WTC Tower ?

WTC 7 was about 100 feet further away. It is possible but.......
there are 4 statements that say it didn't happen.

If yes, I give you the Bankers Trust:

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/images/engineering_img_b_130libertyst.jpg
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/BTflyingcolumns.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

Furthermore, how would you characterize the debris in the lobby of this building? Heavy?
I wouldn't say so, but that's me...
http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/wtc_B.Trust_lobby.jpg

No. I would describe steel beams and large sections of WTC 1 framework as heavy debris.

 

[beachnut]

It is likely some exterior columns crashed into WTC7. It is very likely lots of exterior clading smashed into WTC7.

But then the thread has no conclusion; it just has an answer of, YES I believe there was a big hole.

Done; so why do you ask this really dumb question? Teachers lied to you there are stupid questions. (I know questions are not really stupid but you know what I mean; or not)

So do most say big hole? What did you say again? And why is this worth a hill of beans in the first place?

 

[Christopher7]

It is likely some exterior columns crashed into WTC7. It is very likely lots of exterior clading smashed into WTC7.

But then the thread has no conclusion; it just has an answer of, YES I believe there was a big hole.

Done; so why do you ask this really dumb question? Teachers lied to you there are stupid questions. (I know questions are not really stupid but you know what I mean; or not)

So do most say big hole? What did you say again? And why is this worth a hill of beans in the first place?

There were several 'big holes' in WTC 7, but there was NOT a 100 foot high by 60 to 80 foot wide by 30 to 40 foot deep gouge.

I think i have mentioned this before but, this gouge was the most serious damage to wtc 7 that was reported. It's inclusion in the damage graphic and the Summary has led a lot of people to believe it existed.

Gouged out means gone, not there any more.
Not just the south wall but all the floors attached to it and held up by it.

 

[beachnut]

Now you are defining what other people said; can not be done; your gouge has to be defined by those whose gouge it is.

Hole in the exterior from the top to the bottom allowed the building to breath and the fire to destroy the strenght of the steel. WTC7 failed due to fire; had there been concrete cores or extra concrete for fire protection; WTC7 may of partially stood like the building in Madrid.

But WTC7 is all steel, no vertical concrete support. Steel is very bad in fire. Fell due to fire. Questions; the answer to your thread is really it does not matter.

YES or NO on a big one hole has no meaning since there was plenty of hole to liberate the smoke and keep the massive fires burning all day. 20,000 gallons of fuel helped the contents burn.

Gee the building in madrid with no holes fell in a couple hours; the steel portions collapse explosively as the building in madrid burned. Fell in a few hours.

WTC7 must of had better steel and protection than Windsor building in Madrid.

So your hole is a does not matter fact. Kind of like a non smoking guy type CT smoke screen. And as JamesBond said; "were there is smoke, there is..." need I go on!

My new answer to the thread now becoming your concrete core is; it just does not matter!

Does not matter! Clear and simple; everyone needs to say yes, no, or does not matter and you can get to your next useless CT point. Sorry but you have beat this poor dog or horse too much. I bet the hole is now 46.9 stories after all this beating.

Remember my simple answer is now;

It just does not matter. On topic, on target, on this thread.