10 story hole in WTC 7

[Gravy]

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'.

Words, words, words. I told you that NIST revised its south face damage assessment in 2006. For the third time, what is their new assessment?

 

[Christopher7]

Words, words, words. I told you that NIST revised its south face damage assessment in 2006. For the third time, what is their new assessment?

I tried nist.gov but got a 'you don't have authorization to see current pubs' msg.

So far you have only made snotty, condescending remarks.

If you have something of value to offer on the subject

Put up or shut up.

 

[Arus808]

chris, i found the new assessment with a quick search...
stop being lazy.

 

[jaydeehess]

I tried nist.gov but got a 'you don't have authorization to see current pubs' msg.

So far you have only made snotty, condescending remarks.

If you have something of value to offer on the subject

Put up or shut up.

Geez Chris there is one report by a NIST engineer in which he comes up with a probable senario that has strictly the fires taking the building down.

Why is it that others can find these but you can't?

 

[aggle-rithm]

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]


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.

Eyewitness statements are unreliable. I know it, you know it, NIST knows it, everybody knows it.

Apparently, you believe that if two or more eyewitness accounts are in conflict, then you can arbitrarily pick one that you want to be true. That isn't the case.

What NIST did, as any good investigation would do, is to pick out those accounts that can be CORROBORATED by other evidence. Any testimony that is wholly consistent with verifiable facts about the WTC7 collapse has a high probability of being accurate. (Note: I do not say it IS accurate. Nobody pretends that it is possible to know for sure what happened. However, with what is known about the collapse, it would take a HUGE amount of evidence to overturn NIST's findings.)

If any eyewitnesses were found who described demolition teams moving into the building and setting charges, then that would be a viable avenue of investigation. Unfortunately for your worldview, there were no such witnesses. Controlled demolition is not the sort of thing you can simply infer because there is conflicting testimony. If that were the case, you could infer controlled demolition from ANY event where eyewitness accounts are recorded.

 

[Christopher7]

Geez Chris there is one report by a NIST engineer in which he comes up with a probable senario that has strictly the fires taking the building down.

Why is it that others can find these but you can't?

If my research abilities don't meet with your aproval, then so be it.
ICCL

You are the only one here that is willing to acknowledge that the '10 story gouge' and the core damage atributed to it, was unlikely to have occured.

This is why you have moved on to "strictly the fires taking the building down"

 

[apathoid]

In case you still havent found it Chris..

Apparently, NIST has acquired some new photos of the south face. I'll wager that there isn't a 10 storey gouge, but heavy damage to the South face nonetheless..

2. Lack of information about impact damage to the south face of WTC 7

��Obtained data from witnesses and mapped reported observations
��Mapped south face damage using photo analysis of available images (obtained new images 8/06)

....

��Inspection of the Banker’s Trust building for fireproofing damage
debris impact by exterior panels as WTC 2 collapsed (WTC 7 suffered similar debris impacts by exterior panels as WTC 1 collapsed)

Also, this caught my eye:

��Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
��Evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance
��Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios

 

[Christopher7]

Eyewitness statements are unreliable. I know it, you know it, NIST knows it, everybody knows it.

Battalion Chief Frank Fellini was in charge of operations at West and Vesy.

Do you think his statement is unreliable?

Do you think the firefighters who reported;

"no heavy debris in the lobby area" and
"only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner"

are unreliable?

 

[Christopher7]

In case you still havent found it Chris..

[NIST 12/06]

Apparently, NIST has acquired some new photos of the south face. I'll wager that there isn't a 10 storey gouge, but heavy damage to the South face nonetheless..

I agree

I have a copy of the 12/06 Summary
pg 6
Mapped south face damage using photo analysis of available images (obtained new images 8/06)


Gravy said Oct. [2006 implied] #437


So they have had these images since 8/06 and they haven't released them to the public.
These images belong to "We the people"

They are NOT the property of NIST or the 'government'

They can analyze them all that want but there is no reason why they should be withheld from the public.

 

[jaydeehess]

If my research abilities don't meet with your aproval, then so be it.
ICCL

You are the only one here that is willing to acknowledge that the '10 story gouge' and the core damage atributed to it, was unlikely to have occured.

This is why you have moved on to "strictly the fires taking the building down"

I didn't say I wanted to move on to strictly fires. just pointing out that for all your talk you don't seem all that committed to actually keeping up with this.

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago. you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this ?

 

[Christopher7]

I didn't say I wanted to move on to strictly fires. just pointing out that for all your talk you don't seem all that committed to actually keeping up with this.

My focus has been on the '10 story gouge', not the collapse senerio.

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago.

Correct,
but njslim hasen't gotten back with a source for the building was 'moving' statement and

Gravy has chosen to shut up rather than put up

***************************************

apathoid: The 12/06 Summary says they "maped south face damage" but it didn't say what the 'revised' assessment was.

arus808: Are you refering to the 12/06 Summary or are you and Gravy playing 'hide the monster' ?

you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this ?

I stated that i believe WTC 7 was a CD but that's not what this thread is about

 

[beachnut]

NIST did say, you missed it, but it can wait...

true in more ways than one

 

[apathoid]

So they have had these images since 8/06 and they haven't released them to the public.
These images belong to "We the people"

They are NOT the property of NIST or the 'government'

They can analyze them all that want but there is no reason why they should be withheld from the public.

They'll be included in the WTC7 final report, if you cannot wait - it wouldn't hurt to ask them.

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: [email protected]

 

[Christopher7]

NIST did say, you missed it, but it can wait...

true in more ways than one

Do you mean pg 16 of the 12/06 Approach Summary:

"10/06 Updated south face damage" ?

They don't state what if anything was changed.

 

[Belz...]

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

So, you said there should be a bulge if the building was leaning, but now that there is a bulge it doesn't mean the building was leaning. So you talking about a bulge was just a diversion ?

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

Ah, yes. Statements. The end-all of "serious" investigations.

Do you believe the 1 statement or the 4 statements ?

Again: what's this obsession with "belief", and what does it have to do with anything ?

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

Right. How are those four statements in conflict with the report, please ?

That guess includes a large gouge that did not exist.

Hey, if you keep saying it, maybe it'll become true.

WTC 7 was about 100 feet further away. It is possible but.......

Don't forget that 1 didn't collapse quite like 2 did.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually I asked YOU to move on quite a while ago. you remember, that insignificant little topic about controlled demolition. You said you did not want to in this thread.

Maybe you missed this ?

C7 responds:

I stated that i believe WTC 7 was a CD but that's not what this thread is about

Obviously you did not click the link Chris. It takes you to another thread meaning you do not have to discuss CD in this one.

 

[Christopher7]

C7 responds:


Obviously you did not click the link Chris. It takes you to another thread meaning you do not have to discuss CD in this one.

I did click the link but i have not responded yet as i am busy here.

You have consistently debated honestly and i will post a reply tonight on your new thread.

 

[Christopher7]

They'll be included in the WTC7 final report, if you cannot wait - it wouldn't hurt to ask them.

NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: [email protected]

YOUDAMAN!

I called NIST and talked to Steve Caufman.

He said that NIST has not released any updates to the damage assessment of WTC 7.

Gravy was just blowin smoke

He also said that the WTC 1 debris damage on pg 31 & 32 NIST Apx. L,
did refer to the 10 story gouge statement on pg 18.

 

[twinstead]

YOUDAMAN!

I called NIST and talked to Steve Caufman.

He said that NIST has not released any updates to the damage assessment of WTC 7.

Gravy was just blowin smoke

He also said that the WTC 1 debris damage on pg 31 & 32 NIST Apx. L,
did refer to the 10 story gouge statement on pg 18.

Did you happen to mention to Steve that you think the NIST is full of crap, and the WTC7 was brought down by CD?

 

[jaydeehess]

YOUDAMAN!

I called NIST and talked to Steve Caufman.

He said that NIST has not released any updates to the damage assessment of WTC 7.

Gravy was just blowin smoke

He also said that the WTC 1 debris damage on pg 31 & 32 NIST Apx. L,
did refer to the 10 story gouge statement on pg 18.

Did I miss something? Someone claimed that the diagrams do not represent the reported damage area?

The diagram is based upon the extent of damage as reported by various witnesses who, as NIST makes very clear several times in the report, offer differring accounts some of which are contradictory.

I find it odd that you pick away at ONE of these accounts. You brush off the account of a 6 storey (ground and up) account in which the atrium glass is said to be intact. How is that possible Christopher 7? How can there be damage to the first 6 floors but the glass is intact? Shall we throw that one out too then?

Now you might come back saying that the 10 storey gouge is required to have the columns in question be damaged except it most certainly is not, a point which has been made several times to you.



Now I did read a report that made the case for fire alone bringing down WTC 7 but I don't recall where it was in NIST and did not save the url. I'll keep looking.