10 story hole in WTC 7

[aggle-rithm]

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?

"Unreliable" doesn't mean "untrue". It just means it would be foolish to take them at face value without corroboration.

Human beings aren't video recorders. What they see and later recall is subject to a great deal of subjective interpretation.

 

[Belz...]

And even video recorders don't always produce acceptable quality.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

It has been suggested that the "Approximate reigon of impact damage by large WTC 1 debris" was a combination of different reports of damage.
Such is not the case.

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?

On the contrary, i have mentioned the 5 story damage as evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.
Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.
Therefore it is possible that there was "debris damage across 1/4 the width of the south face.....ground to 5th floor" [pg 18] but the wall is still there and the "atrium glass was still intact"

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.

You are refering to the elevators cars being ejected from their shafts and landing in the hallway north of the elevator shaft.
Look at the location of the core columns and the elevators [NIST Apx. L pg 6]
The ejection the elevators into the hallway would only have taken out 1 core column.
It is not known which elevators were ejected or which core columns may have been damaged.

*******************************************
FWIW
The firefighter account of "only damage to 9th floor facade occured at the SW corner" is very specific and cannot be dismissed as an unreliable eyewitness account.

"Firefighters found individuals on floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building." [pg 18]

"...another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and where there was an explosion and we were trapped on the 8th floor"
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+new+footage
[1st listing - 'new footage' - start at 6:21]

Therefore the elevators were on the 8th floor.

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

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.

In this way, we learn from each other.

 

[Christopher7]

"Unreliable" doesn't mean "untrue". It just means it would be foolish to take them at face value without corroboration.

It would indeed be foolish to believe that there was a

10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide by 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7,

based on a single eyewitness account.

Human beings aren't video recorders. What they see and later recall is subject to a great deal of subjective interpretation.

 

[twinstead]

It would indeed be foolish to believe that there was a

10 story gouge, 60 to 80 feet wide by 30 to 40 feet deep, in the middle of the south side of WTC 7,

based on a single eyewitness account.

BUT, remove the exactness of the gouge, and simply ask who witnessed a substantial gouge in WTC7, and who determined that the building was in imminent danger of collapse, well...then you pretty much have the majority of eye witnesses covered, right?

 

[beachnut]

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.

You missed it! They said exactly what you just said but they said it a little different.

The update on the WTC7 is in the report! But it is a wait and see. You know they said what they are doing and it will be in the report later. You missed it. I already forgot the words but they are there. Enough information for someone who reads to know what they are doing.

Wait. They tell you the update on 7; wait.

 

[Christopher7]

BUT, remove the exactness of the gouge, and simply ask who witnessed a substantial gouge in WTC7, and who determined that the building was in imminent danger of collapse, well...then you pretty much have the majority of eye witnesses covered, right?

Wrong.
Read Gravys list.
How many actually said "I thought WTC 7 was going to collapse" ?
[just a few]

How many said they heard or they were told it was going to collapse. ?
[all the rest]

 

[Christopher7]

beachnut:

You forgot the initiating event

Christopher7, in October, NIST revised its south face damage assessment. What is their new assessment?

The new assessment has NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC!

Gravy was just blowin smoke!

 

[Christopher7]

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

I told him that i was debating the damage to WTC 7 with Mark Roberts who supports the official view, and that i have a different view.
He continued to be pleasant, polite and helpful.

 

[twinstead]

Wrong.
Read Gravys list.
How many actually said "I thought WTC 7 was going to collapse" ?
[just a few]

How many said they heard or they were told it was going to collapse. ?
[all the rest]

And how many exactly said they heard loud bangs and/or flashes just before it collapsed? How many said they noticed odd wiring, unusual activity, or any evidence whatsoever of CD?

 

[twinstead]

I told him that i was debating the damage to WTC 7 with Mark Roberts who supports the official view, and that i have a different view.
He continued to be pleasant, polite and helpful.

He would probably change his tone if he realizes that indirectly you are accusing him or his colleagues, of at best not knowing what they are talking about, and at worst being liars.

But, maybe not. What is your position on why, if in your opinion the NIST is so terribly and obviously wrong about what happened that awful day, do they say what they do?

 

[Belz...]

Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.

Trade Center-proof, maybe ?

 

[jaydeehess]

On the contrary, i have mentioned the 5 story damage as evidence that the 10 story gouge did not exist.
Since the FBI and the CIA had offices in WTC 7, it's likely that the atrium glass is bulletproof or blastproof.
Therefore it is possible that there was "debris damage across 1/4 the width of the south face.....ground to 5th floor" [pg 18] but the wall is still there and the "atrium glass was still intact"

Oh come now C7. What dark recess did you pull that one from?
If there was such visible damage for 5 floors AND the glass was blast/bulletproof and therefore intact just what did this visible damage consist of? The steel beams and columns would not be bent or broken and adjacent glass, no matter the type, intact.
If the wall isn't there, neither is the glass.

I have already given a senario for this comment. I re-iterate, the witness sees the damage from ground to the 5th floor and this is located to the east of the entranceway on the south face but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact. I can pardon a person for not being exact in their statements.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut:

You forgot the initiating event


The new assessment has NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC!

Gravy was just blowin smoke!

Face it you can not read and come away with meaning. Gravy knew what NIST said and let you find out. But you only prove you can not read; you needed the help of a phone call. (do not take this bad or as an attack; I almost asked gravy but decided I would try and find out what the update was and I read the trail of crumbs left by those trying to help you learn how to read. I was lucky and figured out the new study would be released in the future; that was the update.) Am I wrong?

But since you know CD blew up WTC7, I think you know that as well as you can read the NIST update. You have no ability to make a conclusion that is clear to most but eludes you.

This problem you have with comprehension is reflected in all your research. Not that I could do better but you fail to see your limitations and you will continue to believe 9/11 lies or even make them up.

 

[njslim]

Don't know if this posted before - its an oral history interview from Dec 2001
with Richard Banaciski, FDNY Ladder 22 concerning WTC 7

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on

 

[Christopher7]

Oh come now C7. What dark recess did you pull that one from?
If there was such visible damage for 5 floors AND the glass was blast/bulletproof and therefore intact just what did this visible damage consist of? The steel beams and columns would not be bent or broken and adjacent glass, no matter the type, intact.
If the wall isn't there, neither is the glass.

I have already given a senario for this comment. I re-iterate, the witness sees the damage from ground to the 5th floor and this is located to the east of the entranceway on the south face but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact. I can pardon a person for not being exact in their statements.

We are both speculating, trying to make sense of a somewhat ambiguous stement.
My scenario assumes bullet/blast proof glass. The steel is battered and bent but still somewhat intact.
Your scenario is reasonable but still in conflict with a 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' gouge in the middle of the south wall.

This is a rough approximation of the gouge [purple]
Imagine this gouge 30 to 40 feet deep [the wall and the floors attached to it, gone]

Chief Fellini's "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade" [red] I put this damage in the center because i think the 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses.

 

[Christopher7]

Don't know if this posted before - its an oral history interview from Dec 2001
with Richard Banaciski, FDNY Ladder 22 concerning WTC 7

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on

They were looking at the damage to the SW corner that we have all seen.

The tremendous fires were the remains of WTC 1 & 2, beyond the smaller buildings [5 & 6]

 

[jaydeehess]

My scenario assumes bullet/blast proof glass. The steel is battered and bent but still somewhat intact.

Unfortunatly Chris there isn't a type of glass on this planet that would survive if subjected to forces sufficient to bend the steel next to it.

Besides wasn't the command center on the 23rd floor? If one is to assume that all the glass on that floor and below were armoured then it would require that all the glass on those floors be armoured. Such armouring would be to prevent a blast lifting the floor pans(which requires suprisingly little overpressure) and causing floor collapse on the lower floors and to prevent flying glass within the offices. Much glass was shattered in the building even by the collapse of WTC 2 making it obvious that such armoured glass was not in place.

This is a rough approximation of the gouge [purple]
Imagine this gouge 30 to 40 feet deep [the wall and the floors attached to it, gone]

Chief Fellini's "steel ripped out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade" [red] I put this damage in the center because i think the 10 story gouge is a misinterpretation of the damage described by the other witnesses.

Your characterizations require two assumptions.
1) that the gouge reported be 30-40 feet deep throughout the entire approx 10 floors.

This intent in the original description is not in evidence. It is the widest interpretation of the statement and thus is shown in the NIST diagrams

2) that Cheif Fellinni is reporting on the condition of the entire face of WTC 7 and not just what was visible to him through dust and/or smoke.

I also note that the disvision between floors is not readily apparent for the first several floors of WTC 7. This is made obvious in your picture above and in the height of the confusion, dust, heat and extreme emotional distress of the day the expectation that witnesses get the details correct just isn't right.

 

[Christopher7]

Unfortunatly Chris there isn't a type of glass on this planet that would survive if subjected to forces sufficient to bend the steel next to it.

OK, leave out the bent. My bad.

They don't mention bent steel, but they do say the damage starts above the atrium, which is in between the promenade on the left and the pedestrian bridge on the right. [see NIST Apx. L pg 8]

"debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground floor to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact." [NIST Apx. L pg 18]

Your scenerio needs a little work too.
Damage from ground to the 5th floor to the east of the entranceway on the south face.
[the atrium is over the entranceway]

"but the glass over the atrium to the west of the entrance is still intact"
[on the other side of a 60' to 80' gouge ? I think they were talking about one area]

In either case, the gouge 'floor 10 to the ground' [even the 60' wide gouge]* would have taken out a sizeable portion of the atrium glass.
*gouge depicted is roughly 80'

Your characterizations require two assumptions.
1) that the gouge reported be 30-40 feet deep throughout the entire approx 10 floors.

No. I made the gouge smaller at the top which indicates [i thought] that the gouge was bigger, and therefore deeper, at the ground floor. [as one would expect from debris falling at an angle]

2) that Cheif Fellinni is reporting on the condition of the entire face of WTC 7 and not just what was visible to him through dust and/or smoke.

Hayden: "....it took a while for that fire to develop."

NIST Apx. L pg 22
From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the 6th floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby areas."

The breeze was to the south, blowing the dust and the smoke from WTC 5 & 6 away from WTC 7.

I also note that the disvision between floors is not readily apparent for the first several floors of WTC 7. This is made obvious in your picture above and in the height of the confusion, dust, heat and extreme emotional distress of the day the expectation that witnesses get the details correct just isn't right.

We're not talking about details here.
In this case we have 4 statements that are in conflict with 1 statement and those statements, some clear on details, some not, are enough to conclude that the 1 statement, was overstated.

 

[Gravy]

Fourth time, Chris: NIST reassessed the south face damage. What is their new assessment? You've had plenty of time to work on this, but you seem to only want to rehash the same argument.

Is there any reason you aren't interested in finding this out?