10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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?

Cut the s*it Gravy.

Had you bothered to read a little before posting, you would know that i called NIST and they told me that:

THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THE NEW ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC

Kindly stop blowin smoke up my ass please.

 

[twinstead]

Cut the s*it Gravy.

Had you bothered to read a little before posting, you would know that i called NIST and they told me that:

THEY HAVE NOT RELEASED THE NEW ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC

I'm curious, however, as to how you can tell us how wrong NIST is when you don't even know what their revised assessment is.

 

[Belz...]

I must admit that I'm confused about this, too.

 

[jaydeehess]

[qimg]http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/949/copyof3ov2.jpg[/qimg]


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]

So its to be damage that is remarkable but not enough to break the glass(blast resistant or not)? Is that it? what kind of damage would that be then, the paint was sratched? Chris, you are really reaching with this one , give it up.

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'

On pages L-8 and L-9 you see the atrium separated into two sections. BTW, notice anything else about these two pages?

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]

Sure your characterization makes it larger at the ground floor.

Why do you assume that it would be so?

Take a look at Banker's Trust
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzbt1.html
That gouge ended before the ground floor and had the debris that caused it not gotten hung up in the side of the building it certainly looks as if would have ended up in the street.

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."

What's that, below 6th floor Chris?

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

Well that clinches it. It was perfectly clear, no dust falling off WTC 7, no smoke from WTC 7, no smoke from #5 & #6 swirling in Vesey Street.

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

Yes, we are talking details. You refuse to grasp the concept that the NIST report is illustrating the extent of the worst case reported damage and that to not do so would be an error. It is NOT a major tenet of the conclusions in even this preliminary report that this greatest extent of damage to the south face be the reality that day.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

Progress to Date
12/05 Completed table of initiating events for WTC 7.
1/06 Completed review of 80 boxes of data and drawings held by SOM.
4/06Awarded contract to ARA for global analyses.
5/06 Completed ANSYS analysis of WTC 7 floor sections with inclusion of temperature-dependent material properties, composite floor behavior, and creep.
6/06Completed preliminary simulations of fire progress and thermal heating of structural elements.
6/06 Completed evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance for review.
7/06Completed information gathering on building layout and contents.
8/06 Inspected Banker’s Trust building for fireproofing damage from debris impact by exterior panels as WTC 2 collapsed. Discussions to perform the inspections started in 3/06 and were not approved until 7/06.

8/06 Completed preliminary analysis of WTC 7 global response to initiating events using a SAP model developed earlier in the investigation,including design of connection details and development of failure criteria.
8/06 Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) for analysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events.
8/06 Completed analysis of visual evidence: fire progress andbuilding damage.
8/06 Completed analysis of seismic data.
10/06 Completed FDS fire models and analyses for floors.
10/06 Updated south face damage.
11/06 Completed video analysis of building vibration.
12/06 Developed ANSYS model for thermal analyses, initiated analyses.
12/06 Completed LSDYNA floor and global models; initiated flooranalyses.
12/06 Developed hypothetical blast scenarios for analysis of overpressures.

 

[jaydeehess]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm curious, however, as to how you can tell us how wrong NIST is when you don't even know what their revised assessment is.

I'm pointing out the error in the report that has been released.
NIST Appendix L [progress report]

Hopefully, they will correct this mistake in the final report but until they release it, we won't know.

 

[Christopher7]

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

Been there, read that

Gravy's question was: "What is their new assessment"

As you can see, that information is not in the report you posted.

So why did you post it ?

Gravy was just blowin smoke.

Are you guys all hooked up to the same Hooka ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Been there, read that

Gravy's question was: "What is their new assessment"

As you can see, that information is not in the report you posted.

So why did you post it ?

Gravy was just blowin smoke.

Are you guys all hooked up to the same Hooka ?

Yeah, but it's pretty weak. I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!

 

[jaydeehess]

Been there, read that

Gravy's question was: "What is their new assessment"

As you can see, that information is not in the report you posted.

So why did you post it ?

Gravy was just blowin smoke.

Are you guys all hooked up to the same Hooka ?

I believe that the point was that you are argueing a small point contained in a preliminary report even though you know that there is a revised report coming out this year. Why are you so hooked on it then? and if I am correct about what Gravy was getting at , then what flight level was it at when it went over your head?

I haven't pulled on a hooka, a pipe or a spliff for 25 years now. You?

Now have you noticed that the figures on page L-8 are reversed? The ground floor lobby is not on the second floor. Do you see that the atrium glass extends most of the width of the building? Do you see that it is defined in the diagrams as two separate sections to the east and west of the entrance?

 

[Christopher7]

Yeah, but it's pretty weak. I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!

 

[Christopher7]

I believe that the point was that you are argueing a small point contained in a preliminary report

small? did you say SMALL?

A 10 story gouge, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

is BIG

even though you know that there is a revised report coming out this year.

and when it comes out we can review and discuss it.

In the mean time, I'm pointing out a mistake in the NIST Apx.L report that has led a lot of people to believe there was a

"10 story gouge, 60 to 80' wide and 30 to 40' deep in WTC 7.

Such is not the case.

Now have you noticed that the figures on page L-8 are reversed?

Yes

Do you see that the atrium glass extends most of the width of the building? Do you see that it is defined in the diagrams as two separate sections to the east and west of the entrance?

Yes.
The statement was about the east atrium.

 

[LashL]

Christopher7,

I know that I've asked you about this several times and I know that you have never responded in any meaningful fashion, but I'll mention it again in hopes that you might actually address the issue.

You keep claiming that certain witness accounts of the damage are/were inconsistent with each other, but you still haven't addressed your mind to the locations and the opportunity to observe of the very people whose accounts you claim to be inconsistent with each other.

Until you do that, I do not see how you can legitimately claim that the various accounts from various persons are inconsistent with each other. Frankly, it appears that you haven't any concept of the physical layout of the building, haven't any concept of the size of the building, haven't any concept of the reality of the situation on the ground that existed on September 11, 2001, and that you are just plucking thinigs out of thin air to suit your purposes several years after the fact.

I'll gladly stand corrected if you can provide any evidence to support your theories, but so far, you have not done so.

Unless and until you can provide evidence of the locations of the various witnesses, and unless and until you can establish that their opportunties to observe were such that their accounts are inconsistent with each other, I cannot and will not accept your bald assertion that they are inconsistent.

It appears, by your failure to address this point even though you have been asked to do so several times, that you do not understand the simple concepts of location and opportunity to observe, but I can assure you that in the real world, it matters. Every day, in real live court cases, it matters.

 

[twinstead]

and when it comes out we can review and discuss it.

In the mean time, I'm pointing out a mistake in the NIST Apx.L report that has led a lot of people to believe there was a

"10 story gouge, 60 to 80' wide and 30 to 40' deep in WTC 7.

Such is not the case.

This would be accepted by us a lot better if it weren't so apparent that you are questioning NIST not only in an irrelevant, pedantic way, but that you are implying something nefarious.

If NIST corrects its 'mistakes' in the revised edition, you will go on probably with little comment to some other 'anomaly' in the official story surrounding 911.

If not, NIST will probably describe in minute detail why they came to their conclusions, but you just won't believe them and rely on your own flawed 'investigation'.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Belz...]

small? did you say SMALL?

A 10 story gouge, 60' to 80' wide and 30' to 40' deep

is BIG

Now you're playing with words which is a dishonest way of arguing.

You're arguing about the exact size of the hole itself. The fact that it may be smaller than reported is a small point.

 

[jaydeehess]

Now you're playing with words which is a dishonest way of arguing.

You're arguing about the exact size of the hole itself. The fact that it may be smaller than reported is a small point.

Beat me to it.

The statement was about the east atrium

What causes you to believe that both parts of the statement reffered to only the east atrium? It is simply improbable in the extreme to expect that damage to the face of the building in a specific loaction (center of the face, ground to 5th floor) was remarkable to a witness and that it did not invovle the windows being broken even IF one accepts your contention, with absolutly no corroborating evidence, that all the windows of this building were blast resistent(there is no such thing as blast-PROOF).

 

[Belz...]

there is no such thing as blast-PROOF

Of course there is. Haven't you seen the latest Bond flick ?

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7,

I know that I've asked you about this several times and I know that you have never responded in any meaningful fashion, but I'll mention it again in hopes that you might actually address the issue.

NIST Apx. L pg 18
1) "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south side was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.


2) "no heavy debris in lobby area"

These firefighters rescued 2 people who were trapped on the 8th floor by an explosion, and then [or before] found another person [or persons] on the 7th floor.
They were checking the entire floor for people.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left floor 8"
"Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on floor 7 just before leaving"
This indicates that they most likely left by the west stairway.
As they exited the building, they checked the lobby.
"Both exit stairways discharged directly to the exterior at the ground level."
[FEMA Chap. 5 pg 10]
The stairs were in the core of the building [see NIST Apx. L pg 6]
The firefighters had to exit the hallway [from stairs to street] to see the lobby.
They were looking for people as they had on floors 7 & 8.
[the first people they rescued had to wait while the firefighters searched another floor, so there was no rush to get out]
Their statement was very clear and the suggestion that they didn't walk a few steps from the hallway door and look in the lobby is not credible.

3) debris damage across 1/4 width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from ground to 5th floor) noted that the atrium glass was still in tact."

It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.


FEMA Chap. 5 pg 20
4) "According to an 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 occurred at the south west corner"

His location is clear.


Oral Histories NY Times
5) "...ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors across the facade on Vesey Street."
Battalion Chief Frank Fellini [in charge of operations at West and Vesey]

His location is not known [to us]

The suggestion that he didn't notice the most severe damage to WTC 7 is not credible.

 

[Christopher7]

What causes you to believe that both parts of the statement reffered to only the east atrium? It is simply improbable in the extreme to expect that damage to the face of the building in a specific loaction (center of the face, ground to 5th floor) was remarkable to a witness and that it did not invovle the windows being broken even IF one accepts your contention, with absolutly no corroborating evidence, that all the windows of this building were blast resistent(there is no such thing as blast-PROOF).

It's what they said that matters.

What makes you think they would describe damage starting above the atrium and continuing to the ground and then say the atrium glass on the other side of a 60 to 80 foot gouge was intact?
That doesn't make any sense. You are grasping at straws.

 

[LashL]

<snip>It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

<snip>"no heavy debris in lobby area"

<snip>It is not known [to us] where this witness was located.

<snip>His location is clear.

<snip> His location is not known [to us]

So, it appears that you are - finally - addressing the first half of my repeated query to you, and that you are acknowledging that you do not know where the witnesses were located.

I note that you did not even address the second part of my repeated query, which is just as important as the first - i.e. the witnesses' opportunity to observe. (To be fair, perhaps you do not know what the term "opportunity to observe" means when it is used in reference to eyewitness testimony but it has a particular meaning in court. If you require explanation for the term and what it means to those whose job it is to assess and weigh eyewitness testimony every day, just ask.)

In any event, since you have shown that you do not, in fact, know where the witnesses were located and since you have not addressed at all their respective opportunities to observe, I will simply reiterate that you, therefore, have not demonstrated - and cannot demonstrate, without more - that those particular statements are contradictory to each other.

It is not enough to pick out a few lines from various witnesses and declare them to be contradictory without knowing where the people making those statements were located and without knowing anything at all about their opportunities to observe. This is Evidence 101. Before you can declare their statements to be contradictory, the minimum you need is to establish where they were located, at what times, at what vantage points, what their opportunities to observe were, and what factors were impacting upon their opportunities to observe.

You have done nothing of the sort. It appears that you have simply picked out a few sentences and declared them to contradictory, based upon only your own preconceptions and, as yet, unfounded assumptions.

But at least you are starting to admit that, finally.


Edit to add: Also, your ad libbing with respect to the firefighters who were on the 8th floor and 7th floor and who eventually saw "no heavy debris in the lobby area" is a bit disingenuous.