10 story hole in WTC 7

[Belz...]

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer

Who said they saw and heard demolition charges go off ?

the squibs

I really wish you'd use actual terms. Squibs are used in Hollywood.

and the smoke coming from many places where there was no fire

Demolition charges emit smoke for several hours ?

as the building collapsed.

Should the smoke have stopped during the collapse ?

You're making less and less sense.

On the contrary. I pointed out where the firefighters were when they observed: "no debris in lobby area" and the "only damage to 9th floor occurred at the SW corner"

And it was a 47-storey building.

 

[Belz...]

Diesel fuel is far less volatile than gasoline. It explodes in a combustion chamber because of the high pressure and temperatures and it is injected in a fine spray.

I smell a weasel.

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

Yes
Got any more stupid questions?

Not so stupid, in light of this :

Desel fuel doesn't explode. Thats why they use it.

Hummm...

 

[Belz...]

There is no other reasonable explanation for the puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in rapid succession just as it starts to fall.

No explanation is needed for something that does not exist.

This is the escape clause for OTers:
"I can't figure out how they rigged the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

Actually it goes more like this:
"It's physically impossible to rig the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

 

[Gravy]

Put up or shut up!

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's an informative post, as always, Mack. I had never heard of "cetane." This issue made me recall something I've heard many times about U.S. Sherman tanks: that they were considered to be deathtraps when hit because they were gasoline-powered, and burned more easily than their diesel counterparts. Well, I just looked that up, and it appears to be a myth. Here's what Wikipedia (and other sources) says:

I think they were considered to be deathtraps because a German shell could easily pass through it without slowing down...

 

[Belz...]

Seriously, though, I don't think that's helping, Gravy.

 

[njslim]

Is diesel fuel flammable, Chris?

Actually diesel is listed as combustible - flash point greater than 100 F, ie
not liable to produce explosive vapors at normal room temperature

diesel flash point is around 130 F. Still burns quite readily

Gasoline is flammable - flash point -40 F or lower depending on season and
blend of hydrocarbons used (less volatile in summer, more in winter)

 

[aggle-rithm]

Christopher7,

Here are some responses to you question. These are taken only from the first two pages of this thread.

Yes there was a massive hole caused by falling debris. Your point?

I'm not going to get sucked into sticking with a specific number on the size of the hole.

Instead I will say that I believe it was as big as the FDNY reported it to be(wich was quite large).

You appearantly concur with FDNY's reports of secondary explosions in the WTC, do you also concur with thier reports that WTC7 was too damaged to remain standing for very long and was about to collapse?

Not sure about the exactness of the 10 story part. Might have been larger, but the FDNY guys say so, so YES!


ETA: Sword O'Truth beat me, Do'h...

Yes, there was a very large hole. It could have been larger than 10 stories, making your statement technically true. I'm not going to get into a virtual urination contest about exactly how big the hole was.

Exactly where are you going with this?

You should really actually read the preliminary NIST report. Even if you think it's all lies, it has some nice photographs and diagrams of the damage done to WTC 7, among other things. It's not like it's only the claims on page 18 with nothing to back it up.



Now that is a lie.

Yes there was a large hole #7.

I didn't measure the hole but if the FDNY says it was about 10 stories, than I would say there a hole about 10 stories.

Actually C7 wishes to have us say that we all believe that there was a 10 storey or larger hole in the south face of WTC 7. What he is not stating are the particulars of the hole he is talking about, one that most probably did not exist but that one firefighter did report.

NIST included that report along with several others which report similar but less extensive damage to the south face of WTC 7.

What Chris 7 wants us to state is whether or not a 10 storey gouge in the south central face of WTC 7, that extended from the wall to the core, existed.

Thing is that NIST always puts qualifiers on any statement or graphic concerning the possible extent of damage done there. It is likely that this worst reported case is not the reality that day and anyone who actually has read the report should easily see that.

C7 wishes to suggest then that NIST deliberatly included the statements and graphics to mislead people into believeing that this massive gouge did exist. In this he hopes to cast doubt and disrepute on the authors of the report.

Sorry but anyone who does not see the report's use of this statement for what it is, simply another eyewitness report that demonstrates that there was damage to the central area of the south face but that it does not claim or mean that the worst extent of damage that was reported was a fact, is not reading carefully and is only skiming or looking just at the diagrams and pictures.

I think the size of the hole is a non-issue anyway.

The building was leaning over! Hear that, twoofers? It was leaning over!

Now I'm no demolition expert, but I'm pretty sure explosive charges
don't make a building lean over hours before knocking it down. I also believe those charges make a slight bang.

Oh wait....thermite. How could I not see it?

No, you have stated that you believe that most OT's will state that a 10 storey and deep gouge existed. Perhaps the semantic problems that arise in a text only conversation rear there ugly head here....





Please do not re-write my comments. If you wish to correct me then show my statement and explain your stance separately.

You indeed would be calling into disrepute the authors of this report if you believe that they deliberatly strove to mislead readers on this or any issue. If it is a simple credibility problem then you would have to believe that it was an inadvertant error on their part. Seems to me that you have stated on other occasions that you believe it was deliberate and you have never objected to my saying you believe it was deliberate before. Have you changed your mind and now believe that it may be an inadvertant error (I don't believe it was an error at all) rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the public?

NIST clearly stated that the damage to the south side was described by individuals, and that those individuals had some inconsistencies in their accounts. How could that possibly be leading people to believe that it was a statement of fact? What you should be taking away from that whole section is that there was definitely some significant damage to the south face that was not visible from afar due to the smoke.

From NIST Appdx L-18:

• 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

Why do you keep pretending that no one will answer your questions?

 

[Christopher7]

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

You are truly a master at dodging the question and changing the subject.

You insisted that i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

Now that i have pointed out a serious flaw that has led a lot of people to believe something that is not true, you don't want to talk about it.

I don't need to wait for the final report to acknowledge what i already know.

Either you believe that the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were mistaken and Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent or

You realize that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 is a misinterpretation.

 

[Gravy]

You are truly a master at dodging the question and changing the subject.

You insisted that i read the NIST report and gave me the URL.

Now that i have pointed out a serious flaw that has led a lot of people to believe something that is not true, you don't want to talk about it.

I don't need to wait for the final report to acknowledge what i already know.

Either you believe that the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" were mistaken and Battalion Chief Fellini is incompetent or

You realize that the 10 story gouge as described on pg 18 is a misinterpretation.

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

 

[respublicus]

Believe? Is there a photo of the hole anywhere?
If there was such a hole, it had to be from an explosion.
Either in WTC7 or one of the towers ejecting girders at wtc7 LOL.

 

[Christopher7]

#84 pg 3

That is a reasonible, direct answer.

Thank you very much

 

[Christopher7]

#136 pg 4

You got the nausium part right

There have only been 4 direct answers so far

Everyone else has thus far refused to answer the question

Possible answers:

2 Yes
0 Likely
1 Unlikely
1 I don't know
0 No
?

 

[Christopher7]

Twoofer brilliance! Don't wait for an investigation to conclude and its final report to be released. Instead, speculate about the validity of a finding from two and a half years ago, although you know a new assessment about that finding will be in the final report! Twoofer gold!

Christopher 7, AKA Chris Sarns:

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

Aren't you also the one who said that an investigation ENDS with a hypothesis? Yes, you are: it's in Anti-sophist's sig. Twoofer classic!

Ignore the evidence and attack the messenger.

If nothing else, you are consistent.

 

[beachnut]

Ignore the evidence and attack the messenger.

If nothing else, you are consistent.

Have you taken your 10 story hole to LCF?

 

[respublicus]

the photo Christopher refers to on page 1 of this thread is very weird - it's been photoshopped, looks very distorted and cropped, you can't see much.
I googled images on wtc 7 damage.
i'm new so i can't post urls but the best one of the SW corner of WTC 7 doesn't show a ten story gouge. It shows blackened windows near the corner on various floors - on about 5 out of 6 floors lower down, then 6 undamaged floors, then two floors with blackened windows which are 6 floors higher up.

my conclusion - There was no ten story gouge.

The photo referenced in the opening of this thread is completely useless. It shows the building flexing like in a funhouse mirror.

But if there was such a gouge (which we have no photo of) what would that mean? That the perps blew WTC 7 anyway on the spot Flite 93 was supposed to hit? So why bother with this gouge theory anyway?

 

[beachnut]

the photo Christopher refers to on page 1 of this thread is very weird - it's been photoshopped, looks very distorted and cropped, you can't see much.
I googled images on wtc 7 damage.
i'm new so i can't post urls but the best one of the SW corner of WTC 7 doesn't show a ten story gouge. It shows blackened windows near the corner on various floors - on about 5 out of 6 floors lower down, then 6 undamaged floors, then two floors with blackened windows which are 6 floors higher up.

my conclusion - There was no ten story gouge.

The photo referenced in the opening of this thread is completely useless. It shows the building flexing like in a funhouse mirror.

But if there was such a gouge (which we have no photo of) what would that mean? That the perps blew WTC 7 anyway on the spot Flite 93 was supposed to hit? So why bother with this gouge theory anyway?

Your theory is the dumbest I have heard yet; but it is a redo. How many lemming CTers have pushed this set of lies!

You do not understand steel, fire, or physics. Good luck finding a fact.

Sources and facts to prove your fantasy or you are just telling lies. Ready set go!

 

[Christopher7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo

No explanation is needed for something that does not exist.

Right. There are no puffs of smoke going up the side of WTC 7 in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo

Actually it goes more like this:
"It's physically impossible to rig the building prior to 9/11, therefore it didn't happen."

And you're an expert who knows the latest technology.

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST Apx. L pg 22
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 the lobby area."

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left the 8th floor"

"Cubicle fire was seen along the west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving"

So Chris, you claim that reports such as Fellini's illustrate that damage did not extend higher than the 5th or 6th floor and when it is mentioned that perhaps they could not see clearly above the 6th floor you trot out the above about no visible fires below 6th floor. Chris, that implies that there were indeed fires on the 7th and above that would have been contributing smoke to the area south of WTC 7 and in fact you also include a quote referring to a fire on the 7th floor. This illustrates quite well that there most certainly could have been smoke obscuring the view of the face of the building.

The evidence for demolition charges is the eyewitness statements of Daryl and Craig Bartmer

Do you not recognize an incongruity then in your also stating;

"I can better assess the damage, sitting here at my computer 5 years later, because i can see the other 2 [perhaps 3] sides of wtc 7 that the firefighter could not see."

So sitting at your computer 5 years later gives you better insight to what actually was the reality that day BUT other witnesses are 100% correct in their assesment of what they saw/heard on the same day? How does that work Chris? Seems quite clear that you are twisting things to fit your preconceived idea of how things went down on 9/11/01 rather than searching for 'truth'.

 

[Christopher7]

the photo Christopher refers to on page 1 of this thread is very weird - it's been photoshopped, looks very distorted and cropped, you can't see much.
I googled images on wtc 7 damage.
i'm new so i can't post urls but the best one of the SW corner of WTC 7 doesn't show a ten story gouge. It shows blackened windows near the corner on various floors - on about 5 out of 6 floors lower down, then 6 undamaged floors, then two floors with blackened windows which are 6 floors higher up.

my conclusion - There was no ten story gouge.

The photo referenced in the opening of this thread is completely useless. It shows the building flexing like in a funhouse mirror.

But if there was such a gouge (which we have no photo of) what would that mean? That the perps blew WTC 7 anyway on the spot Flite 93 was supposed to hit? So why bother with this gouge theory anyway?

We are discussing the alleged '10 story gouge' in the middle of WTC 7.
See post #94