10 story hole in WTC 7

[Coritani]

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

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

Extensively debunked here.

 

[Christopher7]

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.

No signs of fire or smoke below 6th floor from the exterior, stairwells or lobby area
That was a cubicle fire on the west wall of 7th floor
and no fire on the 8th floor.

Inherent in the statement "no fire or smoke below 6th floor" is:
"there was fire and smoke on the 6th floor"

However, even with smoke pouring out, a gouge 20 to 30 feet deep and 50 to 60 feet wide, would not escape his notice.

There are also the first 3 floors that would be gone, gouged out 30 to 40 feet deep, 60 to 80 feet wide.

Are you still saying that Battalion Chief Fellini didn't bother to get a good look at the front of WTC 7 ?

and the firefighters who reported "no heavy debris in the lobby area" didn't bother to look in the lobby ?

[they had to leave the stair hallway to exterior, and enter the lobby, to see any of the lobby at all. They were looking for and finding people. They looked at the whole lobby, which is mostly open.]

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'.

You [all] ignored the reasoning. ie:
I have pictures of the 2 [or3] sides that they coulden't see.
I don't doubt that they saw the south corner smoking from top to bottom and thought it was 'fully involved'.
With the advantage of being able to see all 4 sides, i respectfully disagree with the 'fully involved' evaluation.
I also respectfully disagree with the Captain who has seen pictures of all 4 sides.
The Windsor was fully involved, WTC 7 was not. IMO

However, this thread is supposed to be about evidence for CD so we're getting a little off point.

 

[respublicus]

No gouge, no gouge theory

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!

Beach nut is sure living up to his handle of a beached nut alright.
Cool off, Beached, before you bang too hard on the keys.

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge. But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

NIST nist.

Because the standards aren't there, even if the institute appears to be.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here - and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly.... there's a golden or at least iron opportunity for you, beached bum, to capitalize on your expertise.

 

[R.Mackey]

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge.

Yes we do. http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

No. The damage was caused by blunt impact from WTC 1.

Debris Damage from WTC 1

After WTC 1 collapsed:
Heavy debris on Vesey Street and WTC 7 Promenade
No heavy debris observed in lobby area, white dust coating
SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
South face damage between two exterior columns -roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known

South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4-1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more damage

Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf (And yes, there will be an update)

Please read through the very many threads here and try to educate yourself.

 

[beachnut]

Beach nut is sure living up to his handle of a beached nut alright.
Cool off, Beached, before you bang too hard on the keys.

I said, a couple posts back, that we have no photo of any gouge. But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion. So that brings you right back to controlled demolition. So what's all the eye-gouging about?

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

NIST nist.

Because the standards aren't there, even if the institute appears to be.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here - and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly.... there's a golden or at least iron opportunity for you, beached bum, to capitalize on your expertise.

Does this mean you do not think flight 93 was coming to get WTC7?

Does this mean you know fires make buildings fail when they are not fought?

So where are your facts to support what you have thinly veiled as a question but you really want to tell us your theory, or do you have the facts to garner a Pulitzer Prize?

Does this mean you think there was no damage and no 10 story hole in the WTC7 since it was waiting for flight 93?

How could a big hole get in WTC7? Steel ejected from WTC1 and 2 damaged many buildings and a 10 story gouge would be consistent with the damage to over 19 acres of area around the WTC area. Gee the energy released as the tower fell was equal to 248 tons of TNT for both towers. Did you see the bank building with a 17 story hole in it?

Sorry you are wrong about WTC7 and you think it was CD. You have no facts to back up your statement nor did you get your assumption correct about no damage to WTC7 with out CD or planes. You are missing facts.

Let your facts flow. (why do truthers avoid the unique design of WTC7, and why do they ignore the 20,000 gallons of fuel stored in WTC7? why do they ingnore the fact WTC7 fires were not fought! WHY are truthers so challenged on research? Why are truthers not able to answer these simple questions?)

You sound like Alex Jones, or something from Infowars, or a bad Steve Watson story. I thought only idiots when to those web sites of lies. Is that true? Your lack of concern for the public is evident by your lies.

 

[Dog Town]

Would someone pleaaaase post, the pic of the Tower coming down! It is showering 7 with debris. Nuff said!

 

[Myriad]

But the point, and I hate to say it, but this point obviates the need for this thread, is that IF the gouge that NIST refers to did exist, it would need to be explained. And since WTC7 was not hit by a plane, it could only be explained by an explosion.

Because the fact that it was hit by a collapsing 110-storey building couldn't have had anything to do with it.

"Pay no attention to that collapsing building behind the curtain!"

Nist, if i remember well, is the Persian word for Does Not Exist...

Apparently you do not remember well. At least, not according to half a dozen different online English-Farsi dictionaries, which took about two minutes to check. Since your memory (like most people's) is imperfect, it's a good idea to check the accuracy of your information before you post it, especially when it's so easy to check. Otherwise people will get the impression that you're dishonest or careless (the latter, in the literal sense of not really caring what you're writing or whether it's true or not), or both.

NIST nist.

Gesundheit.

Okay, since we are dealing with fantasies here...

Indeed, and we're getting rather sick of it.

...and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly

I can think of a few reasons:

1. Many of the things in office buildings like WTC7 that make uncontrolled office fires burn so hot are things that are useful or valuable, such as files, reference books, furniture, servers, and (in WTC7's unusual case) large tanks of diesel fuel. These are things that the people who move out of the building prior to demolition are likely to want to take with them.

2. Lawsuits from damage to adjacent buildings from bringing the building down not quite "neatly" enough:

What caused that hole in the adjacent building? Let's see, it wasn't hit by a plane...

3. Criminal penalties for arson.

Other than that, the idea would work pretty well. Heat weakens steel, so steel buildings are very vulnerable to fire.

Bonus question for the "desel fule" crowd: which contains more energy, a pound of diesel fuel or a pound of TNT?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[respublicus]

Yes we do.
url deleted


No. The damage was caused by blunt impact from WTC 1.



Source: url deleted
(And yes, there will be an update)

Please read through the very many threads here and try to educate yourself.

1. The pic you reference shows more smoke than anything else. Call it a gouge if you like.
2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from? Never mind Lihop or Mihop, it's the IHOP theory, the Infernal House of Pancakes.
Those steel girders were ejected in an explosion.

You are going round and round in circles without seeing I have cut the Gordian knot. So I am knot going to read 700 knotty threads when I can cut through the whole pile with one swoop.

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

 

[uk_dave]

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

Doesn't it worry you that something so 'obvious' seems to be only 'obvious' to you and a small minority of conspiracy theorists?

Does that never give you pause for thought?

 

[respublicus]

so what does nist mean in persian, o wise one?

what did you find checking those persian dictionaries in 2 minutes?
i found that you need an arabic keyboard to go from farsi to english,

so, wise illuminary of the realms, what meaneth nist in thy lexicon?

 

[Coritani]

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

No, we can't see it because it's wrong.

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

 

[respublicus]

Doesn't it worry you that something so 'obvious' seems to be only 'obvious' to you and a small minority of conspiracy theorists?

Does that never give you pause for thought?

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

 

[beachnut]

10,000 gallons of jet fuel or diesel would be about 315 tons of TNT, that would be about 630,000 pounds of TNT with only 60,000 pounds of fuel. Is that an order of magnitude more energy?

...and since Beach Nut understands fire and physics so well, why doesn't he go into the demolition business, bringing down steel buildings on the cheap just by setting fire to them... I mean, you wouldn't bother with expensive and dangerous explosives to burn a trash pile, so why bother with them for bldgs if a little fire can do the trick and bring them down so neatly

Clean air act? Are you really this challenged on research mr disrespublicus?

It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. This is why WTC building falling due to fire look just like a CD; Because gravity is the real tool used by CD. You truthers are so poor at research. It is like you come without facts on purpose and you want to loose the debate, why?

Gravity does the work. You must realize there was 248 tons of TNT energy released when the WTC towers fell; 248 tons of TNT in both towers due to gravity.

WTC7 burned all day and fell. Fire alone could make WTC7 fail. Building fall all the time from fire. Where do truthers get their ideas from.

Do you think there was damage to WTC7 from the towers, mr disrespublicus?

 

[respublicus]

No, we can't see it because it's wrong.

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

 

[R.Mackey]

1. The pic you reference shows more smoke than anything else. Call it a gouge if you like.

It also shows an enormous hole in WTC 7. Your saying it isn't there is... well, one of the more extreme examples of denial I've ever heard of.

Look, you asked for a picture. I found you one. Accept it.

2. Blunt impact? Flying columns of steel from WTC 1. Where did they come from? Never mind Lihop or Mihop, it's the IHOP theory, the Infernal House of Pancakes.

I don't know what you're talking about. Bad waffles, I guess.

Those steel girders were ejected in an explosion.

No.

You are going round and round in circles without seeing I have cut the Gordian knot. So I am knot going to read 700 knotty threads when I can cut through the whole pile with one swoop.

Either way you slice it, gouge or no gouge, all 3 towers could only have come down with explosives.

That's just obvious. Only you can't see it because you start from the premise that it's impossible.

No, we start from the premise that what we saw in no way requires nor indicates explosives.

Have you ever heard of "gravity?"

 

[uk_dave]

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

lol... so predictable.

So your arrogance will not allow you to consider the possibility that it is YOU who is wrong, and that everyone else do not see the 'obvious' signs of explosions, simply because there are none to see?

I think perry has a description for people such as yourself.

 

[Coritani]

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

Why are you dodging the questions? Here they are again:

Please explain why the three towers could only come down with explosives, and explain why you are right and NIST is wrong. Thanks.

 

[beachnut]

yup. and the answer is equally obvious.
it means a whole lot of people are immersed in MSM brainwashing.
that's the way the powers that be would have it.

What is your problem? Alex Jones? PrisonPlanet?

Why are truthers so short on facts?

Who uses MSM? Why are millions of engineers not supporting the nut case ideas of 9/11 truth? Why are only .00067 percent of all US engineers in the truth movement?

MSM? So you are brainwashed by Alex Jones and Watson?

 

[beachnut]

Coritani, you may be a Thinker, but you are not yet much of a knower.
You think only what the majority thinks.

Anyone can be wrong. I'm sure Nist is right most of the time.
Most of the time, engineering and political correctness don't collide.
Thanks god. Or buildings would be falling about our heads all the time.

You are the knower?

Let us know what the knower knows now, please.

What are the specific facts you think NIST did not get right?

You agree that there was damage to WTC7 from the towers falling? Right?

 

[respublicus]

Nist nist nist

Beachnut said
It only takes a little bit of RDX to bring down a building, plus you use gravity to do the real work of demolition. Gravity does the work.

We are using the very same facts, people. You orthodox thinkers just can't use logic and common sense.

Sure, gravity brought them down. But only in a controlled demolition can a steel bldg fall straight down, straight through the support columns which is the path of most resistance.

Ever see a tree fall straight down into the earth? Everything topples unless its supports are blown away.

You guys are a colossal waste of time. You have a learning disability. You are brainwashed like nobody's business.

BTW it comes back to me now, I think nist actually means "isn't"

That's even better. NIST NIST ist, except for 9/11. Under political control, technical standards go out the window.

So on the 9/11 issue, it can confidently be formulated, that

NIST NIST nist.

Bye, kiddies.