10 story hole in WTC 7

[Coritani]

True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.

Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?

 

[Christopher7]

Yes. And the former two are far more logical, because the building was collapsing, and there'd definitely be steel and transformers in WTC 7 (as well as the other things I listed) that could easily make the 'clap of thunder' noise during collapse.

On the other hand, there were demolition teams present at Ground zero around the time of WTC 7's collapse. None of them said they heard anyhint out of the ordinary - i.e, no charges.

So, do you have any evidence that this 'clap of thunder' is demolition chargees going off?

No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, just last September, when NIST Apx. L was 2 1/4 years old, you insisted that i read it.

Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.

Now it's 2 3/4 years old and you want me to fagidabodit.

Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.

I keep re-reading these documents and finding things that i had missed like:


The only fuel oil in the eastern part of WTC 7 was a pipe running across the building.

Also, the only generators on the east side of WTC 7 were in the north east section of WTC 7.

These basic facts about the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, is not going to change in the final report.

By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.

 

[Gravy]

No.
However [of course]

OT'ers should stop saying "no one heard an explosion"

Daryl heard a what sounded like a clap of thunder [sudden, very loud noise]

Craig said "i know an explosion when i hear it"

Neither is proof, but you can't say that nobody heard anything, that could have been a CD.

As we know, when buildings collapse, they make loud noises. Next.

 

[Gravy]

If there was a fire in this room, the smoke would be pouring out thru the vents.

This the only area near the initial collapse zone where there could have been a fuel oil fed fire.

It is not on fire.

We don't need to wait for the final report to look at the data [not the cliams] that is contained in the many official government reports that have been released.

To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.

 

[Gravy]

True, what Daryl heard could have been steel breaking, a transformer blowing up, or a bunch of denolitions charges going off.

But since there were hundreds of people there, including explosive demolitions experts, who did not describe hearing or seeing anything like demolitions charges going off, we'll assign that possibility to the "vanishingly small" category.

 

[Christopher7]

Because you were arguing that WTC 7 was the strongest evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but you didn't even know the NIST report existed.

I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

Wrong. I want you to try to understand it, and to understand that it's an interim report, created when the investigation was less than halfway complete.

The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

By gosh, youire right! Come to think of it, none of these facts about WTC 7 are going to change in the final report:

It was 47 stories tall.
It had indoor plumbing.
It had shiny pinkish stone on the outside.
It had lights in the ceilings.
It had doors.

Thank you for reminding me of these unchanging facts.

Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.

 

[Gravy]

I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?

The raw data about the construction and the layout of WTC 7 is not going to change. The investigation will have no effect on the location of the fuel tanks, pipes and generators, it will be he other way around.

Actually i was talking about tanks, pipes and generators, you know, the ones that were NOT on fire at the east end of WTC 7.

Please present the data that support your claim, for the 7 hours that the building was on fire. Now would be good. Fair enough?

 

[Christopher7]

To support your conclusion, please show that view for the 7 hours that the building was on fire.

Thank you.

Right

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.

 

[Christopher7]

Here's my challenge to you: I will print a list of the claims that I can prove you got wrong. You print a list of what you can prove NIST got wrong. And then we'll know which claims are farcical and which are not. Agreed?

I've got a better idea. Instead of getting into a pissing match, lets ponder the data in the FEMA report.

Page 14 is very informative.

It lays out where all the fuel tanks, risers and generators are located.

The text starts on page 13 and runs to page 16.

The supply pipe for the east generator room was north of the wall that is on the north side of the mechanical room. [along core column row 58 - 79]

The east generator room was in the north east corner of WTC 7.

This basic data is of course, essential to any investigation.

Do you think it is incorrect ?

If not, then according to the data, the only place near the initiating event that could have had a fuel fire was the generator room at the north east corner.

 

[twinstead]

I had heard something about a half baked farce but i hadn't read it yet.

All that really shows christopher7 is that you had already decided that WTC was a CD BEFORE you had even done a proper investigation.

Now it appears, IMHO, that you are just working backwards from that initial predisposition looking for any anomalies or inconsistencies, no matter how small or irrelevant, in an otherwise pretty solid report to try to justify your beliefs.

What kind of kooky investigation is that?

 

[Gravy]

Um, Chris, who said the diesel fuel was the cause of the collapse?

Not FEMA. In fact, they assigned a low probability to that hypothesis.

That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?

 

[Gravy]

What kind of kooky investigation is that?

This kind of kooky investigation.

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:
​

"That JERK in the White house OFFed 3000 people."



"At 63 or any age I'm trying to save my country from the unspeakibly EVIL men who MURDERED 3000 Americans on 9-11."



"It's up to us in the US to blow this thing wide open.
I won't settle for a bandaid,
We need to do some serious whole world house cleaning."


"We don't need another investigation. A little common sense will do."



"We don't need a paper trail. There's enough video and documentry evidence to convict Cheney et al of high treason!"



"My evidence is the 4 min. video and common sense."



"Yes, the photographic evidence is enough for me, and any reasonible person."



"This case will be tired in the court of public opinion and the positive social effect will be a major house cleaning in Washington. (God willing)"


"The government will NEVER allow a meaningful investigation."




"Can you name one Senator or Rep. calling for an independent investigation or saying "911 was an inside job"."



"This issue will be decided right here on the web, the only place where the truth can be spread."



"Bush made this self incriminating statement twice. What more do you need to know ?" http://911blimp.com/aud_BushImplicatesBush.shtml



On David Ray Griffin's "9/11 Commission Report Omissions":

"It's a lot to read folks, but read it as if your freedom depended on it becaues it DOES!"



"Oh please, are a gluten for insipid pseudo-scientific gibberish?"



"Scholars for 9/11 Thuth have done RESEARCH and had that research verified by pier review [other Phd's].

There are more than 300 Phd's and experts with meny years of service in the military and government. Do you have any experience in government?"



"Wrong: An investigation ENDS with a hypothesis, NIST STARTED with one."



"You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
And i don't need a engineer to tell me what i can see with my own eyes."



"I have been doing a lot of research on 911 and spreading the truth by giving copies of Loose Change and a 4 min. video on wtc7 to everyone I come in contact with."




Chris: "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know a rocket when you see one and you don't have to be a demolitions expert to know a CD when you see one. CD are very distinctive, easy to recognise."

gumboot: "CD is distinct compared to what?"

Chris: "another CD."

gumboot: "???"




"In Shanksville a 575 hit filldirt at a 40 degree angle
A better comparison would be a tennis ball hitting an egg after bouncing off a brick wall."




"Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?"



"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"




"This is not rocket sience. Why do you continue to deny the obvious explanation in favor of the 'official' story that even the govt. admits is not likely. Just the fact that most Americans have still not seen this video speaks volumes. Look at this 4 min. video."



"Killtown: Excellent!
Anyone [not in deep denial] who takes the time to study your page,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/11/faked-shanksville-crater-and-burnt.html
will agree that the Shanksville crash site is either probably or definately a fake."



"Can you possibly believe that a 757 completely burried itself, tail and all?
The coroner found NO body parts, NO blood."



"At some point you have to stop lying to yourself and accept the reality contained in those two photographs."



"There were NO FIRES anywhere in the building EXCEPT WHERE THE PLANES HIT."

"It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer."



"The 5 sec. video of wtc7 falling straight down is the SMOKING GUN that woke me (and Prof. Jones) from our slumber."



"The MOLTEN METAL could have ONLY be caused by THERMATE."


"The fires were NOT near hot enough to melt steel.
Thermate is made to melt steel and is therefore a possibility.
There are NO other possibilities.
End of story!"



"Ever use a kerosene lamp? Kerosene DOES NOT EXPLODE! it burns."



"So, you cannot site another possible cause.
Thats because there is NO other possible cause."



"There simply is no other explanation."


"Weather or not you believe Jones, you won't be able to find a qualified person to say otherwise."


"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."

"Denial will not protect you from reality."

 

[Belz...]

I am basing my belief on what i see in the videos of WTC 7

You're basing a belief on layman interpretation, nothing more.

The building falls mostly straight down and lands in a pile, mostly within its original footprint.

The surrounding buildings were of no concern. [imho]

Then you've covered all the bases. "Mostly" within its original footprint allows you to accept the fact that surrounding buildings were damaged while simultaneously clinging to your contention that it looks like a controlled demolition. Convenient, if contradictory.

 

[Belz...]

It is now unclear to me what caused the gouge in the building or if it ever existed. Some here are saying the gouge is from the 10th floor to the bottom on the south side. There is reported damage on the 14th floor with black smoking emanating from the area.

The missile impact I saw taken by FOX cameraman Jack Taliercio shows debris flying out at a high rate of speed. I am now unsure such a massive hole could have been made by an air-to-air missile.

Air-to-air missiles are designed to take down planes, remember ? Planes are flimsy things, compared to buildings. You've seen the damage. You've seen that 7 WTC was intact when WTC 2 collapsed. What is your conclusion, so far ?

 

[Belz...]

That said, do you agree that because a single photo does not show fire in an area, it is not evidence that there was never fire there?

In fact, it isn't even definitive evidence that there wasn't fire in that area when the picture was taken.

 

[Belz...]

This kind of kooky investigation.

Chris Sarns, AKA Christopher7:
​

Well this certainly puts things into perspective.

I'm happy that MY friends who, at one time, thought 9/11 was an inside job were able to be convinced by actual evidence and reasoning, unlike Chris.

 

[jaydeehess]

The 2 story mechanical room it in the center of the east side.

There are no reports of damage or fire in this area.

To damage the mechanical room, debris would have to bust thru floors 7 & 8.
The smoke would be coming back up thru the debris hole.

NIST pg 18

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.

No heavy dust or smoke on floor 8

Cubicle fire on west wall of floor 7



If the diesel engines are running, the louvers are open.

Smoke would be pouring out of the louver vents

-If the generator is running it is drawing outside air IN through the louvers.
-Given the ejected elevators it is quite possible that the smoke is exiting the fire area via the elevator shaft acting as a chimney.
-The generators are separated from the rest of the building by walls and doors. Only if the fire were actually in the same room would smoke have any chance of exiting via the louvers.(assuming that the door was shut, a good bet IMO)
-The fuel fire need not be near the generator as you point out the fule line runs almost the length of the building.
-The day tank draws fuel from the basement tanks.
-Given that there was a fire on 7th floor and the number of fires in the area of the WTC complex of buildings all that the "no heavy dust or smoke" reference means is that the FF's could walk about on 8th floor without too much difficulty.
-There was both the fuel distribution line running the length of the building and a 6000 gal tank in the east elevator shaft between the 2nd and 3rd floor.


All of this indicates the possibility of a fuel fire near the east elevator shaft and thus near the east end of the core structure where the initial event that lead to collapse occured.
FEMA is diligent to point out that this requires more information to determine whether or not the generators were running at the time.

What really seems to trouble many CT's is that definitive information is still lacking. Why is it so very difficult to see that getting such information would be very difficult? In any 'normal' catastrophe it is well known what the initial conditions of a structure were.
In the case of the Murrah building we know that a bomb went off a known distance from the front of the building, we know the type of explosive, we know the condition of the building at the time of the blast.
In the case of the WTC towers we know the speed and mass of the aircraft, where they hit the towers and the testimony of people who were in the building.
In the case of WTC 7 we do not know the exact nature of the physical damage caused by the impact of unknown parts of WTC 1. We have only the testimony of a few workers and the FF's who all were out of the building quite a while before the collapse.

The fact that different groups of experts have looked at the limited available data and come to somewhat different possible causes is not unusual.

NIST concentrated on the towers because that is where people died and NIST's job is to reccommend standards for building safety.

AFTER they finished with the towers they came back to WTC 7 and will release a more in depth report soon.

*WTC 7 140' deep, source?

You have said you read the reports.

NIST report page L-1, paragraph L.1.3

WTC 7 was a 47 story commercial office building, completed in 1987. Its location relative to the WTC
Plaza is shown in Fig. L–1. It contained approximately 2 million ft2 of floor area. The overall
dimensions of WTC 7 were approximately 330 ft long, 140 ft wide, and 610 ft tall.

FEMA report figure 5.1
shows the distance between the south facade and north facade as 144'5"

The cantilever girders are described on page 5-7
They start at the north wall and extend for 6'9" to their north support coulmn then extend a further an additional 46 feet to the core for a total of 52'9" from the north facade to the north side of the core. Doing the math the northern most part of the core structure is 91'8" from the south facade.

 

[jaydeehess]

The photograph i posted was taken around 3 p.m.

There was no fire in the north east generator room at that time.

This is the only place where a fuel oil fire could have contributed to the initiating event.

No, the fire, if there were one , would have to have been outside the room in which the generator was and indeed that room was separated from the rest of the building including much of the supply line by wall and a door.

 

[jaydeehess]

"What doesn't make sence is putting fireproofing on steel box beams that are 2 ft. by 4 1/2 ft. and 4 in. thick. Why fireproof something that is fireproof ?"

You actually stated that Chris?

Confronted with the oft used CT arguement that the heat of fires should have been conducted away by the heavy steel and not allowed it to heat up such that it lost significant strength, I have asked, "why then is it deemed neccessary to install fire insulation on heavy structural steel?".

Your quote above is the closest anyone has come to attempting to answer that question, even though it would be doing so by asking another question.

The standards that determine what type of fire protection to put on structural members is designed by people who actually make a life's work of studying the effect of fire on such things.

All laymen know that solid steel simply does not burn in any situation one can envision. Some laymen also know or could deduce that heating steel will cause it to become soft(malleable). Any intelligent person who has seen a blacksmith work on iron will inuitively grasp that basic concept.
However you attempt to extrapolate that first bit of lay knowledge and ignore the second and come to what amounts to a questioning of the wisdom of the experts in this feild who do make an in depth study of such matters. You ignore the entire body of work known as fire engineering and substitute your own 'common sense'.

__________________________________________

There is a local handyman in my home town who is of the opinion that 'one nail is all that you need'.

I recently replaced a front door frame for a friend. We started on removing the old frame and saw a nail and pulled it out. We then searched the door frame for the others nails. There were none we could find. So I hauled off and gave the frame a hard smack and sure enough the whole frame came loose. It was held in place by ONE nail, a 3 inch finishing nail. That door frame had been like that for 30 years. My friend had noted that when the door was shut hard that it seemed to shudder the whole frame but he had never thought anything of it. It was also noted that the frame seemed to shift a lot causeing the door to stick. Sure , one nail held it together for 30 years but only out of shear luck. Had anyone tried breaking into the house all they would have to have done would be to give the door a good ram with the shoulder or boot of a big guy and that one piddly nail would not have held. So, in your expert carpenter's opinion was the local handyman(actually he is now deceased for more than a decade) right? He was the one who orginally installed that door.