Some simple Tower 7 questions

[LashL]

The 10 story hole is bassed on eyewitness testimony. You cant have it both ways. If you consider Chief Fellini and the other firefighters statements to be unreliable, then you must also consider Boyle's statement unreliable.

Either way, The 10 story hole does not exist.

That is the only point im trying to make here.

Lets not cloud the issue by debating several things at once.
Is anyone here willing to acknowledge that the 10 story hole is bassed on an eyewitness statement and there are 3 eyewitness statements, includung the Chief in charge of opperations at WTC 7, that clearly show the 10 story hole claim is not true.

Actually, I do not think that you can legitimately conclude from what you have cited as evidence that the "10 story [sic] hole does not exist." I don't think that you can even legitimately draw the conclusions you have drawn on the basis of the evidence you have cited as it appears that you have made some pretty big (and unsubstantiated) leaps to get you to the conclusion that you ultimately drew.

But let's start with this: there were more than four people around at the relevant time, and there is much more evidence to consider than that which you have cited.

Try one of these versions of Gravy's paper on WTC7 for starters:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
or
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Once you've absorbed the evidence of all of those on the scene at WTC7 at the time, then let's discuss further, okay?

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, I do not think that you can legitimately conclude from what you have cited as evidence that the "10 story [sic] hole does not exist." I don't think that you can even legitimately draw the conclusions you have drawn on the basis of the evidence you have cited as it appears that you have made some pretty big (and unsubstantiated) leaps to get you to the conclusion that you ultimately drew.

Theres no 'leap' here.
The firefighters were describing damage to a building, something they are well qualified to do. There is no reason to doubt 'evidence' contained in those statements. Rember, the only 'evidence' for the the 10 story hole is the statement of a firefighter. [which i believe was misinterpreted]

But let's start with this: there were more than four people around at the relevant time, and there is much more evidence to consider than that which you have cited.

Try one of these versions of Gravy's paper on WTC7 for starters:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf
or
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

Once you've absorbed the evidence of all of those on the scene at WTC7 at the time, then let's discuss further, okay?

I just read the 90 statements Gravy listed. [most of which i have read before]
Out of the 90 statements, Captain Boyle is the only one who says there was a 20 story hole.

 

[jhunter1163]

In another thread here very recently, poster NDBoston (who was IN WTC7 that day) described the condition of the lobby quite well. I don't know which thread it was in and I'm going to bed now so I'm not going to search for it, but if you look for his/her recent posts you'll find it.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The firefighters were describing damage to a building, something they are well qualified to do. There is no reason to doubt 'evidence' contained in those statements. Rember, the only 'evidence' for the the 10 story hole is the statement of a firefighter. [which i believe was misinterpreted]

Christopher7, DID YOU NOT READ MY POST? THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT A 10 TO 20 STORY HOLE EXISTED. LOOK......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

To continue arguing about the existence of the damage that DID occur is stupid.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, DID YOU NOT READ MY POST? THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT A 10 TO 20 STORY HOLE EXISTED. LOOK......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

To continue arguing about the existence of the damage that DID occur is stupid.

Ive seen that movie

It shows damage to the top floors of WTC 7 as described in the FEMA report Apendex L pg 18
"Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between the exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors."
Perhaps this is the damage that Captain Boyle was describing.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm
Eyewitness testimony IN GENERAL is unreliable.

As for the evidence...do you deny that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and was on fire? These two are KNOWN ENTITIES that can be used to explain the collapse. Any type of explosives, thermite, or other mechanism besides accidental damage is an UNKNOWN entity, and therefore cannot be reasonably posited as an explanation, especially since we already have everything we need to explain the collapse.

Quote: Originally Posted by jaydeehess
If large debris did not eject the elevator cars then what did? those elevators are very near the columns in question(the ones that run to the east penthouse) and the truss system at about the 6th floor level.

You have not commented on whether or not you agree with the NIST computer sims of what would happen with various column losses and that there are a couple of these senarios that match very well to observed events.

You have not commented on any evidence of explosive use.

Christopher7, NIST ran computer sims that showed the projected collapse sequence for the loss of different columns. Is this accurate or not? If explosives were used did they get placed such that they would mimic the loss of the columns that the NIST sims show would cause the collapse sequence? Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether or not the sims were 'fixed' by someone. If so then please feel free to explain your evidence that they were.

If explosives were used in WTC 7 please feel free to show your empirical evidence of their use in such a way as to cause collapse in the sequence that was recorded in the videos(ie. east penthouse first , followed by the screenwall/west penthouse , followed by the movement of the north wall.).

If there is no way that a large piece of WTC 1 could have damaged the columns that the NIST sims illustrate were at fault for the east penthouse sinking please feel free to provide your reasoning that this is not possible.

If it is not possible that fires were attacking those same columns feel free to illustrate why not.

 

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm
Eyewitness testimony IN GENERAL is unreliable.

As for the evidence...do you deny that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris and was on fire? These two are KNOWN ENTITIES that can be used to explain the collapse. Any type of explosives, thermite, or other mechanism besides accidental damage is an UNKNOWN entity, and therefore cannot be reasonably posited as an explanation, especially since we already have everything we need to explain the collapse.

Quote: Originally Posted by jaydeehess
If large debris did not eject the elevator cars then what did? those elevators are very near the columns in question(the ones that run to the east penthouse) and the truss system at about the 6th floor level.

You have not commented on whether or not you agree with the NIST computer sims of what would happen with various column losses and that there are a couple of these senarios that match very well to observed events.

You have not commented on any evidence of explosive use.

Christopher7, NIST ran computer sims that showed the projected collapse sequence for the loss of different columns. Is this accurate or not? If explosives were used did they get placed such that they would mimic the loss of the columns that the NIST sims show would cause the collapse sequence? Perhaps you'd like to comment on whether or not the sims were 'fixed' by someone. If so then please feel free to explain your evidence that they were.

If explosives were used in WTC 7 please feel free to show your empirical evidence of their use in such a way as to cause collapse in the sequence that was recorded in the videos(ie. east penthouse first , followed by the screenwall/west penthouse , followed by the movement of the north wall.).

If there is no way that a large piece of WTC 1 could have damaged the columns that the NIST sims illustrate were at fault for the east penthouse sinking please feel free to provide your reasoning that this is not possible.

If it is not possible that fires were attacking those same columns feel free to illustrate why not.

All these questions avoid the point which is:

The statement "middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground" is falce.
Such a hole cannot be in the same place as:
only damage to 9th floor facade was at the SW corner and
damage between 3rd and 6th floors.
A section of Tower 1's framework, large enough to gouge out a 10 story hole, along with the concrete and steel it dislodged, would have resulted in a large pile of heavy debris in the lobby.

The damage atributed to this hole as depicted on pg 18 of the NIST Report Apendex L, did not exist.

There was damage to the south wall at the SW corner, between the 3rd and the 6th floors, the 14th floor, and 5 to 10 story hole starting at roof level but There was NO 10 story hole floor 10 to the ground!

 

[LashL]

Theres no 'leap' here.
The firefighters were describing damage to a building, something they are well qualified to do. There is no reason to doubt 'evidence' contained in those statements. Rember, the only 'evidence' for the the 10 story hole is the statement of a firefighter. [which i believe was misinterpreted]

I just read the 90 statements Gravy listed. [most of which i have read before]
Out of the 90 statements, Captain Boyle is the only one who says there was a 20 story hole.

Theres no 'leap' here.
The firefighters were describing damage to a building, something they are well qualified to do. There is no reason to doubt 'evidence' contained in those statements. Rember, the only 'evidence' for the the 10 story hole is the statement of a firefighter. [which i believe was misinterpreted]

I just read the 90 statements Gravy listed. [most of which i have read before]
Out of the 90 statements, Captain Boyle is the only one who says there was a 20 story hole.

Well, I certainly see leaps here. The first one is your leap that Captain Boyle "must have been" talking about the southwest corner when he talked about the south side damage that he observed.

He described major damage on the south side as being in the middle, about a third of it, estimating 20 storeys, and you have seem to have concluded that he could only have meant the bottom 20 storeys (leap #2) and, thus, that it had to involve the lobby.

In fact, "about a third" would not be 20 storeys tall since the building was only 47 storeys tall, and clearly he was not in a position to actually count the number of damaged floors at the time. I do not think that his estimation of the number of storeys in the circumstances should be held up to be a pinpoint-accurate assessment.

Why do you assume that the gash he was talking about involved the lobby? I have not seen any statements where he said that the large hole he described had to have involved the lobby levels. Perhaps you have other information, and if so, please provide it, but as it stands, it looks as though you have simply made an assumption that it "had" to have involved the lobby levels.

As is the case with all cases involving eyewitnesses, there will differing accounts based upon several factors, not least of which is their location, vantage point, and opportunity to observe.

It appears that you assuming that the witnesses were all describing the same damage (i.e. the damage to the south west corner) rather than different things (i.e. some describing damage to the south west corner, some describing other damage, and Captain Boyle describing damage on the south side, in the middle, at unspecified storeys).

Their observations are not inconsistent with each other as they stand.

 

[Christopher7]

Well, I certainly see leaps here. The first one is your leap that Captain Boyle "must have been" talking about the southwest corner when he talked about the south side damage that he observed.

Your right. He might have been talking about the damage to the top floors.

He described major damage on the south side as being in the middle, about a third of it, estimating 20 storeys, and you have seem to have concluded that he could only have meant the bottom 20 storeys (leap #2) and, thus, that it had to involve the lobby.

No. That was a NIST leap. Im saying the damage he described wasent at the bottom and wasent in the lobby area.

In fact, "about a third" would not be 20 storeys tall since the building was only 47 storeys tall, and clearly he was not in a position to actually count the number of damaged floors at the time. I do not think that his estimation of the number of storeys in the circumstances should be held up to be a pinpoint-accurate assessment.

We agree

Why do you assume that the gash he was talking about involved the lobby?

I dont. NIST does.
Inherent in the statement:
NO 10 story hole floor 10 to ground
is:
Captain Boyle was describing damage somewhere other than the lobby area.

It appears that you assuming that the witnesses were all describing the same damage (i.e. the damage to the south west corner) rather than different things (i.e. some describing damage to the south west corner, some describing other damage,

On the contrary, each firefighter i quoted was describing a different portion of the debris damage.

Captain Boyle describing damage on the south side, in the middle, at unspecified storeys).
Their observations are not inconsistent with each other as they stand.

We agree. If Captain Boyle was describing damage to somewhere other than the lobby area, there is no conflict between his statement and the statements of the other firefighters.

 

[Gravy]

Christopher7, have you read the eyewitness accounts about the damage and fires in WTC 7 in the paper that's linked in my signature?

If not, please do.

If so, what is your disagreement with them? Do you agree that there was extensive damage and severe, uncontrolled fires in the building?


Also, the word is "false," not "falce." Sorry, I was an English major.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, have you read the eyewitness accounts about the damage and fires in WTC 7 in the paper that's linked in my signature?

If not, please do.

If so, what is your disagreement with them? Do you agree that there was extensive damage and severe, uncontrolled fires in the building?


Also, the word is "false," not "falce." Sorry, I was an English major.

no problem

I read all 90.

I dont dissagree with them

Yes. There was extensive damage and uncontrolled fires

My point is:
Whereas: 4 firefighters described the following damage
Large debris hole near center of south face arround Floor 14
Only damage to 9th floor facade at SW corner
Steel ripped out between 3rd and 6th floors
No heavy debris in lobby

Tehrefore:
Captain Boyle was describing damage to somewhere other than the lobby area.

The 10 story hole sited in the NIST report came from another source.

 

[Gravy]

Got it. Thanks.

 

[Christopher7]

Got it. Thanks.

Thank you

Captain Boyle's statement is often used as the basis of or the confirmation of the 10 story hole in the NIST report.

I hope that i have put that misconseption to rest so we can remove that point from the debate.

 

[Gravy]

Thank you

Captain Boyle's statement is often used as the basis of or the confirmation of the 10 story hole in the NIST report.

I hope that i have put that misconseption to rest so we can remove that point from the debate.

What debate? It sounds like we're all agreed that there was severe damage and severe uncontrolled fires.

 

[LashL]

Your right. He might have been talking about the damage to the top floors.

I do not know why you emphasize the word "top" in your post, but it is apparent that Captain Boyle could have been referring to any of the dozens of floors (aside from the lobby level on the south side for purposes of this post) but not necessarily only the "top" floors.

Captain Boyle was describing damage somewhere other than the lobby area.

He was describing damage on the south façade, as opposed to the southwest corner, and not necessarily in the lobby area, as noted in my prior post.

On the contrary, each firefighter i quoted was describing a different portion of the debris damage.

Glad you agree. Your prior posts did not make that clear at all. In fact, they seemed to say the opposite, so I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.

So that it is abundantly clear, though, I take it that you are retracting your posts 640, 648, 654 in which you claimed that he could only be talking about the SW corner damage even though he was clearly talking about damage other than the SW corner, right?

And so that we are clear, I also take it that you are retracting your post #671 in which you claimed that “there was no damage to the middle of the south façade,” right?

And, I also take it that you are retracting your post #680 in which you claimed that Boyle’s statement was “unreliable,” right?

Please confirm.

 

[Christopher7]

What debate? It sounds like we're all agreed that there was severe damage and severe uncontrolled fires.

The debate is about the the amount of damage

on pg 18 of NIST Appendex L

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

This would result in a large pile of heavy debris in the lobby

On the same page

"no heavy debris in lobby"

One of these statements is incorrect.

Whereas:
the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner
[no damage in the center]
and
damage between 3rd and 6th floor
[no gouge below 3rd floor or immediately above 6th floor]
and
there was no heavy debris in the lobby

Therefore:
The preponderance of evidence says the first statement is incorrect.

 

[beachnut]

The debate is about the the amount of damage

on pg 18 of NIST Appendex L

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

This would result in a large pile of heavy debris in the lobby

On the same page

"no heavy debris in lobby"

One of these statements is incorrect.

Whereas:
the only damage to the 9th floor facade was at the SW corner
[no damage in the center]
and
damage between 3rd and 6th floor
[no gouge below 3rd floor or immediately above 6th floor]
and
there was no heavy debris in the lobby

Therefore:
The preponderance of evidence says the first statement is incorrect.

No there is no logic in your statement of conclusion. Zero.

You are missing supporting evidence; I can think of so many holes in your false logic.

You should try again. You need backup information on so many things it hurts to think about it.

You are missing some steps, you have taken a leap and fallen off a cliff of false logic.

 

[Christopher7]

No there is no logic in your statement of conclusion. Zero.

I am not depending on logic here. I am siting the evidence from the NIST and FEMA reports and the Oral Histories of the 9/11 firefighters.

You are missing supporting evidence;

There are 3 statements that contredict the 10 story hole statement

I can think of so many holes in your false logic.

Name one

You should try again. You need backup information on so many things it hurts to think about it.

I am quoting govt. reports ask them for backup info.
It hurts you to think about 3 statements made by firefighters?

 

[Christopher7]

I do not know why you emphasize the word "top" in your post, but it is apparent that Captain Boyle could have been referring to any of the dozens of floors (aside from the lobby level on the south side for purposes of this post) but not necessarily only the "top" floors. He was describing damage on the south façade, as opposed to the southwest corner, and not necessarily in the lobby area, as noted in my prior post.

So that it is abundantly clear, though, I take it that you are retracting your posts 640, 648, 654 in which you claimed that he could only be talking about the SW corner damage....right?

Yes. I have revised that statsment to 'somewhere other than the lobby area'. Add to that: the 'large debris hole near center of the south face arround floor 14' precludes anywhere in the middle of WTC 7 near or below that point.
My point is: His statement does not refer to or support the '10 story gouge floor 10 to the ground' claim.
Nist did not mention Captain Boyle's 20 story hole in their report.

And so that we are clear, I also take it that you are retracting your post #671 in which you claimed that “there was no damage to the middle of the south façade,” right?

Wrong, go back and read that post again. I was talking about the 9th floor.

And, I also take it that you are retracting your post #680 in which you claimed that Boyle’s statement was “unreliable,” right?

Wrong.
Aggle-Rithm said eyewitness statements were unreliable. I did not. Go back and read that post again. What part of 'if you' dont you understand?

 

[Christopher7]

What debate? It sounds like we're all agreed that there was severe damage and severe uncontrolled fires.

The statement in the NIST report:

"middle 1/4 to 1/3 width of the south face was gouged out from floor 10 to the ground"

would leave a pile of heavy debris in the 1st floor lobby.

Do you agree or disagree ?