Some simple Tower 7 questions

[jaydeehess]

You cannot deny that the 10 story gouge is in conflict with Chief Fellini's statement. He was in charge of the operations post at the West and Vessy. Theres no way he would describe a '10 story gouge, 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the building' as "ripped steel out from between the 3rd and the 6th floors".

There are 4 statements that conflict with the 1 statement about a 10 story hole.
A critical thinker would accept the preponderance of evidence and not try to explain away 4 statements in order to confirm 1.

Fellini's description agrees with the other in that there was damage to a wide swath of the front of WTC 7. With smoke and dust he may well not have seen clearly past the 6th or 7th floor.
The witness who described a 10 story gouge may well have seen the ripped out steel columns that Fellini saw as well as broken windows and bent window frames extending higher up and extrapolated the more extensive 3-6 floor damage as also occuring further up.

None of these people were likely to be standing there pondering and examining the absolute extent of the damage. They were tasked with many other jobs that day, they were in shock, they would be operating under high stress and high adrenaline levels in smoke and dust.


,,,,,,, and once again I remind you that the extent of damage to the perimeter columns and the flooring is not an integral part of the senario for collapse that NIST put forth in this preliminary report.

 

[jaydeehess]

You are comparing people identifying a face to firefighters describing damage to a building.
Are you saying that Chief Fellini didnt rember seeing a 10 story hole or that his description of the damage between the 3rd and the 6th floors was 'influenced' by the media?

Still more injudicious and biased quote miming C7.
Arus was pointing out that with several eyewitness statements one must look for the commonalities within the set while you simply wish to pick away at the divergences. Only the commonalities will give an investigator a good idea of what was occuring. Those statements that contain unigue observations are worth noting especially if the witness is the only one who could have seen that scene such as the elevator cars that were ejected. Seemingly direct contradictions must be examined to see if they have any common ground. In this case all describe entensive damage to the south face, some describe damage that extends futher inwards and one is quite specific about damage at the building's core area.

 

[Christopher7]

Fellini's description agrees with the other in that there was damage to a wide swath of the front of WTC 7.

True

With smoke and dust he may well not have seen clearly past the 6th or 7th floor.

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"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"

Pg 22
From 11:30 a.m.to 2:30 p.m.:
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the sixth Floor from the exterior, stairwell or lobby areas"

The witness who described a 10 story gouge may well have seen the ripped out steel columns that Fellini saw as well as broken windows and bent window frames extending higher up and extrapolated the more extensive 3-6 floor damage as also occuring further up.

and down: "Floor 10 to the ground"

By Jove, i think you've got it.

The 10 story hole is an misinterpretation of Chief Fellini's damage statement, along with "debris damage accross one fourth of the south face ....ground to 5th floor...atrium glass still intact"

If steel were ripped out all the way to the ground, Chief Fellini would have said so.

There was NO Floor 10 to the ground gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7

 

[jaydeehess]

Are you deliberatly being obfuscatory or is it just a hobby?

pg 18
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.
"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"

Pg 22
From 11:30 a.m.to 2:30 p.m.:
"No signs of fire or smoke were reported below the sixth Floor from the exterior, stairwell or lobby areas"

reading just a few lines further:

The black areas on the facade indicate areas of burned out fires.
Note the heavy smoke obstructing any observations along the south face.
...............The approximate extent of possible damage due to debris from
WTC 1 is shown in Fig. L–23c.....................

and

From 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.:
In the east stairwell, smoke was observed around Floors 19 or 20, and a signs of a fully involved fire on the south side of Floor 23 were heard/seen/smelled from Floor22.
• Interviews place a fire on Floor 7 at the west wall, toward the south side, at approximately 12:15 p.m.

• From West and Vesey Streets near the Verizon Building, fires were observed in floors estimated to be numbered in the 20s and 30s.
Looking from the southwest corner at the south face:
• Fire was seen in the southwest corner near Floor 10 or 11
• Fire was seen on Floors 6, 7, 8, 21, and 30
• Heavy black smoke came out of a large, multi-story gash in the south faceLooking from the southeast corner of the south face:
• Fire seen on Floor 14 (reported floor number) on south face; the face above the fire was covered with smoke
• Fire on Floor 14 moved towards the east face
Looking at the east face:
• Fire on Floor 14 (reported floor) moved along east face toward the north side

and

3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
• Around 3 p.m., fires were observed on Floors 7 and 12 along the north face. The fire on
Floor 12 appeared to bypass the northeast corner and was first observed at a point
approximately one third of the width from the northeast corner, and then spread both east and
west across the north face.
• Some time later, fires were observed on Floors 8 and 13, with the fire on Floor 8 moving
from west to east and the fire on Floor 13 moving from east to west. Figure L–24b shows fires on Floors 7 and 12.
• At this time, the fire on Floor 7 appeared to have stopped progressing near the middle of the north face
• The fire on Floor 8 continued to move east on the north face, eventually reaching the
northeast corner and moving to the east face.
• Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the
north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

The 10 story hole is an misinterpretation of Chief Fellini's damage statement, along with "debris damage accross one fourth of the south face ....ground to 5th floor...atrium glass still intact"

If steel were ripped out all the way to the ground, Chief Fellini would have said so.

There was NO Floor 10 to the ground gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of the south face of WTC 7

Sounds like there was a lot of smoke in the area, maybe little on the 7th or 8th floor. Is this somehow significant? Yes, it means that seeing the south face was not a clear shot. In the early going there would be a lot of dust and a little later there was a lot of smoke.

You don't get it, you just don't get it OR you are deliberatly not admitting that you do.

The inclusion of the 10 story damage is one of many that report significant damage to the south face.
It may well be that the estimate of the extent of the damage reported by this witness is greater than what the reality of the damage was. So the (rule 8) what? I already stated the obvious, that the witnesses were not calmly making and recording their observations of the exact nature of the damage to the building. they had just witnessed hundreds of their friends and co-workers die, they were hot, choking on dust, operating under great stress and with high adrenaline levels. I for one, am willing to forgive a FF for mistaking broken windows and bent frames above and below a section in which steel has been ripped out, for a 10 story high deep gouge. The POINT IS that it is another person confirming significant damage to the south face. Pure, simple, and you even agree with this so why oh why do you continue to harp away at the idea that there was no 10 story and deep gouge in the building? I have asked you several times now where in the NIST report that their collapse sequence requires a deep 10 story gouge, where do they state that this deep 10 story gouge was fact, and why do you continue to bleat away on minute detail. So far you have just ignored these questions. Here's another, if there was damage to some perimeter columns (to the point of severing at least one or two) and damage that caused the elevator cars to be ejected, but no deep, continuous, 10 story gouge how does this impact the NIST study?(in your opinion of course)

 

[Christopher7]

Are you deliberatly being obfuscatory or is it just a hobby?

Sounds like there was a lot of smoke in the area, maybe little on the 7th or 8th floor. Is this somehow significant? Yes, it means that seeing the south face was not a clear shot. In the early going there would be a lot of dust and a little later there was a lot of smoke.

By 11:00 a.m. the dust had setteled and there were no fires that would have obscured Chief Fellini's view. All the statements you listed refered to the SW corner, upper floors or other sides of WTC 7. So who is trying to obfuscate here ?

The inclusion of the 10 story damage is one of many that report significant damage to the south face.

The 10 story hole is by far the most extensive damage to WTC 7 reported.
It didn't happen and it should not have been shown as a gouge [along with the gouges to the SW corner and the roof and upper level on pg 31 & 32], nor should it have been included in the Summary.

It may well be that the estimate of the extent of the damage reported by this witness is greater than what the reality of the damage was. So the (rule 8) what? I already stated the obvious, that the witnesses were not calmly making and recording their observations of the exact nature of the damage to the building. they had just witnessed hundreds of their friends and co-workers die, they were hot, choking on dust, operating under great stress and with high adrenaline levels. I for one, am willing to forgive a FF for mistaking broken windows and bent frames above and below a section in which steel has been ripped out, for a 10 story high deep gouge.

So am i.

The POINT IS that it is another person confirming significant damage to the south face. Pure, simple, and you even agree with this so why oh why do you continue to harp away at the idea that there was no 10 story and deep gouge in the building?

Yes, there was significant damage to the south face

However, the 60' to 80' wide hole floor 10 to the ground was the most severe damage reported

I have asked you several times now where in the NIST report that their collapse sequence requires a deep 10 story gouge,

They don't include the 10 story hole in the collapes sequence but it is the first statement in the Summary.

where do they state that this deep 10 story gouge was fact

On page 31 & 32 they show the 10 story gouge along with the known gouges to the SW corner and the roof and upper level.
Including this damage along with the factual damage is effectively 'stating it as a fact'.

In the Summary [on page 50] they again state this damage as a fact
"The debris impact severed approximately a quarter to a third of the south face perimiter columns"
They go on to say that "damage....of core framing is not known" but the damage to the south face was stated as a fact.

and why do you continue to bleat away on minute detail.

Minute detail? Do you consider a 10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7 a minute detail?

if there was damage to some perimeter columns,[obfuscation deleted] but no deep, continuous, 10 story gouge how does this impact the NIST study?(in your opinion of course)

The impact is not to the collapse sequence, as you have correctly stated.
The NIST report repeated refered to the '10 story hole' statement, and ignored two statements in conflict with that statement.
This impacts the credibility of the report [IMO]

The biggest impact of the repeated reference to this hole is that people reading this report believe that there was a '10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'.

 

[Poetry Hound]

I'm curious if anyone has a response to the interview with Dutch demo expert Danny Jowenko in which he says WTC 7 was a CD. CTers seem to cite this video quite a bit.

(I can't post a link, but if you google "Jowenko" on Google Video, it's the first video).

 

[Bell]

I'm curious if anyone has a response to the interview with Dutch demo expert Danny Jowenko in which he says WTC 7 was a CD. CTers seem to cite this video quite a bit.

(I can't post a link, but if you google "Jowenko" on Google Video, it's the first video).

He was shown the clip from the Naudet's documentary. The interviewer didn't tell him the building got hit by WTC1. The interviewer didn't tell him the building was on fire. The interviewer didn't tell him the building collapsed on 9/11 also. When Jowenko was told, he said he didn't understand it.

 

[chipmunk stew]

He was shown the clip from the Naudet's documentary. The interviewer didn't tell him the building got hit by WTC1. The interviewer didn't tell him the building was on fire. The interviewer didn't tell him the building collapsed on 9/11 also. When Jowenko was told, he said he didn't understand it.

The clip also started at the beginning of the global collapse, omitting the collapse of the east penthouse, which occurred several seconds later. The interviewer also did not tell him that in footage with sound, there is no sign of detonations. The interviewer also did not point out the dozens of eyewitness accounts testifying to the fact that the collapse was expected by those on the ground and closest to the action. The interviewer also failed to mention that Chief Nigro, expecting a collapse, ordered his firefighters to create a collapse zone and to pull all recovery efforts from that zone.

In short, Jowenko was not presented with any of the information contained in the following:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Jowenko also expresses unequivocally his belief that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT the result of CD.

Welcome to the forums, Poetry Hound!

 

[jaydeehess]

The impact is not to the collapse sequence, as you have correctly stated.
The NIST report repeated refered to the '10 story hole' statement, and ignored two statements in conflict with that statement.
This impacts the credibility of the report [IMO]

The biggest impact of the repeated reference to this hole is that people reading this report believe that there was a '10 story hole 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7'.

That's it??? That's the sum total of your objection to this ONE statement that was included in the reporrt??? It has no significance whatsoever to the conclusions of the report but YOU say its significance is that someone who only skimms and looks at the pretty pictures might come away with an erroneous idea of what caused WTC 7 to collapse. That's it!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????

This was included in both the statement and in the graphics because it was part of the record of eyewitness testimony and bears inclusion in that it adds to the witness statements of damage to the south face, and that is all there is to it!!!!!!!! full stop....period.... It does not imoact the credibility of the report , if anyone only looks at the pretty pictures that reflects on them not NIST.

if there was damage to some perimeter columns,[obfuscation deleted] but no deep, continuous, 10 story gouge how does this impact the NIST study?(in your opinion of course)

What obfuscation?? You are aware that there is ample evidence that at least two perimeter columns were severed in the center of the south face are you not?

As for fires, you state that there were no fires before 11am. Gee, how'd the ones reported later get started? You state that all the dust had settled by 11 AM. Really,

 

[Poetry Hound]

Thanks for the welcome, chipmunk stew.

Has Jowenko, to anyone's knowledge, made any retraction or clarification or complained about being deceived by the interviewer?

 

[Firestone]

Thanks for the welcome, chipmunk stew.

Has Jowenko, to anyone's knowledge, made any retraction or clarification or complained about being deceived by the interviewer?

Take a look at this thread.

 

[jaydeehess]

In short, Jowenko was not presented with any of the information contained in the following:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Thus it is the equivalent of telling a British airforce bomber commander that the Japanese city of Hiroshima was leveled but that the Americans deny having carried out any large scale bombing raid on that city. Without the information that the Americans had sent one plane with a new weapon on board he is going to state that it must have been an earthquake.

 

[jaydeehess]

By 11:00 a.m. the dust had setteled and there were no fires that would have obscured Chief Fellini's view. All the statements you listed refered to the SW corner, upper floors or other sides of WTC 7. So who is trying to obfuscate here ?

Take a look at what the smoke was doing in any picture of WTC 7 that day. the wind was light from the north and all smoke was exiting through the south side(no big suprise given the broken windows on that side and the intact ones on the north side) AND the turbulence was swirling that smoke over the entire south side. Thus even early on the smoke would be obscuring the view of lower levels than the fire floors.

No obscuring fires before 11 AM. Ok how many pictures of the south side of WTC 7 taken after the fall of WTC 1 and before 11 AM can you produce to back up this contention? None I gather, since in the call for south side damage photos very little has been brought forth. Thus we are limited to eyewitness reports of the FF's on scene and those reports are from the FF's who were in the building trying to make sure everyone was out. This is by no means an exhaustive report on the smoke or dust before 11AM.

HOWEVER, this is a minor point anyway since you concede that there were fires and there was damage to the south face and that a FF on that day could fairly easily have misconstrued the heavier damage to a few floors as extending through floors with lighter damage.

All you seem to want to do is try and show that NIST was deliberatly trying to mislead the average reader of this report.

I count 15 times in the report where the word 'moment' is used. In none of these is the word used in the common sense in which it refers to a location in time. Was NIST deliberatly trying to befuddle people by using this term? After all the average reader would not have any idea what a "moment frame" is.

NIST provided a diagram showing the reported damage. In the text they never once require the full extent of reported damage to be accurate. Only and solely on the diagrams is this shown and thus only and solely would any person be misled if all they do is look at nothing but the pretty pictures.

Reports such as these are meant to read. It is quite possible that some of the terminology will not be familiar to many readers but it would be up to those readers to self educate themselves, it is not up to NIST to dumb it down for them.(That's a journalist's job )

It is ironic that the 'Truth Movement" often chides people to not allow themselves to be spoon fed information and yet when a report such as any of the NIST reports come out there are so many CT's that cry foul because the author's of the report do not hold the hand of the reader and gently guide them through it. I certainly admit that parts of some of the reports are beyond me but I still read them and make what I can of them(though I probably have not gone through all of them, there's only so much free time in the day) and if there are parts that I really want to understand I look for information that will educate me as required. I knew nothing about FEA when the NIST reports came out but I read a little on it and now have the basics of what was being done.

A famous person once stated that some men would rather lay down their lives than do the math. It often applies to this topic.

 

[Christopher7]

That's it??? That's the sum total of your objection to this ONE statement that was included in the reporrt???
It has no significance whatsoever to the conclusions of the report

[my prior statement "they don't include the 10 story hole in the collapse sequence" was incorrect]

The '10 story hole' damage is stated in statement 1 of the Summary as a fact:

"The debris impact severed approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the south face permiter columns"

and in statement 3 as "Possible components that may have led to the failure of columns 79, 10 and/or 81"

If these statements have 'no significance' then why are they in there?

If these statements have 'no significance', then nothing in the report has any significance.
ie:
1) damage...of core framing is not known
2) fires may have been present on floor 5
3) Possible componets that may have led to failure
4) A vertical collapse appears to have occured.....
5) debris....would fall down onto the strong diaphragms at floors 5 and 7, and possibly onto transfer trusses #1 and #2

The 'conclusion' of the report is:
"the following sequence of events appears possible"

but YOU say its significance is that someone who only skimms and looks at the pretty pictures might come away with an erroneous idea of what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

Most 'official theory' supporters believe that there was a 10 story hole as described on pg 18, shown in the graphic on pg 23, 31 & 32, and used in statements 1 & 3 of the summary.
Don't take my word for it. Take a poll and see for yourself.
You will find that most OT'ers believe it because they read it in the NIST report or they read it somewhere else.
You are probably the only person here [other than myself] who is willing to acknowledge that:

There was NO 60' to 80' wide hole, floor 10 to the ground, in WTC 7

if anyone only looks at the pretty pictures that reflects on them not NIST.

NIST included the damage attributed to the '10 story hole' in the summary, twice.

You are aware that there is ample evidence that at least two perimeter columns were severed in the center of the south face are you not?

I believe it because of Chief Fellini's statement
NIST based their damage assesment [1/4 to 1/3 width of south face] on the '10 story hole' statement

As for fires, you state that there were no fires before 11am. Gee, how'd the ones reported later get started? You state that all the dust had settled by 11 AM. Really,

I quoted the NIST report and i didn't say all.
Either your reading comprehention skills are impared or you are intentionally misquoting me.

 

[LashL]

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

I have read the report and stated the evidence in post 728

Please read it.

There is only 1 statement about the 10 story hole in WTC 7

There are 4 statements that are in conflict with that statement

 

[LashL]

I have read the report and stated the evidence in post 728

Please read it.

There is only 1 statement about the 10 story hole in WTC 7

There are 4 statements that are in conflict with that statement

What? You missed the rest of my post?

Read it again. Then take it to heart. Then go and conduct the research suggested rather than posting the same meaningless post over and over. Go ahead, talk to them, find out where they were when they were making their observations, find out what time each of them were at the different locations, and map it all out so that you can begin to understand the reality of witnesses and chaotic events, and the reality of location, vantage point, timing and opportunity to observe.

Then come on back and tell us how much you have learned. I suspect it will be a lot, and you will be a better person for it.

 

[Christopher7]

What? You missed the rest of my post?

Read it again. Then take it to heart. Then go and conduct the research suggested rather than posting the same meaningless post over and over.

Meaningless?
Did you read the evidence?

There are 5 quotes from NIST, FEMA and The Oral Histories.

Are you saying that these reports are meaningless?

You dodge the evidence i have listed by asking me to find and talk to the people who made those statements. You know damn well that that is impossible. Get real dude. Nist doesn't even give their names.

This is just a cheap way to avoid acknowledging the evidence you cannot dispute.

 

[jaydeehess]

As for fires, you state that there were no fires before 11am. Gee, how'd the ones reported later get started? You state that all the dust had settled by 11 AM. Really,

I quoted the NIST report and i didn't say all.

Well then we are in agreement. There were fires before 11 AM but as IIRC, the NIST tsatement you quoted says, none were observed from the outside of the building below the 6th floor at that time. We can also then agree that it is unlikely that all of the dust had settled as well. Therefore we can agree that the visibility in the area at the time was less than crystal clear. We have already agreed that the FF's would be under a lot of stress, and LashL points out correctly that they would have been observing the building from various loactions.

I don't believe I have said that anything was insignificant. I'd have to re-read my posts. There are things that are more signioficant than others and the sum total of the commonalities in the witness statements is definatly significant.

The qualifiers that NIST uses are there for a good reason. NIST cannot make a definitive judgement as to the collapse of WTC 7. There simply is not enough data to go on.

In the summary which you now say has NIST stating the 10 story hole fact starts with

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following general sequence of events appears possible:

So once again you are quote mining.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Christopher,

You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.

It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.

Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.

As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.

If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.

You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.

Great post. Too bad it's wasted on Christopher7.