|
Post by turbonium on Dec 16, 2005 1:30:21 GMT -4
Turbonium said: That's true. Then read the next sentences: I did read that part. The first sentence doesn't mention where they saw damage to the building. The second sentence is also vague in it's description of where and how much damage was seen in these "eyewitness acounts". Nothing is mentioned as to who saw what and where each person saw it. Exactly how much damage and exactly where was the "south elevation" damage? Couldn't this also be the southwest corner damage? We don't know from this report.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 16, 2005 8:59:18 GMT -4
There is testimony that contradicts the account you posted. The below link and excerpt from the FEMA report describes how the south face was only damaged at the southwest corner. "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner"www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf (page 5-20 of pdf file) This firefighter's account of the damage is not only visual but physical, since he actually walked inside WTC 7 along the south face. His testimony provides for a more accurate description than Boyle, who only describes what he saw from outside the building. As well, Boyle does not make any mention of the damage to the southwest corner. That may also mean that he was actually describing the southwest corner damage and mistook it's location as the center of the south face. And as already mentioned, there are no videos or photographs showing any damage to the south face alone. The fireman's accout from the FEMA report does not contradict Boyle. The hole he saw could have been above the 9th Floor. It's unlikely he mistook the corner damage for the hole he saw he said the hole was "right in the middle" . Also the corner dammage doesn't appear to be anywhere near 20 stories high. He said he was "right next" the building. Possibly he didn't mentioned the corner dammage because. 1) His attention was drawn to the much larger hole in the middle 2) The corner was dammaged later. Boyle said 7 was still being struck by debris. Also the corner could have been weakenend by the collapse of the Tower and fallen off later. The presure from the fire hoses could have caused that too.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 16, 2005 11:28:18 GMT -4
In the NIST WTC7appendixL report it is stated NIST acknowledges that the descriptions of WTC's damage to the south face are in some ways conflicting. In the same report, figure L-23b is a picture of the south face of WTC7. However it only shows part of the atrium and promenade because the photographer is underneath the walkover, pedestrian bridge. Figure L-23a is facing south on Vesey street, it shows the building across the street from WTC 7 but both pictures show the amount of debris from the collapse of WTC1 that got that far. Boyle is quite specific in that the damage was in the center of the south face. The FF who says he walked across WTC floor 9 says that the only damage he saw was in the SW corner. Why the apparent contradiction? Boyle was outside, he could not have seen how far each floor was damaged past the front of the building. The other FF was inside with no lights and at least some smoke and dust obscuring his view. To walk along the south side he would have been walking along the hallway on the south side of the core area where the elevators are. His view of the outside would be blocked by the office walls as well as the smoke, dust and lack of illumination. Floor 9 was occupied by the Secret Service but would have had at least cubicle partitions. Furthermore, Boyle, being on the outside would know where he was, the visual clues would be all around him. The FF inside would have to rely on his sense of direction unless , for some reason, he was very familiar with the building's interior, and specifically the ninth floor layout. He may well have not been on the south side when he walked from one end to the other. We can take him at his word that he believes he was on the south side but there is an element of uncertainty there.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 16, 2005 15:16:27 GMT -4
Above is a picture from the NIST draft WTC 7 report. wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf(from pg 17) Below is a schematic of how NIST portrays the damage to the south face of WTC 7. Note the extent of damage to the southwest corner in the diagram. (pg 20 of the above report) Now note the alleged large gaping hole in the center of the south face, (which NIST tells us was done by falling debris from WTC 1). NIST tells us that there was a... "large debris hole near center around 14th floor". Looking at the photo above we can see the southwest corner damage. We know that; that damage extended to the 18th floor. (page 15 of the above report) The NIST-alleged massive center damage should clearly be visible in the above photo (allegedly being only 4 floors below the height of the southwest corner damage). Can you find the alleged damage which NIST indicates is in the center of the south face? The view in the photo is from roughly west-northwest. The south face of the building is around the back on the right side, so of course you can't see the gaping hole. If Foxx were correct and this was the south face of the building then west should be on the left most side of that face of the building. Since the damage is on the other corner it is patently obvious that the face of the building that is facing the camera and lit by the sun is NOT the south side. Also the building in the foreground is the Verizon building which is to the west of the WTC 7. Furthermore the side on the left of the picture is in shadow which would suggest that it is the north side. All of this shows that the most visible and prominent face of the building in this picture is the west face.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 17, 2005 5:28:47 GMT -4
The huge gaping hole in the south face that NIST has drawn into this diagram is worth pointing out. This detail is by far the most significant damage to WTC 7 as shown in the drawing.
NIST obviously concluded that this damage was substantiated by sources, at least solidly enough to include it in their diagram and passages describing it.
So - what evidence exists which supports the accuracy of their diagram? No photographs. No video. I have only been able to find one personal description that mentions any details - Boyle's account. How can one person, any single person, have their testimony be considered so definitive and accurate? Without a shred of visual evidence? Without any other witnesses on record describing the damage the same way?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 17, 2005 8:16:17 GMT -4
The huge gaping hole in the south face that NIST has drawn into this diagram is worth pointing out. This detail is by far the most significant damage to WTC 7 as shown in the drawing. NIST obviously concluded that this damage was substantiated by sources, at least solidly enough to include it in their diagram and passages describing it. So - what evidence exists which supports the accuracy of their diagram? No photographs. No video. I have only been able to find one personal description that mentions any details - Boyle's account. How can one person, any single person, have their testimony be considered so definitive and accurate? Without a shred of visual evidence? Without any other witnesses on record describing the damage the same way? Just because you couldn't find any other eyewitness accounts on the Internet doesn't mean that Boyle was the only person to report the hole. There are two possible explainations. 1) The accounts are on the Net but you haven't found them. 2) NIST has accounts that haven't been posted.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 17, 2005 19:50:18 GMT -4
NIST says that the witness accounts were mostly consistent but there were some differences.
Some witnesses describe a 20 story hole, others a 10 story hole , others a 10 story hole and another hole at the 14th floor. Some say it was 1/4 the width of the building and others say 1/3 the width of the building. Given the dangerous situation and the dust and smoke I can see why the descriptions would vary somewhat. What is CLEAR is that there was extensive damage to the center of the face of WTC7 and that IS consistent with all the testimony(so says the NIST report).
I know that the non-believers in the official history of 9/11 dearly want there to be no major damage to WTC7 but it just ain't so. No matter how Foxx spins Boyle's statement or what NIST says in its report it is still clear that there was damage in that area.
Damage in that area bolsters the official view that falling debris caused internal damage that led to the collapse of the building and Boyle's statements back up the idea that the building was in bad shape as he states that they were very leery about going into #7.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 18, 2005 6:59:33 GMT -4
With the dust and smoke obscuring the view, the accounts are inconsistent. There still is no visual evidence of what condition the south face was in before it collapsed.
And as I said, even if there was massive damage to the south face, it would not lead to the very symmetrical, 6-7 second collapse of WTC 7. You could even take out the entire south wall and it wouldn't collapse straight down in uniformity as the videos show it did.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 18, 2005 8:30:01 GMT -4
The squibs fire out very rapidly in sequence, with the affected floors clearly showing (in the video and below) that they are not yet compressing down onto each other - that is, compression does not explain the cause of these squibs. The compression theory is further negated by the rate that the squibs fire out, being much faster than the rate of the building collapse. The only WTC 7 height loss in the image sequence below (approximated by the green lines) is about 1 or 2 floors maximum, from "pre-squibs" to "post-squibs". The overall collapse initiated from the bottom, which accounts for the loss in height. No floors that squibs fired out from were being compressed at the time.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 18, 2005 9:28:57 GMT -4
With the dust and smoke obscuring the view, the accounts are inconsistent. There still is no visual evidence of what condition the south face was in before it collapsed. And as I said, even if there was massive damage to the south face, it would not lead to the very symmetrical, 6-7 second collapse of WTC 7. You could even take out the entire south wall and it wouldn't collapse straight down in uniformity as the videos show it did. - What are your engineering credentials to make such a statement? - No one is saying that this alone accounts for the collapse. IIRC -there were also massive fires esp. it is presumes on the 5th(?) floor where the disel tanls where.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Dec 18, 2005 9:40:32 GMT -4
The squibs fire out very rapidly in sequence, with the affected floors clearly showing (in the video and below) that they are not yet compressing down onto each other - that is, compression does not explain the cause of these squibs. The compression theory is further negated by the rate that the squibs fire out, being much faster than the rate of the building collapse. The only WTC 7 height loss in the image sequence below (approximated by the green lines) is about 1 or 2 floors maximum, from "pre-squibs" to "post-squibs". The overall collapse initiated from the bottom, which accounts for the loss in height. No floors that squibs fired out from were being compressed at the time. Your photo doesn't support your claim that "No floors that squibs fired out from were being compressed at the time" Even if it's true that "10 + floors expelled squibs but the total height loss is 1 or 2 floors maximum" you are making a false assumption that one floor of height has to be lost per squib. Why not 1 floor in height loss for every 5 squibs? I imagine that a building collapsing stresses the entire structure. This could explain squibs on floors that were not collapsing.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 18, 2005 16:46:50 GMT -4
With the dust and smoke obscuring the view, the accounts are inconsistent. There still is no visual evidence of what condition the south face was in before it collapsed. And as I said, even if there was massive damage to the south face, it would not lead to the very symmetrical, 6-7 second collapse of WTC 7. You could even take out the entire south wall and it wouldn't collapse straight down in uniformity as the videos show it did. You haven't read the reports then have you. The theory is not that the south wall failed first but that the damage to the south wall supports the idea that damage to critical interior core supports was caused by falling debris from WTC 1 and that continued fires near that area eventually weakened the support directly under the penthouse structure and that column failed, the penthouse falls tearing away support under the west penthouse area which also falls. The loss of support under the center line of the building caused it to collapse central core first. The walls could not support themselves and were pulled inward.
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Dec 18, 2005 16:49:58 GMT -4
Turbonium, your pictures ignore the falling of the penthouses. Your photos are taken after the penthouses have sunk through the building's roof.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 19, 2005 3:13:39 GMT -4
Look at the still sequence - specifically, compare the floors that expel squibs, before and after (frames 1 and 3). I see no change in the height of these floors. The building has begun to collapse only from the bottom. How can you conclude that floor compression is causing these squibs?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Dec 19, 2005 3:18:36 GMT -4
Turbonium, your pictures ignore the falling of the penthouses. Your photos are taken after the penthouses have sunk through the building's roof.
I am using the same images posted by redd on page 1 of this thread that were used to make the claim that compression caused the squibs. I know that a partial collapse had already occurred from the penthouse. The majority of the penthouse is still visible, btw.
|
|