I really wish we could have a clearer image than this.

I think it's safe to assume we're looking at the back side of the building. That was the side facing the rest of the complex and we have seen the front of WTC7 in plenty of photos.



That suggests we're looking at the Verizon Building on the left, and WTC6 on the right. WTC7 would be on the left, behind the Verizon Building.

Here is WTC5 and WTC6 looking down the same street from the opposite angle, after WTC7's collapse:



More of WTC6, from FEMA:



I'm pressed for time, but something about this photo doesn't sit right with me. It looks as though WTC5 is on the right, not WTC6. I may be wrong, but it really does look like WTC5. What does this suggest about the position of the photographer, and the building he's photographing?

I'll be back later to take another look.

Nah, that has to be WTC6 on the left.

WTC6 is hard to find information on, but that hole would definitely be placed low on WTC7 (~3rd floor, upwards an unknown amount of floors, about 8 or 9 floors can be assumed to be damaged at least somwhat, imo). Hard to see its height from the smoke, and hard to make out a general width for obstruction.

If you follow the high, upper-left corner of WTC7 down, you can get a general idea of where that corner of the building was. If you look about "Steve Spak", you'll see a patch of sky, signifying that WTC7 no longer extended laterally there. It also seems like you can make out a clear vertical edge on the left side of that patch of sky.

Based on the above, we may be able to get an idea of where exactly this hole would be on the face. It looks to me to be a little more towards one side of the face than centered near the middle. This is hard to judge too, but at least we may be able to get some idea from the photo.

So there appears to have been a gash low on the back face of the building, closer to the Verizon Building, of at least 8 or 9 floors with at least some damage, and indeterminate width. If we had a better photo we'd be able to establish a lot more, I think. But maybe someone else can get more info out of the above.

Let's put this in perspective, too.



That's the Bankers Trust Building. Damaged by the WTC Tower collapses.

Here's WTC5:





WTC5 was not a skyscraper. It had much thinner columns than WTC7, and was no doubt less over-engineered. It was constructed with similar materials. It was severely damaged by both debris and fire and yet only suffered very localized collapses. WTC5 had to be demolished in the clean-up.

What still needs to be established, as NIST is attempting, is how scattered patches of fire and a localized gash lead to this:



Obviously, fire and debris damage does not automatically lead to free-fall global (or even extensive local) collapse, as WTC5 shows. How anything other than controlled demolition could lead a building to free-fall global collapse, under its own weight, is beyond physics.

Massive steel columns, concrete, etc., provide resistance to falling objects. That is just irreconcilable fact. Resistance will be provided. Free fall can only be achieved when resistance is prevented.

i was just thinking how oddly perfect EVERYTHING seems to fall down. IMO one of two things happened:

1) Government conspiracy

or

2) A terrorist attack that was on a much larger scale than we thought (highly coordinated demolition of key economic buildings amde to look like splatter damage from the collapse of the two main towers) and our government is too dumb to figure it out or doesnt want to admit the terrorists had such an elaborate plot

[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]

Originally posted by misguidedprophet

2) A terrorist attack that was on a much larger scale than we thought (highly coordinated demolition of key economic buildings amde to look like splatter damage from the collapse of the two main towers) and our government is too dumb to figure it out or doesnt want to admit the terrorists had such an elaborate plot

[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]

If 2 is true, then that is the scariest thing I've ever heard of. Just think, America not having that much intelligence and strength to Secure us.

WCIP I am skeptical of a lot of the photo's of WTC 7 realised by NIST.

Couldn't we have someone who is an expert in analysing photo's invited to AboveTopSecret?

The gap they speak of exists on ONE side of the building, the more reason to
believe it would topple over and not drop dead top to bottom....

And, it fell EXACTLY into its own footprint, go figure..

[edit on 16-8-2006 by zren]

Alephaeis,

The photo wasn't released by NIST. It was taken and published by a freelance photographer. As for your suspicions of NIST, I shouldn't imagine that they would outright manipulate photographs. They have in the past altered the intensity levels on some photos of the WTC fires making them look more severe and hotter than they really were, but they usually state when they have done so.

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Couldn't we have someone who is an expert in analysing photo's invited to AboveTopSecret?

That would be great, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. If you know someone, then please invite them here. We can gauge the approximate width of the hole by comparing it to the windows visible on the face and then comparing that to how many windows were across the south face. But there are some weird perspectives in the photo.

I'd also like to know what this dark, square area is.



It looks like a structure of some sort. Was there a connecting bridge structure over the street between WTC7 and the mezzanine, as seems to be indicated in this graphic?






[edit on 2006-8-16 by wecomeinpeace]

"They have in the past altered the intensity levels on some photos of the WTC fires making them look more severe and hotter than they really were, but they usually state when they have done so. "

Sure, first they falsify data and then in a footnote they let you know?

Offtopic WCIP:

Isn't it true they claim that none of the core columns were severed?

It is odd that on the "edge" of the hole in the wtc7 pic the building materials are bent OUTWARDS.

This could indicate many things, all speculatory, but when the police investigate a break in or similiar crime, they look for clues of an insurance or inside job by looking at things like this. "Which way did the broken glass fall?", Etc.

Looks like it was blasted outwards on the upper right edge to me.

Also, are we certain that that is the face of WTC7... It just does not look right to me but since so few photos seem to exist, EXCEPT ON A "DEBUNKER" site, it is hard for me to tell.

I alos believe that the damage we are looking at, if it is WTC7 is to the SW corner, bot the face. Look further up the building and see where the edge is.

Considering the timing and source of the photo it is hard to put too much faith into it.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

AT first I was thinking... because this photo appears to have been shot FROM ON OR "BEHIND" WTC6 from an angle, I think you are seeing the Post office in the backgroud WCIP.

Then, I looked at the map again and it does on make sense.

The south face of "WTC 7" seems FAR TOO SHORT IN LENGTH and I think the picture is docrtored but I AM NOT an EXPERT but I DO NOT THINK you should see htat patch of blue sky. the REST of WTC 7 should be there.

Maybe it was UNDAMAGED so it was photoshopped out?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Ohhh... It is all to obvious that the NIST report will say:

1. Damage from falling debris to the face of WTC7 caused a "Massive Crater" and "broke" the "cantaliever truss" system. (No photos exist of course)

2. Started "RAGING INFERNOS" aided by diesel. (All diesel recovered except a few hundred gallons) (No photos of infernos of course)

3. Heated the damaged (in undocumented step one) "Cantaliever" system weakining it. (Evidence long gone so no seeing the damaged/failed trusses... of course)

4. Global, neat, high speed collapse ensued hours later.

5. Squibs are a figment of your imigination.

6. It did not fall towards the damaged side (tree chopping) becase we only study up to "collapse initiation... the rest is unimportant.

I am CERTAIN this will be the official story. That is why I want to see the "MASSIVE CRATER" and "RAGING INFERNOS". Also, real blueprints would be nice instead of some random drawings.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

You're right again, SN. That is the post office, which further confirms that the smudge is the same 22nd floor smudge in both photos. This photo shows the roof of the PO was about level with WTC7 20th floor.



Which puts the smudge in this photo at about the same height.



No doubt about it, that's the SW corner damage, not the south face hole.

I also agree that perspective is weird in that shot. Looking at the width of the windows, it seems that the south face should go much deeper into the photograph. But I don't think it's a photoshop job, I think it's just a trick of perspective.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
No doubt about it, that's the SW corner damage, not the south face hole.

Thanks for your help on the photos WCIP. Nice comparison graphics also.

So am I still safe to say that the board has NEVER seen a picture of the "massive crater" in the FACE of WTC7?

Does this photo show that the "massive crater" did not exist if we are looking at the whole face?

Somethign still strikes me as very wrong with the length of the face of the building in this photo.

That's a good catch. The damage was definitely not centered as it would be via NIST, but that smudge gives it away. That's definitely the corner damage.

What are the chances that this is also the roughly 20-story gash reported by firefighters?