Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked

So you now believe that WTC7 was demolished and are researching its significance, Tuccy, or are you just trying to derail the thread with a rhetorical question because you cannot offer a rebuttal to WCIP's post?

Originally posted by 2PacSade
... and if they knew that then they must have let them do it, and they must have told NORAD to stand down, ...

Wish I was a "debunker" so that we could have more fun in this thread. Sadly, I know the Bush Regime was fully involved.

Anyway, 2PacSade, I suspect it was less a matter of letting them do it, and more a matter of encouraging them to do it. And if they took action to stand NORAD down...they are fully complicit, and should be tried as traitors.

Originally posted by tuccy
One logical question: Why would the evil gubmint want to spoil all that extremely elaborate plan involving lots of people (none of which would speak) by demolishing a building that wasn't hit?

the building was completely full of records which were being used to build cases against worldcom, enron et al., the very financial cabal that bush is buddies with; the late "kenny boy" lay and fiends.
let's assume that a third plane was supposed to hit tower seven, but that it was accidently shot down by a gung ho trigger happy patriot.

or perhaps the pilots regained control from the globalhawk-style autoguidance system, and so the plane had to be shot down, before it could land and evidence a distinct lack of arab hijackers.

why do YOU suppose the famous video of tower seven falling at freefall acceleration is NEVER shown on television? they get guys like fetzer or jones on mainstream teevee, and despite REPEATED requests to show the video, the video is NEVER shown. why? if there is nothing to hide, why don't the majority of people even KNOW that wtc7, or tower seven as i like to call it, fell AT ALL?
if there is nothing to hide, why did the 911commission just OMIT testimony they didn't like?
how could they pass off a drill that EXACTLY mimicked the REAL ATTACK as 'coincidence', while con do liar rice is saying, "no one ever thought that hijackers would do that".

the official story is ludicrous, and as time goes by, it becomes more obvious as the liars try and cover there tracks.

Bump. This debunk of NIST is extremely important people.

Absolutely brilliant work WCIP......super...

This has stood for a month now with not one debunker giving it a go..

The only "gaping hole" left is in the Administrations "tower" of lies...


Thanks WCIP for putting this together



[edit on 10/16/2006 by TONE23]

[edit on 10/16/2006 by TONE23]

w0w...

great work!!!

thanks for sharing...

Originally posted by Griff
Bump. This debunk of NIST is extremely important people.

I agree 100%
Where are all the believers of the official 9-11 story....the ones that believe our govt would never lie.....the ones that believe the govt would never commit any terrorist act against its own citizens.....the ones that believe that taking our rights away and gutting the bill of rights is all in our best interest beacuse the govt would never come after you if you have done nothing wrong.........the ones that believe the govt is protecting us from those evil terrorist who live in caves half way around the world.....the ones that believe that those who question the official story are either morons or terrorist supporters...where are they?



[edit on 16-10-2006 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I agree 100%
Where are all the believers of the official 9-11 story....the ones that believe our govt would never lie.

That's the biggest one right there. Our government (NIST included) has been caught in an out and out lie with this one. Any official story believer care to join in the conversation? Or would admitting that NIST has been caught in a lie open up the can of worms that you guys have been trying to avoid? If NIST is capable of lying, then so are all the other government agencies. Where are the people who keep saying "it would take thousands of people to cover this up"...well, guess what....millions of dollars later and thousands of people in NIST have done exactly that.

Where are the people who keep saying "it would take thousands of people to cover this up"...well, guess what....millions of dollars later and thousands of people in NIST have done exactly that.

Its amazing the things people will do for money.....I've heard some would even sell their soul to the devil for some cash......so how hard could it be to keep your mouth shut for a few greenbacks?

I’ve been staying away from the 9/11 threads, because life’s too short to spend it in endless argument with those who believe in the CT’s.

However, I have two questions for WCIP:

1) How can you be sure that there is no hole located in the area obscured by smoke? If there was a fire in this area, then the smoke would be coming out that hole, would it not?

2) Are you absolutely sure you are counting the columns in your photo and not the window mullions? Note the large span between columns on the south face as compared to the other faces. I am not sure that the window spacing lines up with the columns on the south face.

I wouldn't assume that NIST is knowingly lying, I think they've simply been given the unenvious task of making observations fit a preformed conclusion. $0.02

I notice that the guy who runs debunking911 has updated his site in direct response to my post here - even using my image - with lots of frothing and spittling at the mouth, ranting at the evil, moronic conspiracy theorists. But weed through all that crud and the meat of his argument (having completely backtracked on his insistence that the hole in the Spak photo is indeed the center hole) is that the alleged building-destroying hole is now hiding behind the mezzanine in the photo. But the fact remains:

1. The eye witness statements clearly illustrate that the corner damage and the south face hole are one and the same when reconciled with Spak's picture and the picture of the corner damage from behind the building.

2. NIST did not have access to Spak's photograph until recently (in fact the DB911 guy sent it to them) and I'm sure their assessment of the south face hole, based solely on eye witness reports, would have been closer to reality if they had seen it earlier. Comparing the size of NIST's damage blobs with the photographic evidence now available, it's clear that they misinterpreted the reports.

The rest of his argument is basically:

a) NIST must be holding more photgraphic evidence up their sleeve.

b) It is not unreasonable for NIST to make mistakes because they weren't there and are basing their assessment on eye witness reports and photographs, so therefore their original assessment must be right anyway. (And if you can figure that one out, you're better than me.)

and c) Something about transformers on the mechanical level being the achilles heel of the building, crashing into the lobby and causing the building to collapse at free fall rate.

Then he makes more attempts to imply that people are claiming the firefighters are lying, when the firefighters' testimony in fact debunks NIST's claims, and one firefighter's testimony (the 20 storey hole inthe center of the face) is erroneous as proven by Spak's photo. Refer to the eye witness reports in my original post and you'll see I never claimed the firefighters are "lying" - quite the opposite in fact.

Another firefighter's testimony appeared to debunk NIST and Debunking911.com's claim of a 10 storey hole in the center of the south face from the lobby up (and falling transformers). The firefighters pulled a few last stragglers out of WTC7 after WTC1 collapsed, and they clearly stated there was no heavy debris in the lobby, only white dust and some hanging wires. The testimony seems to have dissappeared from the web, but it's repeated right there in the NISt report:

wtc.nist.gov...

I'll be interested to see what NIST comes out with in their final report and if they have any other photos, but for now it appears they made a mistake.








[edit on 2006-10-16 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
2) Are you absolutely sure you are counting the columns in your photo and not the window mullions? Note the large span between columns on the south face as compared to the other faces. I am not sure that the window spacing lines up with the columns on the south face.

Howard,

Count the amount of granite spandrels on the picture of the southwest corner damage on the west face. There are 16. There were 16 columns on that face. I would wager that the spandrels were indead lined up with the columns....at least on the west face.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
1) How can you be sure that there is no hole located in the area obscured by smoke? If there was a fire in this area, then the smoke would be coming out that hole, would it not?

There may well be a hole there, but if there is, it's apparent from the photos and the eye witness accounts that it is not the massive hole claimed by NIST. The southwest corner and the alleged massive hole are the same. Furthermore, the NIST report and the firefighter testimony states "no heavy debris in the lobby", as I showed above.

2) Are you absolutely sure you are counting the columns in your photo and not the window mullions? Note the large span between columns on the south face as compared to the other faces. I am not sure that the window spacing lines up with the columns on the south face.

Good question. Actually, it was the assumption that those were window mullions which threw me in the beginning, because of how many there are it then throws the perspective all out. It was only once I realized that those are the columns behind the destroyed windows that the perspective all fit into place. My process of working out the perspectives and distances is outlined clearly, so if you can show that I made an error, please provide a redux. Regardless, the edges of the building are clear, so even if you simply used those, ignored the columns, and divided the face into 14 equal parts, the result would be the same if less accurate.

HowardRoarke

I’ve been staying away from the 9/11 threads, because life’s too short to spend it in endless argument with those who believe in the CT’s.

Your right.. life as you know it is probably going to be MUCH shorter than you anticipate. When the Constitution is gone because of people like you who refuse to pull your heads out of the sand these threads you have been staying away from will not even be here, so you definitely will not have to worry about that!

Also,

I was just listening to Bill Maher rant and rave about what a disgrace all these 'cters' are and how we all just hate our country and blah blah blah. Two of his favorite tactics is to say 'prove it' and 'how could the government cover up it's complicity in 911.. Well Mr Maher, why don't you prove without a doubt that the 911 fantasy cooked up by our government is true? Can't do that can he? But on to the important part... (Perhaps a thread should be started on this)

How could the government cover up (or try to) it's complicity in 911? Consider some of the MASSIVE projects it has covered up in the past: A couple of examples:

1: Project Jennifer:

web.ukonline.co.uk...

We basically built a ship with a HUGE crane at it's center to steal a russian nuclear submarine that had sank in over 3 miles of water!.. Now.. how many people were involved with that operation? how was it covered up?..

The Russians themselves couldn't locate their own submarine but we did.. How? With THIS:

2: SOSUS or sound surveillance system deployed back during the cold war:

www.fas.org...

www.jyi.org...


These are only a couple of example of things that were kept secret by the government but later brought to light and declassified.

The list goes on and on.


So before all you anti-cters keep bleating about how the goverment couldn't have POSSIBLY covered up any complicity in 911, please save yourself (and US who know better) the trouble.





[edit on 16-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]

Does anyone have a picture of the south face of WTC7 pre 9/11? So we can see if the mullions did line up with the columns or not. I'm searching myself, but I keep getting 9/11 CT sites and such.

Edit: This is the only one I've found so far. You can't really see though.

upload.wikimedia.org...

[edit on 10/16/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 10/16/2006 by Griff]

Do these help any, Griff?







(Btw, added them to the image library for you.)

Looks like a column every four or five windows to me.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by bsbray11]

Yes, BsBray they helped alot. Especially the second picture. It doesn't show the full face and I counted 26 mullions. So, now we know that there were way more mullions than columns. Conclusion, those are the columns of the south face and not the window mullions.

Also, notice that the mullions in your photos are either flush with the face or are protruded out. Then look at the original pic of this thread and notice that the columns are definately on the interior of the granite spandrels.

Edit: My mistake, I was looking at it wrong. Those are granite spandrels not glass spandrels. I was wondering why the window glass would break and not the spandrel glass. Obviously because they were granite spandrel panels and not glass spandrel panels.

[edit on 10/16/2006 by Griff]

Look again, all the windows are missing. I think that is a fairly good indication of sever damage right there.

At best you can see four or five of the columns on the west side of the south face.

Since the smoke obscures the rest of the building, then I would say it would be safe to assume that the smoke is coming from the damaged area on the east half of the south face.

I’m not sure that this analysis proves anything.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Look again, all the windows are missing. I think that is a fairly good indication of sever damage right there.

Window damage does not equate to structural damage.

At best you can see four or five of the columns on the west side of the south face.

Actually, I can't see any on the west side?

Since the smoke obscures the rest of the building, then I would say it would be safe to assume that the smoke is coming from the damaged area on the east half of the south face.

Either I or you are getting the east and west mixed up. Because the damage is on the west side of the south face...i.e the south-west corner damage.

I’m not sure that this analysis proves anything.

It proves that the NIST blobs are not correct.

Great work, wecomeinpeace! It took my thick brain a while to finally figure it all out, what all you have here, but once I got it--wow! It is a great discovery! You have definitely put a shot across the bow of NIST.

Their drawing (and inferences flowing from it) are wrong!

Your point about the damage now being away from column 80 and the others is marvelous work. They've got to be scrambling anew right now!

WTC7--the finest, classically controlled demolition we're ever likely to see in our lifetime!

I'd give you a cigar if I smoked! Thanks, wcip!