posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 04:03 AM
Originally posted by bsbray11
I don't think this is undeniable at all. The only confirmed damage is the SW corner damage (aside from scrapes on the roof, etc.), which was away
from any important structural components anyway. The rest of the building was perfectly fine
Sorry but this is simply not realistic. The Steve Spak photograph shows us more of the damage to the South side of the building than I've seen
before but even this photograph shows only about 30% of the total South face and almost two thirds of that area is either damaged or totally obscured
The damage to the corner is severe - not to the extent that it would compromise the whole building but still significant. Neither you or I can say
whether there was further damage in the parts we cannot see but neither can we have any confidence that there wasn't particularly as there is eye
witness testimony from firefighters to say that such damage was there.
Captain Chris Boyle's view...
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in
the middle of it.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden...
we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we
had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three
floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
except where there was fire, which was apparently not very widespread in the building. At least, there are no photos, or no other evidence of
intense widespread fire.
Sorry once again but this is simply not true.
Captain Chris Boyle says...
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7
there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look
and Deputy Chief Peter Hayden says...
It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn?t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to
and FF Steve Modica...
Buildings were burning, 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
they were TOLD it was going to come down.
Yes, they were told by their own people because it had been clear for some time that the building was compromised - look again at the first quote from
Peter Hayden above.
...it fell at free-fall speed. Don't even bring up the penthouse
I don't know about you but I'm yet to see a single video of the collapse that shows the ground level so how anybody is supposed to be able to tell
me how long it took to fall to the ground is something of a mystery. If you have the video link I'll be pleased to look at it. By the way, who
did your free fall speed calculations?
Nothing like it, even remotely, has EVER happened outside of controlled demolition.
More relevantly, (and more accurately), nothing like it has happened as a result of a controlled demolition. If this was a controlled demolition
WTC7 would be twice as tall as any other building brought down in this way - a remarkable feat in the circumstances. But this wasn't a controlled
demolition, don't take my word for it, read the analysis by a demolition professional who wrote this piece...
Implosion World Paper
edit to correct the html - thanks thickheaded - don't know what I was thinking of...
[edit on 18-10-2006 by timeless test]