Photographic Analysis of the WTC7 Hole - NIST Debunked, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 17-10-2006 @ 12:32 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by timeless test
What is undeniable, however, is that severe damage to the building was done prior to its collapse


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 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.

and the firefighter interviews on firehouse.com also make it clear that not only had large fires burned in the building for some hours, but the firefighters were fully expecting the building to collapse from quite an early stage in the afternoon.


This is because they were TOLD it was going to come down. Police and civilian medics were also told, ie medic Indira Singh.


And again, we're brushing away the most obvious problem in my mind: it fell at free-fall speed. Don't even bring up the penthouse: that only affects collapse time, not velocity at any given point. Time is only used to measure velocity; the two are otherwise unrelated.

The building fell as if it were experiencing ABSOLUTELY NO RESISTANCE FROM TONS OF STEEL AND CONCRETE. Free-fall, straight down into the path of absolute maximum resistance, into a stack in its footprint.

They could have planted charges all over that building and it would STILL take a tremendous amount of skill and coordination to have that happen. Nothing like it, even remotely, has EVER happened outside of controlled demolition.


reply posted on 18-10-2006 @ 04:03 AM by timeless test
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 by smoke.

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.
www.firehouse.com...


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.
www.firehouse.com...



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 good.
www.firehouse.com...


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 lose
www.firehouse.com...


and FF Steve Modica...
Buildings were burning, 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
www.firehouse.com...



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]


reply posted on 18-10-2006 @ 04:08 AM by ThichHeaded
I have nothing to contribute to this thread abut the guy above me.

its not an [ext] mark you want its an [ ex] stuff [/ ex] without the spaces

EXAMPLE HERE:

Yours
Captain Chris Boyle says...
[ext]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 good.
www.firehouse.com...
[/ext]

Mine

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 good.
www.firehouse.com...



Anyway just helping.. I already added my 2 cents earlier on in this post.


reply posted on 18-10-2006 @ 06:25 AM by wecomeinpeace
www.firehouse.com...
...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.
[...]
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: 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.


As I pointed out in the original post, Boyle's account of a 20-storey hole in the middle of the south face is flat out disproven by this photo:



The middle of the face has no 20-storey hole in it. If you insist that one is there, please point out to us precisely where it is by editing the image. The only 20-storey anything here is the damage to the south west corner which extends across at one point to column 5. Boyle either visually interpreted the location of the hole incorrectly at the time, or his later recollection from memory was incorrect. Boyle's account is also the ONLY account which mentions a hole in the middle of the south face - all other accounts describe the damage as being on the south west corner, or do not specify a location.




[edit on 2006-10-18 by wecomeinpeace]


reply posted on 18-10-2006 @ 08:18 AM by timeless test
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
As I pointed out in the original post, Boyle's account of a 20-storey hole in the middle of the south face is flat out disproven by this photo:


As it happens, I'm inclined to partly agree with you I suspect Boyle's account has over simplified what he saw. If, for example there was 6 or 7 floors of damage centrally on the South face which extended into the many floors of the SW corner damage, (which is unquestionably represented incorrectly by NIST), would he describe it in full detail or simply refer to it as 20 floors of damage? My guess is he gave a simplistic summary of what he saw and I certainly wouldn't rule out that under the circumstances his memory may not have been entirely accurate with regard to the detail either.

Boyle's account is also the ONLY account which mentions a hole in the middle of the south face


Not strictly true, Deputy Chief Nick Visconti said...
I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side
www.firehouse.com...


I'll grant you that he doesn't talk about this being in the centre of the South face but the clear implication of this statement is that there is very significant damage on the lower floors, which would be out of the view of Spak's photograph.

You are dead right, there is no 20 storey hole in your photograph and I've never suggested that there is but there is an awful lot of the South face not visible in that photograph.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by timeless test]

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 13 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 6 days ago with 12 member flags
Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as \'denialism\'
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 7 days ago with 6 member flags