WTC7 - 20 story gash

Not sure if this particular image has been brought up yet but I found it rather odd:



You see this 20 story hole outlined in yellow, perfectly straight and rectangular? This angle wasn't picked up by other cameras. What could of caused this, falling debris? One might conclude that it looks very clean cut and perhaps this is due to the architecture being particularly weak on this column.


Before the damage it looks like the face is very evenly designed, so the gash doesn't seem to correlate with the outside architecture if you dig. What do you folks make of this?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
What do you folks make of this?

Shadow of a neighboring building.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Insolubrious
What do you folks make of this?

Shadow of a neighboring building.

ha, is that a joke? If you are serious I am referring to the first picture, that can't be a shadow from another building.

It's a composite image made from two pictures pasted together. The "gash" is just the front of the building appearing again. I don't know why they would do that, but it seems obvious that's what they did.

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by Insolubrious
What do you folks make of this?

Shadow of a neighboring building.

ha, is that a joke? If you are serious I am referring to the first picture, that can't be a shadow from another building.

Maybe the footage has been altered.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
It's a composite image made from two pictures pasted together. The "gash" is just the front of the building appearing again. I don't know why they would do that, but it seems obvious that's what they did.

No the image is not pasted together its a single frame taken from a live broadcast, I will find the clip..

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
It's a composite image made from two pictures pasted together. The "gash" is just the front of the building appearing again. I don't know why they would do that, but it seems obvious that's what they did.

No the image is not pasted together its a single frame taken from a live broadcast, I will find the clip..

Check it out:

www.youtube.com...

Ok, I'll bite. Why does it say "composite image" at the top of the photo then?

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Ok, I'll bite. Why does it say "composite image" at the top of the photo then?

Don't know but watch the video link I just posted for you. It doesn't have that in the original footage.

You know in the 4 or whatever yrs i have been researching 9/11 I have never seen this video...

This leads one to think that its bogus...

Space Beam lady....... Hmmmmm.... Ya I think this video is as reliable as the story they are pushing...

[edit on 4/30/2007 by ThichHeaded]

The timing of this video's 'discovery' is significant.

Whilst it's always been clear that WTC-7 sustained some damage from the collapse of the North tower, the absence of visual evidence has kept us debating exactly how much.

Now, just a couple of months before the NIST report is due, we have the answer. Kind of convenient, I would say.

www.youtube.com...

I dont see no gash :S
and i dont see no fire threatening the structure of a building.

Looks like "debunking911" did a little photoshopping. Links to "debunking" sites photos SHOULD NOT be used as evidence here... get us a link to the ORIGINAL SOURCE.

Originally posted by eagle32I dont see no gash

Was there even a shot of the south face in that video?

This video of the collapse of the North Tower shows a sizeable chunk falling on to the south face of Building 7. It's clear that this will have caused considerable damage and could well be responsible for the 'gash' shown in the OP.

The videos are all of the opposite side. Meaning the side of the building facing AWAY from ground zero.
That is why we never get to see the alleged damage.

Still, in the videos from the undamaged side of the building, we can see the roof colapse on the left first. If this new video showing damage is photoshopped, then they photoshopped it on the wrong side. The side that they are saying is damaged is on the right side of the building, which would be inconsistent on the way the building collapsed.

Time to set a rebuttal.

www.studyof911.com...

An image not in the reports (Fig. 4) shows mild facade damage to the upper floors, as described in NIST's appraisal. Since the building collapsed from the bottom, this damage can be considered unimportant for determining possible trigger events for the collapse.

I am sure you have seen it..


[edit on 4/30/2007 by ThichHeaded]

I agree. This is old. The debris of the twin towers cause a hude gash in WTC7 which lead to the callaspe. There was a live video of a fireman saying that the building leaning and was going to callaspe, so everyone was evacuated. The term "Pull it" was use to pull everyone from the building, which some people confuse with "put it" meaning blow the building. In a recent appraisal prior to 911, the appraisal that there was a huge concern because of the integrity of the structure. Plus, it took over 12 secs for the building to fall, not 6 secs as some people may say w/ absolutely no proof showing it.

All the debunking you need for WTC7 can be found on this site. www.debunking911.com...

Originally posted by amfirst
All the debunking you need for WTC7 can be found on this site. www.debunking911.com...

How many times are you going to post a link to that POS site? Is it like your "debunking bible"?

I still ponder on this mysterious damage. Any takers?

Additionally if anyone has seen the latest interview of Larry Silverstein confronted over building 7 by the wearechange team, he refers to the antenna dropping and slicing through the facade. Do you think he was referring to said damage in the picture above?

Well for one i don't believe a falling antenna would create damage like this, its way to clean (unless perhaps it was superheated but it was found at ground level). Did the north tower antenna even drop on to 7? I thought it fell to the south. Second, If said damage is not what it's supposed to be (antenna) Larry mentioning it in the first place suggests to me the damage is actually highly suspicious, perhaps more suspicious than once thought (perhaps he has been challenged on this particular issue in private) thus Larry giving us an excuse for it? Why does he even say that! Very suspicious. He could of left that detail out but he chose to add it. Why?


Larry talks about Antenna, amongst other things (must see vid). It reminded me of the damage to 7, also watching the video below raises it once more.

So anyway, if the gash isn't the antenna then what is it? Random debris creating precise clean cut vertical damage? No way! A Hot knife through butter (superheated steel beam slicing the facade) maybe..

To be honest, to me it looks like one might expect from a directed energy weapon like a laser/maser. I must admit. Its just so clean and i am doubting explosives would do that unless perhaps the column that is missing was some how had only its supports removed or was never there to begin with. I don't think this damage even resembles the deutsches bank facade damage, that damage was chaotic in comparison.

I am quite surprised also, Judy Wood hasn't covered this on her site!




[edit on 1-4-2008 by Insolubrious]