Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Not to mention that the smoke from the fire never really allowed cameras to capture the full extent of damage. Only glimpses, and I can tell you from those glimpses (when the smoke cleared momentarily) the South face of WTC 7 was badly damaged.


Question. How can you tell me, when you even say that the smoke only allowed glimpses. Have you seen videos or photos that I haven't? Or were you there to report said damage? Do you know the difference between structural damage and cosmetic damage? I ask that not as a smart ass but as a serious question.


The uninformed always want to look at the "backside" of WTC 7 to assess damage. Those that peddle WTC 7 Conspiracy theories never/rarely show the South face of WTC 7-- Reminiscent of an unscrupulous used car salesman who stands in front of a badly damaged section of a car he is trying to sell, while saying the vehicle is in good condition with just a couple of "scratches, and dings." Constantly trying to keep the potential buyer from seeing the "bad parts" and downplaying them, or changing the subject when they do see.


I don't know what this has to do with the thread except to ridicule people and start a flame war. Especially since we are talking about photos of the South Facade in this thread.


Because of the extent of the damage-- The firefighters weren't looking at WTC 7 from a camera 10 blocks to the North. They were on the ground at its base, and I have come to the informed conclusion that the firefighters were able to assess a badly damaged and rapidly deteriorating building standing within feet of them.


Yet, at the more damaged towers, they were inept and couldn't tell that they would collapse? I mean no disrespect to the firefighters there.


WTC 7 was known to have been cleared of human life before its collapse. If you were a firefighter and you knew there might be trapped people still alive in say the rubble of WTC 1 or under the caved in roof of WTC 6..Where would you concentrate your efforts--provided you only had the water to do one or the other?


Good reasoning and I can turn it around on you. As you say, why would they concentrate efforts somewhere else when there could be survivors in WTC 1. Well, why did they clear out WTC 7 so fast, when there could have been survivors in WTC 1 still?




posted on May, 15 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I cant say for certain that NIST "over estimated". They are showing from a top view. I believe the photos that show the damage at the 48th floor shows wider damage.


You might be correct. But, what does that damage have to do with the bottom-up demolition of the building?



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
what about the fires too. Massive smoke equals massive fire. Extreme fire + structural damage, again i doubt it was one thing or one event that brought it down, it was multiple factors, maybe even a partial demo, will we ever know for sure, i doubt it, but keep up the good discussions.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Question. How can you tell me, when you even say that the smoke only allowed glimpses. Have you seen videos or photos that I haven't?


I do not know what footage or reading you have done...so it is a bit difficult for me to answer that.


Or were you there to report said damage? Do you know the difference between structural damage and cosmetic damage? I ask that not as a smart ass but as a serious question.


I was not there, I watched live the entire day. I do know the difference between structural and cosmetic damage, just as I know the difference between a few scratches and dings, from a buckled quaterpanel.


I don't know what this has to do with the thread except to ridicule people and start a flame war. Especially since we are talking about photos of the South Facade in this thread.


Sorry if you took it that way..I was just stating my opinion on the way that information on this subject is usually spread; resulting in posts like ----THIS: --"Videos of WTC 7 collapse. It didn't partially crumple down onto a broken corner, it collapsed symetrically and directly into its own footprint - just like buildings do when they are deliberately and scientifically demolished, ONLY like buildings do when they are deliberately and scientifically demolished, only when someone has said PULL IT!"--

I am glad we are looking at the other side of the building now--finally. But that post was in this very thread.


Yet, at the more damaged towers, they were inept and couldn't tell that they would collapse? I mean no disrespect to the firefighters there.



The South Tower-- Collapse wasn't anticipated by Firefighters. (Remember at this point none had collapsed) Captain Oreo Palmer reached the 78th floor of the South Tower to relay the first and only account of a damage assesment to be made on the upper levels of WTC 2. Captain Palmer was in the skylobby two stories below the intense fires. The building collapsed moments later. I think at that point all Firefighters were much more aware of the severity of the damage and the volitile danger of their surroundings.



Good reasoning and I can turn it around on you. As you say, why would they concentrate efforts somewhere else when there could be survivors in WTC 1. Well, why did they clear out WTC 7 so fast, when there could have been survivors in WTC 1 still?


Because WTC 7 was on fire. I am assuming you are taling about AFTER WTC 1 had fallen?



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Inannamute's page has many shots trying to show the gouge, and indeed the building was pouring smoke all day as far as I can see. There've only been the few clearer shots published, which isn't to say there weren't times it was clearer and not photographed.
Pretty standard example:

Seems the wind was blowing south, huh? If there are any clearer shots I'd love to see them.

This might be one:

If so, it's between about column lines 5 and 6 as the gouge higher up, and runs down to at least floor 7, way more than 20 feet! I thought this was the corner damage, but pretty sure it shows both corner and gouge damage.

Big Q: We're told 7 was evacuated before collapse, but how about before this debris pummeling? If it was as deep as the NIST says and caused those firs throughout the building, I'd expect some dead folk. Any reports?

Inannamute posted this elsewhere:

12.10-12.15 Noon - Firefighters rescue three people trapped in WTC7. Two of these had gone to the 23rd floor before 10AM, but been trapped around the sixth floor by smoke and debris caused by WTC1 collapse at 10.28AM.


edit to add second pic


[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Caustic Logic





Thanks for posting this. You can see where again NIST has overestimated the damage. Count the column lines. The damage is between column line 5 and 6 from the s-w corner. This is the little "box" that NIST has shown in their sketch. Now, where is the rest of the damage that they show? I don't see any (at least worth mentioning structurally).


Looking closer at the slide I see the discrepancy. It's huge. Are they implying the whole face was scooped out that wide and deep? For how many floors? Which floors? The other shot from the bottom shows about the same gouge at CL 5-6 down to floor 7, and the area to the east of that seems intact down there too (see poat above here, Steve Spack pic). If that area has intact walls, how did WTC debris get inside to damage the building?

This does not add up.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   

At a casual glance, Spak's image would seem to confirm Boyle's testimony of a huge hole in the middle of the the south face, however a closer analysis reveals that the damage we see is actually located on the extreme west side of the south face and joins with the south west corner. The hole in the south face described by some eye witnesses (used by NIST as the basis for damage estimation) and the south west corner damage are one and the same, thereby placing the hole far from columns 79 - 80 and thus invalidating NIST's collapse hypothesis.


See figure 6 on this page for the actual location of the new photo.
www.studyof911.com...

Add the survival of the pedestrian bridge after WTC1's collapse, and the fact that the mechanical penthouse (housing the vents and elevator winches) is gone within a second of the collapse starting, which is even used to indicate the severity of the lower-level damage, and not only doesn't this add-up... it reeks to high heaven.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
In studying Aman Zafar's apparently docotred photo (see my breakthrough post on this).


The relevance here is that we can see at about the 18th floor level a sharp-edged patch of black a few columns in. Is this another glimpse? Did the unseen gouge run roof-to-ground? What do you guys think?

(BTW the fakery I suspect here is in the absence of corner damage at the 18th floor level and below, as explained in this thread. All else is presumably correct)

PS can anyone place a time on this shot? When it was snapped?



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

...the damage we see is actually located on the extreme west side of the south face and joins with the south west corner.

www.studyof911.com...


I think he's wrong. This is at about the same column line is an the gouges seen above and the NIST slide, just scan up the lines, it's about 1/3 across the face - that's not extreme southwest. The corner damage is also visible, and they may sort of merge at that point. hard to tell with the smoke.


Add the survival of the pedestrian bridge after WTC1's collapse, and the fact that the mechanical penthouse (housing the vents and elevator winches) is gone within a second of the collapse starting, which is even used to indicate the severity of the lower-level damage, and not only doesn't this add-up... it reeks to high heaven.


That it stil does.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Here's a photo of what I take to be the North elevation, please correct me if I'm wrong, which seems to show fires limited to the 7th and 12th floors and little if any debris damage. Wouldn't this alone seem to indicate that any damage to the South elevation would have needed to be even deeper in order to account for the catastrophic failure of the entire support structure of the building?



Also, the same film that the capture above came from supplied an explanation of what is so freaky in the Naudet Bros. film taken in the lobby prior to and during the collapse. Where has all the dust and blast damage visible in the lobby come from? A plane impact 80 stories up in a building built to be hermetically sealed???



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Has anyone heard any dates that NIST will have it's report done on WTC7? Also, what if their data adds up...what if the evidence, proof, mathmatical calculations are all correct? Will the truth movement say..ok...WTC-7 was legit...or will everyone be screaming SHILLS! NWO COVER UP! ...etc.

I'm just curious.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I agree, had the GASH of been the reason for its downfall, it wouldnt of fallen so uniformly onto its footprint.

The building would of fallen in the area of the gash, dragging the outsides down if indeed there was enough damage and momentum.

The building fell evenly straight down... that gash didnt do it.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Big Q: We're told 7 was evacuated before collapse, but how about before this debris pummeling? If it was as deep as the NIST says and caused those firs throughout the building, I'd expect some dead folk. Any reports?


I hadn't thought of this angle before. Very good question. Was 7 evacuated before the collapse of tower 2 or tower 1? I would imagine that it would have been evacuated before tower 1's collapse, which is the one that suppossedly did the damage.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Has anyone heard any dates that NIST will have it's report done on WTC7? Also, what if their data adds up...what if the evidence, proof, mathmatical calculations are all correct? Will the truth movement say..ok...WTC-7 was legit...or will everyone be screaming SHILLS! NWO COVER UP! ...etc.

I'm just curious.


I for one will accept it. They have to supply their data to be verified though. That means computer specs, calculations and drawings used for calculations. Think they will provide as much? Seeing as though they didn't for their report for 1 & 2, I wouldn't hold my breath.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Griff ~

Agreed, I doubt NIST will try to throw something half as*ed out there seeing that so many eyes are now on them. Well...thats what i am HOPING for.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
So far the PTB have loved mystery, notably the NIST. Whether they're hiding the damning truth to cover their asses or hiding the exonerating truth with the intent of feeding CTs that could be proved wrong, remians to be seen. I'm an apostle of permanent doubt, but allow myself relative certainty when evidence warrants. Whether they finally clear all this up or leave more unanswered we'll have to see.

No date for that report I saw - it had said "early 2007," and the site now says "The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available."
wtc.nist.gov...



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
It is amazing how people around here talk about this as if they were all structural engineers and experts on demolition and other related matters.

We have to remember that these were some of the tallest and biggest buildings in the world. The collapse of the WTC towers cannot be compared to any previous event. The damage suffered by WTC7 is part of this equation. A LOT of stuff fell down on WTC7 that day. Think about it...



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Netstriker
It is amazing how people around here talk about this as if they were all structural engineers


Since you are new here, I'll let ya know. I'm a civil engineer with emphysis on structural. But, I'm not saying listen to me. I could be wrong, I'm only human. Finding the answer for yourself is like fishing. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. I didn't quote it because I'm not sure if it's the direct quote. But hopefully you get the idea.



posted on May, 16 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I'd like to throw some props out to caustic and cameron on this thread. Griff, as well, for adding your counter-point. It seems to me that the more digging is done, the more the "truth" movement is going to have to face reality. The United States of America may not be the NWO juggernaut that the majority of the CT'ers assert that it is. The fact of the matter is quite simple, to me anyhow; we're the jock that got punched in the throat by the ugly kid in the back of the class that everyone made fun of.

As for the case for WTC7, I honestly believe it suffered critical damage; and no, I am not a structural engineer, but the fires that were obviously present (via the high smoke output from the building) plus the damage caused by the debris ejected into it makes a pretty good case for the failing of the tower. We just have no real comparable events such as this, historically. Hopefully NIST will crush the conspiracy theories with a concise report, so at least this part of the equation can be put to rest.



posted on May, 17 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by PartChimp
I'd like to throw some props out to caustic and cameron on this thread. Griff, as well, for adding your counter-point. It seems to me that the more digging is done, the more the "truth" movement is going to have to face reality. The United States of America may not be the NWO juggernaut that the majority of the CT'ers assert that it is. The fact of the matter is quite simple, to me anyhow; we're the jock that got punched in the throat by the ugly kid in the back of the class that everyone made fun of.


Thanks for the mention, but just to clarify, I am not an OCT debunker type. I just try to respond to evidence and be reasonable. The only way to fight the "NWO juggernaut" is with thruth, and so I look carefully at the evidence. Even if no buildings were demolished (still a skeptic and undecided), the PTB allowed the attack (by accident or design) and then benefitted greatly. This is suspicious and deserves scrutiny, and even if Loose Change et al are wrong on every bit of "hard proof" I'll still believe this until I see good enough reason to just accept the OCT and move on.

Peace.





top topics
 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join