Photograph of the Much-Debated WTC7 South Face Hole

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
debunking911.com has obtained the (to-date) only known photograph of the hole in the south face of WTC7 created by falling debris from the collapse of WTC1.

I won't reproduce the full image here on ATS because it is currently copyrighted, so here is the link:

www.debunking911.com...

I think it would be a productive exercise to start a discussion and analysis of this photo, since the debate over the size of the hole, the alleged fires raging in it, and its contribution to the collapse of the building is a critical point. I don't have the time at the moment to do an in-depth analysis, so I'll start this thread and see what we can figure out about it together.

So, how high is it? How wide is it? Where on the face is it located? Why is the smoke so white and "clean-looking"? Where was the picture taken from? How tall is the mezzanine blocking the view? What effect does perspective have on the perceived heights and size of the hole? What else can we learn from this photo?




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I really wish we could have a clearer image than this.

I think it's safe to assume we're looking at the back side of the building. That was the side facing the rest of the complex and we have seen the front of WTC7 in plenty of photos.



That suggests we're looking at the Verizon Building on the left, and WTC6 on the right. WTC7 would be on the left, behind the Verizon Building.

Here is WTC5 and WTC6 looking down the same street from the opposite angle, after WTC7's collapse:



More of WTC6, from FEMA:



I'm pressed for time, but something about this photo doesn't sit right with me. It looks as though WTC5 is on the right, not WTC6. I may be wrong, but it really does look like WTC5. What does this suggest about the position of the photographer, and the building he's photographing?

I'll be back later to take another look.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Nah, that has to be WTC6 on the left.


WTC6 is hard to find information on, but that hole would definitely be placed low on WTC7 (~3rd floor, upwards an unknown amount of floors, about 8 or 9 floors can be assumed to be damaged at least somwhat, imo). Hard to see its height from the smoke, and hard to make out a general width for obstruction.

If you follow the high, upper-left corner of WTC7 down, you can get a general idea of where that corner of the building was. If you look about "Steve Spak", you'll see a patch of sky, signifying that WTC7 no longer extended laterally there. It also seems like you can make out a clear vertical edge on the left side of that patch of sky.

Based on the above, we may be able to get an idea of where exactly this hole would be on the face. It looks to me to be a little more towards one side of the face than centered near the middle. This is hard to judge too, but at least we may be able to get some idea from the photo.

So there appears to have been a gash low on the back face of the building, closer to the Verizon Building, of at least 8 or 9 floors with at least some damage, and indeterminate width. If we had a better photo we'd be able to establish a lot more, I think. But maybe someone else can get more info out of the above.

Let's put this in perspective, too.



That's the Bankers Trust Building. Damaged by the WTC Tower collapses.

Here's WTC5:





WTC5 was not a skyscraper. It had much thinner columns than WTC7, and was no doubt less over-engineered. It was constructed with similar materials. It was severely damaged by both debris and fire and yet only suffered very localized collapses. WTC5 had to be demolished in the clean-up.

What still needs to be established, as NIST is attempting, is how scattered patches of fire and a localized gash lead to this:



Obviously, fire and debris damage does not automatically lead to free-fall global (or even extensive local) collapse, as WTC5 shows. How anything other than controlled demolition could lead a building to free-fall global collapse, under its own weight, is beyond physics.

Massive steel columns, concrete, etc., provide resistance to falling objects. That is just irreconcilable fact. Resistance will be provided. Free fall can only be achieved when resistance is prevented.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
i was just thinking how oddly perfect EVERYTHING seems to fall down. IMO one of two things happened:

1) Government conspiracy

or

2) A terrorist attack that was on a much larger scale than we thought (highly coordinated demolition of key economic buildings amde to look like splatter damage from the collapse of the two main towers) and our government is too dumb to figure it out or doesnt want to admit the terrorists had such an elaborate plot

[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by misguidedprophet

2) A terrorist attack that was on a much larger scale than we thought (highly coordinated demolition of key economic buildings amde to look like splatter damage from the collapse of the two main towers) and our government is too dumb to figure it out or doesnt want to admit the terrorists had such an elaborate plot

[edit on 16-8-2006 by misguidedprophet]


If 2 is true, then that is the scariest thing I've ever heard of. Just think, America not having that much intelligence and strength to Secure us.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   
WCIP I am skeptical of a lot of the photo's of WTC 7 realised by NIST.

Couldn't we have someone who is an expert in analysing photo's invited to AboveTopSecret?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   
The gap they speak of exists on ONE side of the building, the more reason to
believe it would topple over and not drop dead top to bottom....

And, it fell EXACTLY into its own footprint, go figure..

[edit on 16-8-2006 by zren]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Alephaeis,

The photo wasn't released by NIST. It was taken and published by a freelance photographer. As for your suspicions of NIST, I shouldn't imagine that they would outright manipulate photographs. They have in the past altered the intensity levels on some photos of the WTC fires making them look more severe and hotter than they really were, but they usually state when they have done so.


Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Couldn't we have someone who is an expert in analysing photo's invited to AboveTopSecret?

That would be great, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. If you know someone, then please invite them here. We can gauge the approximate width of the hole by comparing it to the windows visible on the face and then comparing that to how many windows were across the south face. But there are some weird perspectives in the photo.

I'd also like to know what this dark, square area is.



It looks like a structure of some sort. Was there a connecting bridge structure over the street between WTC7 and the mezzanine, as seems to be indicated in this graphic?






[edit on 2006-8-16 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
"They have in the past altered the intensity levels on some photos of the WTC fires making them look more severe and hotter than they really were, but they usually state when they have done so. "

Sure, first they falsify data and then in a footnote they let you know?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Offtopic WCIP:

Isn't it true they claim that none of the core columns were severed?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
It is odd that on the "edge" of the hole in the wtc7 pic the building materials are bent OUTWARDS.

This could indicate many things, all speculatory, but when the police investigate a break in or similiar crime, they look for clues of an insurance or inside job by looking at things like this. "Which way did the broken glass fall?", Etc.

Looks like it was blasted outwards on the upper right edge to me.

Also, are we certain that that is the face of WTC7... It just does not look right to me but since so few photos seem to exist, EXCEPT ON A "DEBUNKER" site, it is hard for me to tell.

I alos believe that the damage we are looking at, if it is WTC7 is to the SW corner, bot the face. Look further up the building and see where the edge is.

Considering the timing and source of the photo it is hard to put too much faith into it.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It looks like a structure of some sort. Was there a connecting bridge structure over the street between WTC7 and the mezzanine, as seems to be indicated in this graphic?



[edit on 2006-8-16 by wecomeinpeace]


Interesting how he does not tell where the phot was shot from. Looks from this photo:

www.pastpeak.com... Seems like we are looking at the SIDE (look at the dividers between the wndows) NOT THE FRONT if it is WTC 7.

I think we are definitly looking at the corner damage and not damage to the face.

Here: www.kolumbus.fi...

Is another photo of the corner damage... interesting... I see no infernos ON ANY FLOORS from this side. I have seen "inferno" pictures and I am amazed I cannot even see a single flame in this picture.

COMPARE THE PICTURES... the first one on this page does not even appear to be the front of WTC 7 (look at the dividers between the windows)...

Is THIS a photo of the FRONT of the building? www.prisonplanet.com...

Because from an overhead shot I do not think it could be the back:
www.pastpeak.com...


Someone with a better idea of what the are looked like please figure out where the photog was standing. PLease?


[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I received an email reply from the photographer, Steve Spak, granting permission to repost the image here on ATS. Steve's website has more photos of 9/11, as well as photos taken at the scene of the 1993 WTC bombing and other disasters. Here's the link to his site: www.stevespak.com...

======================================================

I think you may be right, Slap Nuts. Allowing for the gap between the buildings and the facade of the Verizon being slightly south of WTC7, that places the top floor of the first mezzanine of the Verizon building about level with the 14th floor of WTC7.




The damage to the SW corner of WTC7 was from the 18th floor down:




I'm thinking that this soot 'smudge'...



...is this one at the 22nd floor:




So if we're correct, then this is not a photograph of the hole in the center of the face of WTC7. It is the corner.



Remember that due to perspective and the Verizon being situated further south relative to the face of WTC7, it appears in the photo that the Verizon mezzanine is only about 3 floors below the smudge. This is not the case.

I'd still like to know what that solid, square area is that appears to bridge over to WTC7 from the south.

[edit on 2006-8-18 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   
AT first I was thinking... because this photo appears to have been shot FROM ON OR "BEHIND" WTC6 from an angle, I think you are seeing the Post office in the backgroud WCIP.

Then, I looked at the map again and it does on make sense.

The south face of "WTC 7" seems FAR TOO SHORT IN LENGTH and I think the picture is docrtored but I AM NOT an EXPERT but I DO NOT THINK you should see htat patch of blue sky. the REST of WTC 7 should be there.

Maybe it was UNDAMAGED so it was photoshopped out?

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
If you watch this episode of this show on the History channel whenever its on...... which is never. They go on to talk about how the building fell.

Supposvily it was built on top of a substation and the way it was built wasnt such a freat idea. When the towers fell it caused floors 5 to 7 to fail near this area and then it fell straight down. supposively.

But they go into detail on the part where they didnt get a chance to study the building cause they moved it and so on.

I am not going on this idea I am just saying what they said.



www.indybay.org...
The clip summarises the following:

- WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane, but still collapsed after fires burned for 7 hours.
- It was engineered to cantilever over the Con Edison electricity substation.
- Debris, falling from tower one, caused damage and subsequent fires.
- Diesel fuel for emergency generators was stored in the building.
- Initial failure occured somewhere between floors 5 and 7.
- Floors 5 and 7 housed the transfer trusses for the cantilevers.
- The remains of WTC7 were quickly removed to aid rescue.
- Sprinkler systems were damaged.
- Fireman were pulled from the building to help with the rescue of people from the twin towers.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Ohhh... It is all to obvious that the NIST report will say:

1. Damage from falling debris to the face of WTC7 caused a "Massive Crater" and "broke" the "cantaliever truss" system. (No photos exist of course)

2. Started "RAGING INFERNOS" aided by diesel. (All diesel recovered except a few hundred gallons) (No photos of infernos of course)

3. Heated the damaged (in undocumented step one) "Cantaliever" system weakining it. (Evidence long gone so no seeing the damaged/failed trusses... of course)

4. Global, neat, high speed collapse ensued hours later.

5. Squibs are a figment of your imigination.

6. It did not fall towards the damaged side (tree chopping) becase we only study up to "collapse initiation... the rest is unimportant.

I am CERTAIN this will be the official story. That is why I want to see the "MASSIVE CRATER" and "RAGING INFERNOS". Also, real blueprints would be nice instead of some random drawings.

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 18-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You're right again, SN. That is the post office, which further confirms that the smudge is the same 22nd floor smudge in both photos. This photo shows the roof of the PO was about level with WTC7 20th floor.



Which puts the smudge in this photo at about the same height.



No doubt about it, that's the SW corner damage, not the south face hole.

I also agree that perspective is weird in that shot. Looking at the width of the windows, it seems that the south face should go much deeper into the photograph. But I don't think it's a photoshop job, I think it's just a trick of perspective.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
No doubt about it, that's the SW corner damage, not the south face hole.


Thanks for your help on the photos WCIP. Nice comparison graphics also.

So am I still safe to say that the board has NEVER seen a picture of the "massive crater" in the FACE of WTC7?

Does this photo show that the "massive crater" did not exist if we are looking at the whole face?

Somethign still strikes me as very wrong with the length of the face of the building in this photo.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
That's a good catch. The damage was definitely not centered as it would be via NIST, but that smudge gives it away. That's definitely the corner damage.

What are the chances that this is also the roughly 20-story gash reported by firefighters?





new topics
 
0

log in

join