| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Search for Building 7 South Side Photos and Video LC member replies; Kudo's to Ferric Oxide | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 08:29 PM (353 Views) | |
| DoYouEverWonder | Sep 20 2008, 03:22 PM Post #26 |
|
Seems the southside gash has gone the way of the dinosaur, along with the pancake collapse, that the same official mythers use to hug so tightly. |
 |
 
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Sep 20 2008, 03:30 PM Post #27 |
|
Even if the gash is real and not just a quick and dirty Photoshop job, it is more likely to be from the shadows cast from the surrounding buildings. Depending on the time of day there was a large shadow that crossed the front of the building normally. Falling steel beams and columns don't cut straight gashes into curtain walls.   In this picture, it looks like there are no windows on the lower half of the east wall. Light and shadow can do some strange things when they bounce off other buildings. Edited by DoYouEverWonder, Sep 20 2008, 03:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| arie | Oct 13 2008, 03:42 PM Post #28 |
|
There's no building around that would throw a shadow like that. Also, the gash is visible in the same spot on multiple images, is right below the roofline damage, and disappears behind the smoke. If it was a shadow, it would be visible on the smoke. Clearly the gash is there and real. Not that it matters much now, since NIST claims that WTC7 would have collapsed without any external damage at all. Now why would NIST hide the image for so long? Why does NIST hide the long straight gash in WTC7? (i wrote this in May 2007) A couple of weeks ago I posted some images and footage of what appeared to be a long straight gash in the south face of Building 7. It's visible from the roofline down to about the 20th floor. This footage was discovered in the 9/11 archive that was released by archive.org. The footage can be verified here A question that remained was why NIST has not shown any photographs of this gash. ABC, 11 september, 13:45 High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced) http://www.megaupload.com/?d=K4II5J2U Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced) http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WTJZ1C7G ABC, 11 september 13:54 High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced) http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BV2YB7GQ Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced) http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ZG8IYMGK     Different theories were proposed to explain how this damage occured and why NIST hadn't reproduced these images in their report. The figure below indicates that they were aware of it. Don't forget that NIST is still withholding thousands of photographs and videos from the public. The footage of the gash is no secret, it was broadcast live on September 11th by ABC News. There's no reason to assume that NIST did not know about the gash.  The only photograph they show of this "roof and upper level debris damage" is this image:  Now why would NIST do that? Why would they not show the total extend of the "roof and upper level debris damage"? Surely they would like to present as much evidence of debris damage as possible. Was it to hide the fact that this gash was created when the controlled demolition failed? Most likely not. As can be seen in the video below, WTC7 was indeed hit by falling debris from the collapse of the North Tower. The gash is right between two outer columns (as in the NIST figure) and might have simply been caused by falling debris that took out part of the floors between these columns, leading to to a small and localized 'progressive collapse' such as was observed in the <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/progressive.html">Ronan Point apartment building</a> in 1968.  So why did NIST not reproduce any photograph that showed the gash? Because they needed the testimon of Captain Chris Boyle to exaggerate the claims about the hole in the south face. Or as David Ray Griffin put it in his article The destruction of the Twin Towers: why the official account can not be true. According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005). In other words; had NIST reproduced photographs of the gash, it would be obvious to anyone that Captain Boyle was referring to this long, straight (and apparently superficial) gash instead of the hole. A "compromise" between the testimonies about the damage with Boyle's description attributed to the gash (and not to the hole), would leave NIST with a substantially smaller hole. This would make the 'fire and damage' theory even less credible then it is now. I'm very curious if NIST will incorporate images of the gash in their final report, but i'm not counting on it. The testimony of Captain Boyle is just too convenient for them. http://www.911blogger.com/node/8382 Edited by arie, Oct 13 2008, 03:57 PM.
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Dec 26 2008, 01:06 PM Post #29 |
|
The only reason not to release the southside photos is because they will show that WTC 7 was not heavily damaged or heavily involved in fire. If these pics did show heavy damage they'd be all over the place by now. |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Jan 29 2009, 06:25 AM Post #30 |
|
Hang in there! ;-) I have spoken with Catherin on the phone [2 years ago]. She was very nice but no pic. It's getting bazaar how they are still stalling. As you probably know, they gave up on the 10 story gouge in the final draft - pg 183 - 187 http://nasathermalimages.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1_for_public_comment_unlocked.pdf Post #5000 "No 10 story hole in WTC 7" thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4060232#post4060232 |
|
|
|
| Chris Sarns | Jan 30 2009, 11:03 PM Post #31 |
|
"do you have sample images?" What an absurd question. If you had the images you wouldn't be asking for them. They know what photos they gave NIST and they have them cataloged just like everybody else. I fear you are being jerked around. It appears that Catherine hasn't read Obama's memo yet. http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/2009foia%20mem%20rel%20_2_.pdf The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public. All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA. The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely. |
|
|
|
| bretwalda | Feb 2 2009, 03:07 AM Post #32 |
|
Some interesting stuff in these shots fo sho (link) preview... 
Edited by bretwalda, Feb 2 2009, 03:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
| T3QuillAMocKINGbird | Jul 22 2009, 08:34 PM Post #33 |
|
About the BBC, if it really was just an oops we heard it from this source and that is why we rolled with it. Then why would they disconnect the live feed abruptly they could have just explained at that point we got a report it had collapsed but it didn't, so it has not collapsed as they should have stated directly. Again they are a news reporting agency and they had just given out false news that it had collapsed. So if you follow me here they just pulled the plug which shows they really did have prior knowledge of the impending demolition. They left all their viewers thinking that WTC7 had collapsed when it hadn't and if they didn't know it would collapse then at that point they should report it was still standing sorry for the confusion we heard wrong. Because at that point the building could have stood forever for all they knew. But they knew it would collapse so pull the plug and then if people did not realize it was WTC7 in the live feed no harm done lets see if we get away with it. Very intriguing to say the least... |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:18 PM Nov 30
