Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?

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!

Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?; About the symmetry of WTC 7's collapse
Topic Started: Feb 11 2008, 07:43 PM (1,172 Views)
Diane	Feb 11 2008, 07:43 PM Post #1
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Below is an excerpt from my blog post Two WTC 7 collapse videos: Can both be real?: Quote: Consider the following two WTC 7 collapse videos: Northwest alleged CBS video (MPG) on Jim Hoffman's WTC 7 site, shot at street level northwest or north-northwest of WTC7, obtained by Jim Hoffman from "plaguepuppy," whoever that is. Another copy and a slow-motion zoom version (WMV) on What Really Happened.</li> Northeast privately-made video (WMV) on What Really Happened, shot from a window of a nearby building northeast of WTC 7.</li> To my admittedly untrained eye, these two videos look too different from each other for both of them to be genuine, unaltered recordings of the exact same event from different angles. Why this is important: The northeast video, if genuine, substantially weakens the "symmetry of collapse" argument regarding WTC 7. Hence, if the genuineness of the northwest video can be established, and if the incompatibility I percieve turns out to be valid, we can thereby disprove an important piece of alleged evidence against the "symmetry of collapse" argument. The northeast video shows WTC 7 leaning toward the southeast, at what looks to me like a 9 to 10 degree angle. How much this weakens the "symmetry of collapse" argument depends on how you interpret and justify that argument, but it does weaken that particular argument to at least some extent. (See my post Review of Hardfire debates between Mark Roberts and Loose Change crew and the comment thread below it.) But that's not the major incompatibility between the two videos. A 9 to 10 degree lean toward the southeast would naturally be hard to see in a video shot from the northwest. Why the videos seem incompatible The major incompatibility is that, in the mortheast video, a large vertical split seems to appear in the building as it falls. The northwest corner appears to split away from the rest of the building, so much so that it looked to me like a separate building when I first saw a still photo from this video. It seems to me that such a split should be visible in the northwest video too. While we might not see the vertical split itself directly, one would expect it to show up as a major irregularity at the roofline, given that the northwest video was shot from ground level. But it doesn't. In the northwest video, the only major irregularity I see in the roofline is from the crimp that appeared on the east side before the building fell. Admittedly, the northwest video shows only the beginning of the collapse. The latter part is obscured by surrounding buildings. On the other hand, the northeast video, shot from a higher perspective, shows us more of the latter part of the collapse. And the vertical split widens as the building descends. So perhaps the split just wasn't big enough, early enough in the collapse, to be visible in the portion of the collapse shown by the northwest video? Not likely. In the northeast video, it looks to me like the split is well underway well before the roofline of WTC 7 has descended to a level that could be hidden, in the northwest video, by the white building that can be seen on the right in the northeast video and on the left in the northwest video. So, it doesn't seem likely to me that both videos are fully genuine. If I am correct about the incompatibility above, then at least one of the videos must have been, at the very least, jazzed up a little. To those willing and able to research this issue further I'm not in a good position to do research on videos. But it would be desirable if *someone* in the 9/11 Truth movement could try to verify and prove the genuineness of the northwest video. Supposedly it was shown on CBS, according to "plaguepuppy," as reported by Jim Hoffman. Was it, in fact, shown on CBS? If so, it should be possible to prove that, I would hope. On the other hand, perhaps some "debunker" might want to track down a chain of custody for the northeast video. It would also be desirable to see other corroborating evidence for the seemingly incompatible phenomena portrayed in the two videos. I've emailed Jim Hoffman about this matter. Hopefully I will hear from him. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear anything anyone else knows about the two videos and their origins and history. Edited by Diane, Feb 17 2008, 01:19 PM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Terral	Feb 12 2008, 06:44 AM Post #2
911Truther Posts: 87 Group: BANNED! Member #142 Joined: 01/20/08	Hi Diane: Quote: Diane >> Why this is important: The northeast video, if genuine, substantially weakens the "symmetry of collapse" argument regarding WTC 7. Hence, if the genuineness of the northwest video can be established, and if the incompatibility I perceive turns out to be valid, we can thereby disprove an important piece of alleged evidence against the "symmetry of collapse" argument. My opinion is that you are chasing after ghosts using these videos showing the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse of WTC-7. Every movie and picture you find of the WTC-7 CD collapse reveals a building falling straight down into its own footprint. Period. The reason massive structures lean a little bit one way or the other is because the Demolition Supervisor kicked one side of the building out first to send the weight in one predetermined direction. CD specialists are perfectionists and micromanagers of elements in the building environment for the sole purpose of obtaining the desired result of a well-developed CD strategy. You are assuming that a symmetrical collapse means the roofline should remain perfectly horizontal, when the CD Supervisor would never allow that kind of thing to happen. A slight miscalculation in planning or execution of a perfectly horizontal roofline drop can send the massive weight in the ‘wrong direction’ and damage surrounding structures. Therefore, the perfect CD job includes tilting the roofline by leaning the entire structure into a ‘desired’ direction, so that any slight miscalculation is nullified and the building drops according to the predetermined plan. This picture from this website shows WTC-7 in full freefall mode ‘and’ slightly tilted to our right, which is exactly the same thing revealed by your video. If you take the picture to your Paint program and draw a perfectly vertical line along the right-hand edge of the building, then you will indeed find your nine-degree tilt away from us and to the right. Again, all that means is the CD Supervisor kicked out the basement columns along the far-side of the building first, so WTC-7 would collapse ‘symmetrically’ and slightly away from the position of this photographer. The argument for the symmetrical collapse begins by realizing the odd WTC-7 design where extra support was given to specific areas of the building shown here. This means extra attention had to be paid to the massive steel supports in order for WTC-7 to collapse into this little pile in a single smooth and fluid motion. Remember that the Official Cover Story says ‘Building Fires Did It,” and this collapsing building shows no sign of any fires through any of the unbroken windows. We are still looking at thousands of massive red-iron connections that had to be ‘cut’ simultaneously to initiate the ‘symmetrical’ collapse. When WTC-7 falls another 200 feet or so, then we see the telltale ‘kink’ along the roofline telling you the center of the building is collapsing more quickly than the two sides. This means the CD Supervisor ‘cut’ interior horizontal beam connections up and down the ‘center’ of WTC-7 slightly earlier during the implosion process, which again allows him to ‘control’ the separating-component movement from the beginning to the very end of the CD process. Otherwise, the exterior walls could buckle from ‘downward’ stacking movement allowing one end of the building to go north and the other side to go south. No sir. What you are looking at here are clear Controlled Demolition Signatures no matter how you want to skin this cat. The simple fact of your two videos is that the ‘angle’ relative to the collapse is simply along different axis lines, which makes the descent angle appear larger in one clip versus the other. Remember also that anyone writing rebuttals against the CD explanation must use arguments from their own “Building Fires Did It” proposals, which represents some of weakest nonsense anyone can write on this WTC-7 Inside-Job. Pictures like this and this show 45-degree cutter charges were used (website) in these attacks and those are also clear CD signatures (like here) of where the CD Supervisor walked column lines in a desired direction. This is the only explanation that allows all of these massive steel components to be scattered through the WTC-7 debris pile (like this), where you can see ‘cut’ steel members with debris piled on top of them ‘during’ the CD collapse. The idea that “Building Fires” can produce this kind of evidence is simply ridiculous, which is the reason the 911Commission Report and the NIST bogus report fail to deal with the obvious WTC-7 Controlled Demolition in the first place. GL, Terral Edited by Terral, Feb 12 2008, 06:47 AM.



look-up	Feb 13 2008, 02:59 PM Post #3
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	I agree, there's nothing to see here. No collapse is going to be perfectly symetrical, but it is more accurate to say "virtually symetrical", or perhaps "virtually uniform" would be more appropriate.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Feb 13 2008, 07:02 PM Post #4
Posts: 755 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up Feb 13 2008, 02:59 PM I agree, there's nothing to see here. No collapse is going to be perfectly symetrical, but it is more accurate to say "virtually symetrical", or perhaps "virtually uniform" would be more appropriate. Quite right look-up. When discussing the collapse of a huge 47 story building with a city block footprint, it's ridiculous to expect it to display perfect symmetry during it's controlled demolition collapse. When compared to all the other controlled demolitions of much shorter buildings, WTC7's collapse would get top marks for symmetry. MM
Posts: 755 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Diane	Feb 13 2008, 10:25 PM Post #5
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Miragememories Feb 13 2008, 07:02 PM look-up Feb 13 2008, 02:59 PM I agree, there's nothing to see here. No collapse is going to be perfectly symetrical, but it is more accurate to say "virtually symetrical", or perhaps "virtually uniform" would be more appropriate. Quite right look-up. When discussing the collapse of a huge 47 story building with a city block footprint, it's ridiculous to expect it to display perfect symmetry during it's controlled demolition collapse. When compared to all the other controlled demolitions of much shorter buildings, WTC7's collapse would get top marks for symmetry. MM Indeed I would not have expected *perfect* symmetry. Indeed I would have expected it to be at least a few degrees off. However, 9 to 10 degrees is quite a bit further off than I previously thought it was. I do have other reasons for continuing to suspect foul play in the case of WTC 7. However, the northeast video (if genuine) does to some extent weaken what had been, for the past six months or so, my favorite argument in support of the idea of WTC 7 having been brought down by CD. According to How Building Implosions Work by Tom Harris: Quote: The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute, and it is generally the safest way to go. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first, in the same way you would chop into a tree from the north side if you wanted it to fall in that direction. Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble. Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. As noted above, it is *difficult* to bring a building down straight-down (or close to straight-down). Therefore, such a collapse is unlikely to happen by chance. Therefore, if a building does collapse in a close-to-perfectly-symmetrical straight-down manner, it is most likely a result of deliberate human effort rather than a spontaneous collapse. Obviously, the closer to perfectly symmetical WTC 7's collapse is, the stronger the above argument is when applied to WTC 7. Edited by Diane, Feb 13 2008, 10:38 PM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Diane	Feb 13 2008, 10:33 PM Post #6
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Terral Feb 12 2008, 06:44 AM My opinion is that you are chasing after ghosts using these videos showing the same ‘symmetrical’ collapse of WTC-7. Every movie and picture you find of the WTC-7 CD collapse reveals a building falling straight down into its own footprint. Period. The reason massive structures lean a little bit one way or the other is because the Demolition Supervisor kicked one side of the building out first to send the weight in one predetermined direction. CD specialists are perfectionists and micromanagers of elements in the building environment for the sole purpose of obtaining the desired result of a well-developed CD strategy. You are assuming that a symmetrical collapse means the roofline should remain perfectly horizontal, when the CD Supervisor would never allow that kind of thing to happen. No, I'm not assuming that. My problem with the roofline *isn't* that it isn't perfectly horizontal, but that what happens to the roofline appears (to me, anyway) to be inconsistent between the two videos. That's one of the reasons I suspect one of the videos to be either phony or tampered with.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Headspin	Feb 14 2008, 06:35 AM Post #7
Posts: 962 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	the northwest viewpoint video (NWVV) only shows the top 30% of the building (17 floors?) come down, you don't see what happens after the top 17 floors disappear from view. the noth-east viewpoint video (NEVV) shows what happens later. another way of saying the same thing is that the NWVV shows the first 4 seconds of the collapse. the NEVV shows the first 5 seconds of the collapse. one second might not seem much but a lot happens in the later seconds than in the earlier seconds. not to derail the thread but while the eyes are on the NWVV, I've always been curious about the flashes that appear on the building 20% in from the right edge, you also see objects thrown up into the smoke plume after the roofline disappears from view, these 3 objects appear to explode in large flashes, just wondering if anyone else has commented on these flashes. Edited by Headspin, Feb 14 2008, 06:37 AM.
Posts: 962 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


look-up	Feb 14 2008, 02:47 PM Post #8
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	well regardless of whether it was perfectly symetrical or if it "walked" a little, there's no way it would have "walked" or "twisted" at all if it was not part of the plan. one of my biggest pet peves about the WTC 1 & 2 is that people say, "well that's not how typical implosions are done, so it probably isn't one." they disregard the fact that the whole fucking point of the excersize was to make people think it WASN'T a controlled demolition, knowing that it would indeed be caught on tape. I think wtc7 was all about destroying evidence and paper trails. It makes sense that it would be more of a classic demolition, to me at least.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Diane	Feb 14 2008, 05:55 PM Post #9
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Well, anyhow, my main concern is whether anyone here has any info that can help establish the authenticity of either video.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


look-up	Feb 15 2008, 10:34 AM Post #10
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	sorry, the way I see it is that it is authentic unless there is good reason presented to believe it is not authentic. Good thread though. Welcome to the forum!
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Diane	Feb 17 2008, 01:09 PM Post #11
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	look-up Feb 15 2008, 10:34 AM sorry, the way I see it is that it is authentic unless there is good reason presented to believe it is not authentic. Good thread though. Welcome to the forum! If the two videos can be shown to be not just different but inconsistent in an irreconciliable way, *then* it's likely that one of the two videos has been tampered with, and the question becomes which one. In that case, establishing a chain of custody for either video becomes important. I'm looking for people willing to examine this issue in detail.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Diane	Feb 17 2008, 01:23 PM Post #12
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Headspin Feb 14 2008, 06:35 AM the northwest viewpoint video (NWVV) only shows the top 30% of the building (17 floors?) come down, you don't see what happens after the top 17 floors disappear from view. the noth-east viewpoint video (NEVV) shows what happens later. another way of saying the same thing is that the NWVV shows the first 4 seconds of the collapse. the NEVV shows the first 5 seconds of the collapse. one second might not seem much but a lot happens in the later seconds than in the earlier seconds. Of course the videos differ in both perspective and time. Nevertheless, from what one video shows during the first four seconds, one can draw some inferences about what the other video should or should not show during the same four seconds.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Ross	Feb 17 2008, 01:42 PM Post #13
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: 01/16/08	Both videos looked pretty real to me.
Posts: 50 Group: Members Member #69 Joined: 01/16/08


Diane	Feb 17 2008, 06:17 PM Post #14
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Ross Feb 17 2008, 01:42 PM Both videos looked pretty real to me. General statements like the above aren't helping me. What I need is someone willing and able to examine carefully the details of the anomalies I see and, if my perception is invalid, to explain in detail why it's invalid. I feel that this issue is deserving of careful attention to detail, because, in my opinion, one of the very strongest arguments for CD of WTC 7 hinges on it. (Of course, there are other arguments for CD of WTC 7 that don't hinge on it.) Edited by Diane, Feb 17 2008, 06:19 PM.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 20 2008, 12:59 AM Post #15
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Diane, Bottom line, WTC 7 IMPLODED. Things look different from different perspectives. In the 5 second clip and the CBS [Dan Rather] video, it looks like it fell straight down. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7 In the view from an apartment, it looks like it falls to the south. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewf3zYS-QkA The debris pile clearly shows it fell straight down. The center of the debris pile is close to the center of the building.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Diane	Feb 21 2008, 07:32 PM Post #16
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08	Yep it imploded. The question is whether that implosion could have been purely "natural," a result of core columns failing "naturally" due to fire (and subsequent cooling). The latter does seem unlikely to me, for various reasons. (See, for example, my post WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word.) Nevertheless, what I had previously thought of as the very strongest evidence has been called into question by the video discussed further up in this thread. So, it would be desirable to resolve the matter of that video's authenticity, if possible.
Posts: 54 Group: Members Member #168 Joined: 01/21/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 22 2008, 05:17 AM Post #17
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Diane Feb 21 2008, 07:32 PM Yep it imploded. The question is whether that implosion could have been purely "natural," a result of core columns failing "naturally" due to fire (and subsequent cooling). The latter does seem unlikely to me, for various reasons. (See, for example, my post WTC 7 fire weirdness, taking FEMA and NIST at their word.) Core columns do not fail "naturally". There have been many high rise building fires, no floor or column has ever collapse. [Windsor was a hybrid, mostly reinforced concrete with exterior box columns weighing 216 pounds per floor on the upper 10 floors. It cannot be compared to a conventional high rise] WTC 7 core columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed over 7 tons per floor. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52284/1/#new NIST Apx. L pg 38, [42 on pg counter] [emphasis mine] I4.2"At floors where fires were noted, interior columns were comprised of W14x730 cores and reinforcing plates, and could support several stories unbraced without failure. .... This column ... would be approaching its load carrying capacity for an unsupported length of four stories if it was also subject to a uniform temperature of 500º C. I4.6 …. uniform steel temperatures of approximately 570º C [1058º F] would result in column failure. ********************************************** http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." ******************************************** http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf pg 19 [24 on pg counter] After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage. http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html 12.Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports. ******************************************** http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm On the 23rd June 1990 a fire developed in the partly completed fourteen storey building in the Broadgate development. [115] The fire began in a large contractors hut on the first floor and smoke spread undetected throughout the building. The fire detection and sprinkler system were not yet operational out of working hours. The fire lasted 4.5 hours including 2 hours where the fire exceeded 1000°C. The direct fire loss was in excess of ï¿½25 million however, only a fraction of the cost (ï¿½2 million) represented structural frame and floor damage. The major damage was to the building fabric as a result of smoke. Moreover, the structural repairs after the fire took only 30 days. The structure of the building was a steel frame with composite steel deck concrete floors and was only partially protected at this stage of construction. During and after the fire, despite large deflections in the elements exposed to fire, the structure behaved well and there was no collapse of any of the columns, beams or floors. [115] The Broadgate phase 8 fire was the first opportunity to examine the influence of fire on the structural behaviour of a modern fast track steel framed building with composite construction. Edited by Chris Sarns**, Feb 22 2008, 06:20 AM.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


Chris Sarns	Feb 22 2008, 05:46 AM Post #18
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08	Diane Feb 21 2008, 07:32 PM Yep it imploded. ........... Nevertheless, what I had previously thought of as the very strongest evidence has been called into question by the video discussed further up in this thread. So, it would be desirable to resolve the matter of that video's authenticity, if possible. You are calling the evidence into question but not the conclusion. Interesting approach. If you think there's a problem, you need to have the video you question analyzed by at least two reputable, certified experts. But to what end? The CBS clip from 911 says it all. So do the other clips and the pictures of the debris pile. Yep, it imploded.
Posts: 173 Group: Members Member #116 Joined: 01/17/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »