On several older threads, there have been questions raised by CTers about whether any debris from the collapse of WTC1 actually hit WTC7. I found this photo on the internet and thought I'd post it here for discussion as it sure does look like evidence of a lot of debris hitting #7.
Otherwise the mystery would have gone. And some socalled sceptics prefer mysteries instead of simple explanations, some Zionist involvement instead of a clearly visible responsibility of Bush, Rumsfeld and the PNAC guys.
No way that a building falls when
-two earthquakes shook the ground just some feet away
- it was bombed by heavy steel debris
- an illegally installed oiltank inside explodes
- it burns several hours
- it is built in the same fatal way no skyscraper ever was built before but WTC 1+2
Never ever. It must have been explosions.
It must have been explosions – although nobody dares to talk about WTC 3,4,5,6.Maybe they got their controlled demolition too? And nobody noticed them ? Because they had to be teared down too.But who cares -
It must have been explosions. Let us imagine we would not talk about controlled demolition anymore but about PNAC, Peak Oil, the open visible criminal acts of Bush, Cheney, RumsfeldMY GOD, that would be politics and not mystery anymore !
7. That is a very strange photo. (The brown one, not the grey one.)
Edited on Mon Aug-14-06 02:33 AM by petgoat
(Though the grey one is strange too.)
What is that thing that looks like a crane tower, apparently leaning up against WTC7? I read recently that the s. side of WTC7 was 80 yards wide. If so, the columns are something like 17.2 feet apart, and that crane tower is 16 feet across.
Now why is it that these professional disaster photographers provide these secret pictures to NIST in 6/04 and now to debunking911 in 6/06, when these pictures had never been released before?
I'll note that it appears from this picture that WTC7's south wall was turned a bit to the NE from the axis of the Verizon Bld's south wall.
and if this is the official premise of WTC7's collapse, why isn't the hole photographed from many other angles other then the 2 or 3 pics we are "allowed" to see? I would think it would be very well documented with pictures, as WTC1 and 2 were.
19. At some point the mystery gets to be... why can't we get any answers?
Why are the official accounts so contradictory?
Why was the evidence destroyed?
Why did that crane tower in the brown picture not show up in the debris pictures?
Why did none of the four firemen in the brown picture testify to the gaping hole? Only Captain Boyle did.
How come none of the firemen reported internal structural damage?
How come the photographer of the grey picture didn't go up the street for a better shot of the damage to the corner of WTC7?
Why did FEMA not know about these pictures, and why did they consider the tales of structural damage to be without credibility?
How did asymmetrical fires and asymmetrical structural damage cause the building to come down in its own footprint?
Why was the insurance payout made so hastily without investigation?
How did the team reported by Deputy Chief Hayden to have put a transit on the bulge on the SW corner between 10 and 13 do so if there was no SW corner between 8 and 14?
If structural damage was caused to WTC7 by WTC1 debris, the WTC1 debris should have been pretty conspicuous in the pile. How come nobody took any pictures?
It's not just about political effectiveness. It's about holding our public officials to a reasonable standard of accountabilty. This business that everything is a state secret and none of the citizens' business has got to stop!
Why don`t you just start to answer the clear and simple questions, such as
"Why was the evidence destroyed? "
It would be easier to answer it if you put it in a grammatical order which makes sense: "evidence is not destroyed" by itself. Somebody does it.
So it is a WHO- question with an answer, followed by a WHY question with an answer too.
After getting that fixed it might be important to dig a little bit more into the WHY by asking for the interests of any person involved.
And after that most of the other questions can be put into an order of importance, of clarity and of possibilities.
Order and ystematical thinking seems not be very common in the "physical evidence" community. It is not hip. it is calm and cool. No videos, no pictures. Logic. Being relaxed and sticking to ONE question instead of thousands. Focus. Concentration.
Instead we hear a childrens quarrel. Get adult, I reapeat it.
You would think that the former federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani might have had some thoughts on the destruction of evidence, or the FBI might have had some thoughts, but this was war, not a crime scene. "We don't need no stinking evidence!"
We'll never know who had approval power, so the point is pointless. The WHO was a nobody, Richard Tomasetti.
What matters is: The evidence was destroyed. ASCE investigators should have been there to photographed and catalogue every piece as it came off the pile. They weren't allowed.
"Hours before the collapse of 7 WTC, Fire Chiefs at the scene advised all units to stay away from 7 WTC because of the collapse dangers. They had no water to fight the blaze and the building was damaged from the collapse of the North Tower." If there were no firemen in 7, then who did Silverstein want to "pull" (out of the building)? What's the story - a rogue group of firemen broke into the building against orders and started to fight the fire even though they didn't have any water?
And it's a really big deal. The way he said it sort of implies it was in the afternoon, but he may just have mis-spoken and implied something that wasn't true. IMO whichever way you look at it "pull it" must be a mistake - in the context it should either be "pull them" (meaning firemen) or "destory it with explosives". Maybe Larry's not hip to demo slang and got his forms of demolition wrong. Maybe he thinks a 47-storey building is small and they were going to do it with cables. Maybe he conspired with the fire department to destroy the building, but it fell over on its own before they could do it.
Even if phone records were forthcoming (a very long shot at the moment), there might be multiple calls, which would really confuse the issue.
AFAIK 7 was evacuated before the North Tower collapsed and the fire cheifs designated the operation a rescue mission, not a fire-fighting one, so I don't really see why firemen should have gone in at all (especially with reference to the lack of water), but I guess some may well have done at the start (for example to check whether it was really evacuated).
Disclaimer: I don't see anything wrong with any decision to demolish WTC 7 - nobody died.
65. No, although it is said to be in the afternoon by
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, in a statement he gave clarifying the "pull it" comment:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
37. No offense, but this analysis is as jenky as any I've seen.
If you believe this analysis is anymore credible than 9-11 demolition analyses, well, you're a true believer in the official story. Even if there was a shred of truth in this speculation, it still doesn't make explain why the building fell at freefall speed into its own footprint. It looks like the front would've sheared off.
"conspiracy sites" do. Like they mention Deutsche Bank but they don't mention that it did not fall symmetrically to the ground, plus WHEN did the fires start in wtc7, seems it was not until after the towers fell..
20. The picture appears to show debris from the collapsing north tower
Edited on Mon Aug-14-06 03:14 PM by petgoat
bouncing off the south side of WTC7. Of course, since the picture has not been authenticated, we should all forget that we ever saw it.
Part of the reason the issue is controversial is because FEMA did not believe the reports of structural damage, and their map of the debris fields (WTC2 debris flew across Liberty Street, and WTC1 debris flew across West Street into the WFC building and across Vesey into the Verizon building) pointedly did NOT show WTC1 debris reaching as far as WTC7.
There are pictures of WTC1 debris having reached as far as the s. side of Vesey. There are none showing WTC1 debris in the WTC7 debris pile after its collapse.
The insurance payout on WTC7 was $861 million. The sloppy investigation seems peculiar.
Oh--and Welcome to DU! And to the 9/11 dungeon!
We're one big happy family of spooks and loonies here! :hi:
there are some members in this forum who claim that no debris from WTC1 hit WTC7, and that, therefore, there wasn't any damage to the building, and that, therefore, the firefighters who said they saw damage were either wrong or lying, and that, therefore, FDNY's decision early on that the building was unsalvageable was not justified, and that, therefore, the building must have been brought down by controlled demolitions at the behest of Larry Silverstein.
Of course, I am paraphrasing and over-simplifying, but that's the jist of it.
The photo itself does not prove anything, of course, about the extent of the damage but the purpose in posting it is as set out above.
There are numerous other photos showing the proximity between the buildings and what appears to me to be an obvious fact that the building could hardly avoid being damaged by the collapse of WTC1, but that particular photo struck me as interesting because of the different location and angle that it was taken from than the others I've seen to date.
Here are some other photos that illustrate the proximity and fallout:
This one, however, taken from a different location and angle than the others, seems to show the proximity and unavoidable fallout more clearly.
69. You should have "Paint" in the Accessories folder if you have XP.
After you press the Print Screen button, open Paint, and then choose "Paste" under the Edit menu heading. It will save it as a large bit .bmp file, so you'll want to upload it to an online image editor like this to alter the file type and make it smaller:
49. This is NYC we are talking about. This was the worst disaster in history.
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:08 PM by mhatrw
Everybody's got a camera phone, and WTC-7 didn't collapse until MORE THAN SEVEN HOURS after WTC-1 collapsed.
So why do we have to infer substantial damage to WTC-7 from a video shot across the Hudson? Where are the scores and scores of photos that must have documented this extensive damage if it in fact occurred?
There is something about not one, but two hundred story buildings collapsing that makes people get the f*ck out of the way, out of the area, see ya, baby, adios. The first fall made people back up. The second fall made them leave the island.
All the emergency personnel were busy rescuing people and fighting the fires worth fighting. As far as I know, after the collapse of One World Trade, there were only two photographers taking pictures of the entire Pile. So there would not be scores and scores of pictures at this point in time.
And the inference of substantial damage is not solely due to a video shot across the Hudson. There's the picture Jazz used in the OP (a similar one is in the FEMA report on WTC 7 - it was shot just after Jazz's picture). There are the testimonies of the firefighters as to substantial damage. There's the picture recently brought to our attention by Debunking 9/11. There are all the pictures we've already seen from NIST and FEMA, showing damage to the southwest corner and to the roof of 7 World Trade.
The case for substantial damage to the south face of 7 World Trade is...substantial.
but I haven't yet been able to trace back to it. It was a forum that I read but do not post in so it's hard to retrace my steps as it was in a thread that has been going on for months and has thousands of posts.
The photo on Debunking911 came from the photographer - it is explained on Debunking911 here:
From what I understand, the photographer did give the photo to NIST, and I notice that in their June 2004 interim report on WTC7, they have included other photos by the same photographer.
I agree with you that people take photographs at disaster scenes, and there certainly are thousands of them of the World Trade Center from that day. It seems, though, that in the circumstances, it was tough for civilians to get to the south side of WTC7 at street level after the towers collapsed. And if I'm not mistaken, the photographer said that it was difficult to get shots of anything but smoke on that side, but that he took that photo when the smoke shifted for a moment, or something like that.
(I'm paraphrasing that - it isn't a direct quote - but he has a website at http://www.stevespak.com so you could probably email him there and ask him about it directly if you wish.)
53. the NYPD has a special unit that videotapes every major event that
happens in this city. no doubt they have video of WT7 in their files. Its just that the BFEE has a long grip on all things connected to 911. Remember when the FBI made a plea for all citizens who took photo's and video to turn them in to help find the clues to "who done it?"
The guy who wrote "The Flying Elephant" was embarrassed by this phenominon. He thought he had a third plane flying by the towers. It seems that a telephoto lens picked up a plane from across the river.
Debris hit all the buildings surrounding the two towers. However, it is apparent that whatever debris that did hit WTC7, the building was still able to survive the impact.
The pictures I'd like to see are of the supposed massive fires in the building. Yes, there are reports of fires on some of the floor but there is no evidence that I've seen that there was enough fire to cause the total failure of even a damaged building.
nice to see photographs depicting everything, including the fires in WTC7. Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that there will be photographic evidence of everything that occurs in catastrophic events, even in those much smaller in scale than those that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Fires were reported on numerous floors throughout the day in WTC7 but I have not seen very many photos of them. Moreover, most of the photos that I've seen to date of WTC7 at all are from quite a distance and do not show the south side of the building which is where the damage was apparently done. I view that as attributable to the grim realities of the day, though, rather than to a conspiracy among FDNY, NYPD, Larry Silverstein, etal to blow up the building.
I think that on a "normal" day, WTC7 would have been a huge, massive, major event in and of itself, that it would have been handled very differently than it was on Sept. 11/01, that the fires would have been extinguished (because the firefighting capacity would not have been compromised in the manner in which it was), and that the building would have been salvaged had it not been for the precipitating events (the collapse of the towers) that rendered it unsalvageable.
For what it's worth, here are a couple of photos of fires in WTC7 that I've located:
Lastly, regarding this statement: "no evidence that I've seen that there was enough fire to cause the total failure of even a damaged building", I have no particular expertise in what would be enough fire to cause the failure of a damaged building, but I will certainly welcome any expertise that you can provide about what amount of fire and what amount of damage would satisfy you in that regard.
I just realized I am linking to a site that is not permitted here (WRH). This was unintentional as it came up when I googled "building fires", and I posted the link because of the picture that is on that page never looking at the website name.
54. thanks jazz now I see why WT7 collapsed..that truly is a raging
inferno. Looks like 4-5 offices are ablaze. Then we have more office fires lower down. yikes!! Shame on me. I thought for sure explosives were used. Another issue since Verizon was closer to WT1 how come that building sustaine little damage? I'll wait for your reply.
when we consider the picture showing heavy damage to the sw corner, and this picture showing damage and fires on the east side, and the video of the collapse of WTC1, and videos and photos of the plane impact spewing debris toward it, and the testimony of the firefighters, and the fact that people predicted it would collapse, and the fact that it did collapse, it is very reasonable to presume that the south side of WTC7 was severely damaged. That makes damage visible on 3 sides.
The First Interstate Bank Building, a 62-story structural steel office building with glass curtain walls.
On May 4 and 5, 1988, the Los Angeles City Fire Department responded to an extinguished the most challenging and difficult high-rise fire in the City's history. The fire destroyed five floors of the First Interstate Bank Building, which some experts say could mean the loss of the entire structure. It was the high-rise fire that "you can't put out." It took a total of 383 Department members to do the job. They fought the blaze for 3 hours and 39 minutes to knock it down.
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. Although there was concern for structural integrity during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or minor structural collapse.
Second, I have not been able to find any pictures from the WTC debris that show 'fire damaged' beams or columns from WTC 1 & 2. You would think that in order for the towers to collapse because of the damage from the jets and the fire, that there would be at least some steel that shows evidence of bending and softening from the fire?
Here's an example of what I am talking about -
I believe that is WTC 5 is the background. It is apparent that the steel frame suffered extensive fire damage and bending as a result.
"The total burnout of four and a half floors did not cause damage to the main structural members due to a good application of spayed fire protection on all steelwork. There was only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor decks."
"It was also shown that if fire protection to structural members is adequately designed and applied with quality control, fire damage to fire exposed members will be minimised and structural collapse can be prevented."
As I explained above, when I first started the thread, the photo was in the wrong directory at my photobucket account, and I didn't realize that when I moved it to the right one, it would kill the link.
There is nothing sinister about it, I assure you. It's just me being a bit of a neophyte when it comes to the photobucket thing.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.