10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig02L.jpg

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/8074/wtc7damagecomparison2de3.jpg

Look four floors below the yellow circle to the last relatively intact veneer spandrel. You will see a piece of debris hanging out an opening. compare that debris to the same debris in the right photo. below that is where the major damage begins and all but three floors below is obscured by the WFC, the winter garden, and smoke in the right comparison photo.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg

sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.
 
R.Mackey said:
Against my better judgment, I followed that Loose Change thread.

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

This isn't proof of anything.
Click to expand...
Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.
http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg
 
I haven't been following MM's 'faked photo' $4it but I take it that the imageshack image that MM links to shows two separate photos of the SW corner superimposed next to each other, one from NIST(though it does not look exactly like picture L-22a in NIST's appendix L) and the other from I believe Spak's photos.

Aside from focal length differences and different angles, I see the same damage done in both pictures.
 
A W Smith said:
Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison
................
sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.
Click to expand...

I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.
 
Kent1 said:
Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.
Click to expand...

Yep I see that too, I'll go post it over at LC so none of you have to venture in :)

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."
Click to expand...

I hope you're not referring to one of my posts there, I simply remarked that the photoshop morphing of the image to line up with the one taken from w-s-w could confuse some people into thinking that was the original picture and it is obviously fake. The two actual photos provide very little ability for analysis.

I wanted to point this out because I've read quite a lot of your posts and I must admire your approach to the subject :)
 
Gravy said:
The building had severe, uncontrolled fires on many floors.

The building was visibly bulging over three stories.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

The building had a huge gouge in its south face.

The 47-story building was groaning and creaking.

Talk to some high-rise engineers and see what they think about all that. But be warned: they may introduce difficult concepts such as "stress" and "shifting loads."

If you won't talk to them and learn about these things, what does that say about your interest in the truth?
Click to expand...
Have you read what the engineers at NIST said?

Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

PG 41:
"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads due to the redundancy of the moment frame.

The severed and damaged perimeter columns put 'stress' on the the entire building, the loads were 'shifted' to the surrounding columns.

The stress would have been pulling to the south and west.
The initiating event has a column failure to the east.
The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckling to the east.



 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
I would have liked NIST to have a convention of showing views either from the south or north, instead they choose one or the other for every instance. Yes they show the columns failing to the east in the horizontal progression of collapse, opposite of what I had expected. However I also see their reasoning. In those diagrams it supposes that the damage to the trusses occured at columns 79 and 81 which indeed would pull those trusses down on their east end.

This has to do with the horizontal collapse though and not the initiating event which was the direct cause of the original vertical progression. That initiating event need not have occured on the 7th floor or lower. It is the original vertical collapse that is supposed would damage the truss(es) 1&2. That would have heavy debris plunging from the roof top through to the 7th floor(at least) and failing the truss(es).

Another possibility is that the column splices just above floor 7 fail when a large debris load is dropped onto floor 7(but floor 7 buckles downward but does not immediatly fail).

I am not an engineer but I still wonder at the lateral stress that would be imposed on floors 5 and 7 due to the loss of south perimeter columns. IMHO it would be pulling those floors to the south at the position of the lost columns which would have the lateral load at columns 79,80,81 due to that damage being towards the south and west, if the floors 5 and 7 had some ability to twist and strictly to the south if they acted more rigidly.
Click to expand...
The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

At any rate the fact that the elevators were ejected greatly suggests that there was core damage that had pulled the core columns out of vertical.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

Whether the column was being pulled south, east or west would not be known. If it was the result of perimeter column damage then it would be to the south, if debris had entered the core (ie. into the elevator shaft itself)then it would depend on which side of the elevator that the damage occured, east or west.
Click to expand...
The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.
 
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."
Click to expand...

Which does not preclude perimeter damage contributing to the stresses in the area of initial failure.

The initiating event has a column failure to the east.
Click to expand...

Wanna point it out where NIST says that again real quick. Perhaps you meant 'in the eastern part of the building'.

The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckleing to the east.
Click to expand...

In the senarios which have trusses 1&2 being severed or buckled at their eastern ends due to falling debris from the initial failure. This is not neccessary for a senario in which the column splices just above floor 5 or 7 fail due to floor buckling.
 
Christopher7 said:
The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.
Click to expand...

Floors 5 and 7 would ofer more rigid transfer of those stresses along the core than other floors(especially ones below 5)

It suggests damage to core column(s). You simply cannot say one as opposed to more just because you wish it so.

Pulling to the west as a contributing factor in the initial failure, yes.
 
Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns. That's not smart of you. You really should know better by now, but apparently you are utterly incapable of comprehending what you read.

When a portion of the structure is removed, the load it once carried is redistributed to other structural members, agreed?

And where was the creaking and groaning coming from? Do you know?

And why do you think you, who can't get anything right, can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?
 
The Debunking 911 site has a real comparison of Jones' "squibs" on WTC7 and the collapsing southside. He was definitely misleading folks deliberately IMO.

My question in why would Silverstein order to NY Fire Department to demolish the building? This seems to indicate that the NY Fire Department planted the alleged charges. Then Silverstein describes his orders to them on a public broadcast? Great conspiracy.... use a public agency and involve ,what, ten or more fire dept supervisors and dozens of firemen to "plant the charges"), then announce on PBS that you ordered them to blow it up?

I think that the CTs ask us too foten to suspend belief. Most of this stuff would not even make a Hollywood script because the studio would say it was too lame to be credible in even a movie!

Randy Mott
Lawyer

Note: I added that, because I am nw here and often read guys discussing legal issues. I was a litigator for twenty some years in DC. Now I work in Central Europe on other stuff.
 
jaydeehess said:
I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.
Click to expand...

Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.

The NIST submission;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9078/nistwtc7gougefv4bz3.jpg

Reality of the day;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9466/wtc7cornerdamage2zq4.jpg

Composite for comparison;
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4227/wtc7cornerdamage3is2.jpg

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM
 
A W Smith said:
The hanging debris matches.. You will have to save the image and then zoom in
Click to expand...

Wrong term of reference. Your hanging debris is too poor an image to make a definitive match.

I'm using a start point that is easily matched in both photos.

Both photos clearly show the double row of blackened windows higher in the tower. I've marked them with a 1 & 2.

Count down 7 floors to the next blackened window, another reference check (equally matchable in both photos and marked with a "3").

From there you can count down 10 more floors with no large scoop revealed in the intact corner. There is some smoke obscuration but not enough to hide the intact corner and adjoining windows.

From the NIST photo, if you start counting down floors from the same blackened window marked "3", at 4 floors down, damage is encountered and very well established by 10..absolutely no intact corner after you reach 3 or 4 floors down. It's easier to count the floors in the NIST photo if you view about 3 windows in from the corner.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.
Click to expand...

you would be a prime example of that.

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM
Click to expand...

This reminds me of a poster on BAUT who adamantly insisted that the Pentagon security camera was crystal clear in showing the the inbound aircraft was an F-4.

You can take the NIST photo and use photoshop to attempt to deskew it all you want it will not further your cause to prove that the NIST photo is faked.

There are details in each photo which will be visible in one but not the other due to sun angle, smoke, camera/wall angle and the bulge/lean in the building above the gash and there is no photoshop magic that you can do to make both pictures show the exact same details. there is enough detail in both pictures though to conclusively state that they show the same damage to the building.

In http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/9466/wtc7cornerdamage2zq4.jpg you can see that the window column on floor 16 is very much askew. This is one illustration of the bulge in the building. We also know that the west wall of the building meets the south wall at an angle that is not 90 degrees. The NIST photo is taken from the NW making the angle between camera and west wall even more oblique than if the west wall was at 90 deg to the south and north walls. With the building also leaning or bulging the damaged SW corner gets even more out of line with the camera. This will all serve to obscure details of the SW corner.

However, when I look at the NIST photo there is at least 3 floors relativly intact below floor 18 and as many as 4. That jives with the other photo that shows damage to the actual corner starting at floor 14 below which the corner is not visible due to smoke and the intervening building.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom