10 story hole in WTC 7

[Miragememories]

Ok again. Look at the debris hanging out the front bay on your two number fourteens.

I might as well look at the pentagon 1 frame of the AA jet before it hit the Pentagon for all the quality in your hanging debris image. The angles are extreme and the detail is too poor for you to prove anything with that debris argument.

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM

 

[Kent1]

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.

http://img45.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.jpg][qimg]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9200/wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.th.jpg[/qimg]

MM

Your numbering is also off a bit as you get further down. 11-17 needs to be moved up on your left photo. You should also use a better photo that is in the NIST report on page 17.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC%...pse Final.pdf

Again I see no problem.

 

[A W Smith]

I'm not disputing the references, I never had, My dispute is drawing conclusions from one photo taken at an extreme elevated angle with one taken flat on of an obtuse building corner thats obscured by wfc and the winter garden. I can see some of the same debris in both photos. Of course its going to look different from those two vastly different perspectives. its 3 dimensional debris for Christs sake.
And another thing. why would they alter the photo with effects that would hurt their conclusion? Wouldn't the building then have to fall in that direction if so much was missing from that corner? The initiating event was supposedly way over on the other side of the building to the east. nowhere near this southwest corner.

 

[Mercutio]

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM

Actually, it is impossible to determine that from a single still photo. It is entirely possible for the corner to be caved in, but in line with the direction of the camera. This will, of course, give the illusion that it is in line.

I tried to line up a ruler with some of the straight line of the upper portion of the corner, to see if the 15-17 area matched it perfectly or not. With my monitor, it appears to me to be off by a couple of pixels (certainly not much, but movement on the x axis need not be proportional to movement on the z axis). (Also, it is entirely possible that the pixel difference is the result of lens distortion, or an artifact of my monitor. A large, high resolution print might be better suited for such an examination.)

The best you can do from the second picture is to note that the corner is not deflected (much) on the x axis. One still picture cannot determine the z axis deflection, and that deflection may easily account for the differences you perceive between the two shots.

 

[Belz...]

And ignoring 'hard evidence' in favour of soft inconsequential issues, is obviously the JREF way of avoiding unpleasant realities.

"Hard" evidence :

I think a faked photograph, the only photo NIST distributed as proof of that WTC7 corner damage is more important.

How do you know it's faked ? Because it's the only onw you have ? How is this "hard" evidence ?

You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.

Ah! The BIG picture. What WE call 'Da Conclusion. Of course, your conclusion really is your starting hypothesis, so working backwards and ignoring all contrary evidence (that's everything there is) becomes easy, though stupid.

 

[Belz...]

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

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

So, basically the pictures are too fuzzy to tell... but you use them anyway ?

 

[e^n]

I tried to line up a ruler with some of the straight line of the upper portion of the corner, to see if the 15-17 area matched it perfectly or not. With my monitor, it appears to me to be off by a couple of pixels (certainly not much, but movement on the x axis need not be proportional to movement on the z axis). (Also, it is entirely possible that the pixel difference is the result of lens distortion, or an artifact of my monitor. A large, high resolution print might be better suited for such an examination.)

I checked this with GIMP and came to the same conclusion, there is evidence of inward deflection in the second picture and significant evidence that the corner structure has been seriously damaged (note you don't actually see the side wall join the south wall at any point beneath where the NYPD picture shows damage occuring.

It's an interesting picture, but not proof of a government coverup by any means.

My post regarding it at LC is here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6685&view=findpost&p=13007389

 

[FactCheck]

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.

http://img45.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.jpg][qimg]http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9200/wtc7cornerdamage3rnk5.th.jpg[/qimg]

MM

Kent1, isn't there a ledge of possibly the verison building visible between floor 15 and 16 on the photo taken from NJ? I know I see a ledge but I don't know where it's from.

Maybe you covered this but I didn't see it.

 

[Christopher7]

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

NIST made no mention of the damage to the perimeter columns contributing to the in initiating event.
So why are you?

They did say:
"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."

They made no reference to lateral stress from the severed perimeter columns.
So why are you?

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

To clarify: The initiating event hypothesis includes fires causing floor systems to fail, causing one or more core columns to buckle to the east.
Again, no mention of lateral stress from the perimeter column damage.

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.

OK

 

[Christopher7]

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

1) NIST made no mention of this.
2) You are not qualified to make that statement.

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

Same argument in reverse:
You cannot say that more than one column was damaged just because you wish it so.

Pulling to the west as a contributing factor in the initial failure, yes.

1) NIST made no mention of this.
2) You are not qualified to make that statement.

 

[firecoins]

Today I saw building # 7 standing. Prove to me it collapsed at all.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns.

No

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

Yes
NIST Apx. L pg 36:
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression:
[boulding mine]
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 the vierendeel action of the perimeter frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

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

Most likely from where all the severe damage was.
[the west half of the south side]

And why do you think you can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?

The firefighters at the scene were in a better position to access the damage to the west half of the south side but the engineers at NIST are more qualified to analyze that assessment.
Furthermore, the firefighters had no knowledge of the conditions in the area of the initiating event other than the office fires that were reported.

 

[Miragememories]

Here's a better quality composite of the NIST photo and the reference image.



I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Reference points #15 to #17 shows a major loss to the building's corner in the NIST (NYPD) photo. The comparable #15 to #17 in the reference photo clearly shows no hint of that amount of loss to the building's corner.

MM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Here's a better quality composite of the NIST photo and the reference image.

[URL]http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4342/wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.th.jpg[/URL]

I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Reference points #15 to #17 shows a major loss to the building's corner in the NIST (NYPD) photo. The comparable #15 to #17 in the reference photo clearly shows no hint of that amount of loss to the building's corner.

MM

In the photo on the right, the feature that looks like the corner of the building actually appears to be the exposed and displaced corner perimeter column (see the apparent gap between the face and the column from the floors marked 13 through 15).

In the NYPD photo, the building face between the rightmost windows appears to be mostly intact (although heavily damaged) until below the floor marked 15, where the damage is much more severe and material is actually missing. This looks consistent with the photo on the right, where the material between the floors marked 15 & 16 appears heavily damaged and raggedy, with material missing. It's difficult to see what's going on below that in this photo.

 

[Kent1]

The 15-17 are also a touch low now. Floor 15 especially needs to be fixed on the left photo. One thing you'll notice if you've looked at many of the other photos, is that there is a large amount of smoke coming from the 16th and 17th floor areas.

 

[Miragememories]

The 15-17 are also a touch low now. Floor 15 especially needs to be fixed on the left photo. One thing you'll notice if you've looked at many of the other photos, is that there is a large amount of smoke coming from the 16th and 17th floor areas.

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM

 

[Kent1]

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM

I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

 

[Miragememories]

I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM

 

[A W Smith]

persistent petulance

I see the same piece of debris I pointed out earlier in yellow on the Cirone image MM. Get over it.

 

[Kent1]

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM

Now your just ranting....I've denied the validity of your photo comparison just fine. The other photo only further supports the damage claim. Now your calling foul on that one also because it further hurts your wild claims.
Stomp away...