Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Wrong
There were no reports of further collapses in WTC 7.
Both photos were taken after the collapse of WTC 1
The damage was attributed to the collapse of WTC 1.
10 story hole in WTC 7
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc
- Status
There were no reports of further collapses in WTC 7.
The damage was attributed to the collapse of WTC 1.
Please note that the aspect ratio of the upper view seems off. This can be seen in how much wider the windows appear in that shot than in the other one.
This will tend to stetch out the damaged area in the upper view. This I am pretty sure is one source of the discrepancy. Coupled with the differing angle.
What windows are present or abscent or damaded to what degree is just too hard to gauge from the upper shot.
This will tend to stetch out the damaged area in the upper view. This I am pretty sure is one source of the discrepancy. Coupled with the differing angle.
What windows are present or abscent or damaded to what degree is just too hard to gauge from the upper shot.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
From Gravy's reference paper, 'World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the "9/11 Truth Movement"':
"...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110022.PDF
"Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides."
(Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)
Things falling, chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Those look like reports of further collapses.
"After the collapse of WTC1" places the time between 10am and 5:30pm. The damage from the collapse of WTC1 made the structure unstable and the building was on fire. Firemen reported things falling. Over the course of seven and a half hours, is it impossible that the damaged area could have deteriorated?
Dave
Miragememories
Banned
The aspect ratio is the same throughout.
People still see that which they choose to see!
MM
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Wrong
The windows are different on some floors.
You're getting the photos mixed up.
The first photo shows the first two windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15, are intact.
There are no reports of collapses after the fall of WTC 1.
On the contrary, on floors 14 and 15, the first two windows on the west side of WTC 7 are intact in one photo and missing in the other.
Your line isn't even close to being straight!
That effort was a joke.
No sale on any point.
In terms of closeness to the corner? Evidence please.
There were reports of parts falling off the building. Which is not a collapse. Are you saying you know for a fact nothing fell off? Evidence please.
Not that I really think that explains it. My explanation does a good job of that until you can effectively counter it.
No evidence of any fakery here. Just more CT paranoia. If anything the first photo is a decpetive angle. Not that there is any reason to suspect it was done that way on purpose. Move along.
I will acknowledge that there is a possible APPEARANCE of greater window damage in the high angle shot. But there is too much going on here to say much of anything for sure. Particularly with that odd stretching going on! If those windows are stretched as far as they appear this would also mean the damaged area in general is getting stretched. If this is the case that could be the source of your discrepancy right there! In a way you would have made a good observation for the CT side; the photo shot from above exagerates the damage. Good point. Instead you leap to the conclusion of fakery.
Would you acknowledge that the photo shot from above has a faulty aspect ratio. Look how the windows get wider as you approasch the corner, Much wider. That stretching of the window is not apparent in the other photo at all.
That effort was a joke.
No sale on any point.
In terms of closeness to the corner? Evidence please.
There were reports of parts falling off the building. Which is not a collapse. Are you saying you know for a fact nothing fell off? Evidence please.
Not that I really think that explains it. My explanation does a good job of that until you can effectively counter it.
No evidence of any fakery here. Just more CT paranoia. If anything the first photo is a decpetive angle. Not that there is any reason to suspect it was done that way on purpose. Move along.
I will acknowledge that there is a possible APPEARANCE of greater window damage in the high angle shot. But there is too much going on here to say much of anything for sure. Particularly with that odd stretching going on! If those windows are stretched as far as they appear this would also mean the damaged area in general is getting stretched. If this is the case that could be the source of your discrepancy right there! In a way you would have made a good observation for the CT side; the photo shot from above exagerates the damage. Good point. Instead you leap to the conclusion of fakery.
Would you acknowledge that the photo shot from above has a faulty aspect ratio. Look how the windows get wider as you approasch the corner, Much wider. That stretching of the window is not apparent in the other photo at all.
Last edited:
And what, I am to take your word for it? At least I offer some evidence. How do you explain the rapid widening of the windows as you approach the corner? Why is that not at all evident in the other photo?
One of the photos is incorrect on this point. Do you not see that?!?
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
WTC 5 cannot be seen from West Street. Picciotto was standing at West Broadway and Vesey where 5, 6 and 7 could be seen.
Furthermore, 'things falling' does not mean collapse.
Note the shadow on Wintergarden from WFC 2
Note shadows on roof of the Verizon Building
This photo was taken about noon.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The photo isn't exactly level.
Note the windows on WFC 2 on the right.
At the top, there is a slightly larger space between the windows and the edge of the picture.
I added a line to the edge of WFC 2 to illustrate that the jogs in the vertical lines are due to the pixels being vertical and the photo being slightly off level.
Very clearly, at about floor 15, the apparent corner jumps inward, proving it is not a corner at all, there is something there that is almost vertically straight but it is not the building corner. It has to be part of the damaged area. There is also some obvious window damage and I do not believe we can rule out that the end of the window near the corner is in fact torn off, which is consistent with the other picture, again with the proviso that the upper picture is taken from a bad angle and is distorted.
No evidence of anything except a poor picure and view.
And what do you make of the stretched out windows?
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
you have to disregard everything jennings says and not just cherry pick the bits you think support you, this is very dishonest
he states that the lobby looked like king kong had trashed it and he was taken out a hole in the wall
this would say to me there was lots of damage in the lobby
you either use all his testimonies or you disregard it all
i notice you are running away from someone else when asked about your silent explosives
please tell me where i can get some
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Wrong
The corner line goes right thru it and the windows are intact on 14 and 15.
[whoever made this graphic corrected the slightly out of level but
the arrows are a little off so i added the floor numbers]
Wrong
There is something between 14 and 15 in the photo on the right, but it's too vague to say what it is.
The corner and the window on 14 are in tact on the photo on the right, and missing in the photo on the left.
The spandrel [wall] between 14 and 15 is intact between 14 and 15 in the photo on the right, and missing in the photo on the left.
Hard to say. It could be the different angles.
Yuor unfounded arrogance is childish. "Wrong. Wrong."
The line OBVIOULSY gets much closer to the lower windows than the upper. OBVIOUSLY. So that is NOT and CANNOT BE an intact corner.
The windows are stretched out, obviously, because of some sort of distortion I am not qualified to explain, but that there is a distortion which would exagerate the damge is not even in question.
The 2 photos can be reconciled to an acceptable degree and there is no evidence of any fakery whatsoever. One has a bad angle and a distorted aspect and the other is obscured by smoke and of generally poor resolution.
Find better photos and we could then see for sure if the damage is worse in one of them. As it stands there is nothing conclusive. I'm not saying there isn't worse damage in the upper shot, I'm saying it is inconclusive and that at the very least the two shots are much closer than you make them seem. To claim fakery at this point is simply a joke. You have (or whomever) taken a bad photo, bad apect and angle, and then interpolated a rotated view. That ain't gonna cut it and is in all probablity impossible to do with any accuracy. Cameras don't see around corners. I am assuming that's what that new shot is?
No sale. There is also the very real possibility that an area damged in the inital collapse might fall apart further with time. As has been pointed out there were reports of parts falling off. If you are loking for a detaild report of exactly what fell off and when I suppose you are dreaming. That would not have been high on the firefighter's list.
The line OBVIOULSY gets much closer to the lower windows than the upper. OBVIOUSLY. So that is NOT and CANNOT BE an intact corner.
The windows are stretched out, obviously, because of some sort of distortion I am not qualified to explain, but that there is a distortion which would exagerate the damge is not even in question.
The 2 photos can be reconciled to an acceptable degree and there is no evidence of any fakery whatsoever. One has a bad angle and a distorted aspect and the other is obscured by smoke and of generally poor resolution.
Find better photos and we could then see for sure if the damage is worse in one of them. As it stands there is nothing conclusive. I'm not saying there isn't worse damage in the upper shot, I'm saying it is inconclusive and that at the very least the two shots are much closer than you make them seem. To claim fakery at this point is simply a joke. You have (or whomever) taken a bad photo, bad apect and angle, and then interpolated a rotated view. That ain't gonna cut it and is in all probablity impossible to do with any accuracy. Cameras don't see around corners. I am assuming that's what that new shot is?
No sale. There is also the very real possibility that an area damged in the inital collapse might fall apart further with time. As has been pointed out there were reports of parts falling off. If you are loking for a detaild report of exactly what fell off and when I suppose you are dreaming. That would not have been high on the firefighter's list.
Last edited:
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
That is true of some people; it is not true of all people. In fact, I know of one person who chooses to see a 22 storey building where a mere 6 storey building actually exists. Pretty odd behaviour, isn't it?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2885543&postcount=394
That is true of some people; it is not true of all people. In fact, I know of one person who chooses to see a 22 storey building where a mere 6 storey building actually exists. Pretty odd behaviour, isn't it?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2885543&postcount=394
Ouch, that's gotta hurt!
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Incorrect
However
You are right about the distance from the window to the corner.
I tried it again using the left side of the windows as a guide and made the two lines parallel.
It cannot be said for sure if the corner column is there or not.
I stand corrected thank you.
The photo on the left shows the first windows on floors 14 and 15 and the fascia between them on west wall are missing.
The photo on the right shows that area is not missing.
This is not a distortion, there's stuff hanging in the left photo where there are windows and wall in the right photo.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The NIST photo was taken around noon.
The other photo was taken late in the afternoon.
The shadow of WFC 2 on Wintergarden means the sunlight was coming from the west.
Still out there Chris?
Any luck with the silent explosives yet?
How about finding someone stupid enough to rig the building while it was burning and leaning?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
One on right has lots of smoke and flames showing there is an obvious fire which you can see from the windows on the west side
The one on the left does not have this fire or smoke on the left side but has evidence of such fires that have obviously gone out
The one on the left is later than the one on the right therefore any extra damage could have occured in this time
Unless you have accurate timings for the pictures you cannot cry fake.
Shadows are very unreliable for working out time especially in cropped photos like you are using
still no supplier of silent explosives you reckon must have been used?
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
This is not accurate. WTC5 was certainly visible from West and Vesey.
- Status