WTC 7 photo's, all day on 9/11

you asked for witnesses of WTC 7 explosions :

1. I have found one reporter explaining that every fifteen or twenty minutes smaller secondary explosions were going off at WTC 7 and WTC 5. An extremely dangerous place to be, he said at the end.
terrorize.dk...

(... The firemen were concerned that WTC 7 was going to collapse, building nr 5 was in danger of collapse... You hear smaller secondary explosions going off every fifteen or twenty minutes...)

2. www.grandtheftcountry.com...

quote: Firefighters and press in the area were told to "get back" because they were going to "pull-it". "Pulling" a building means taking it down with strategically placed demolition charges at the inner support columns so that the building falls in on its own "footprint" as to not damage the other structures in the vicinity. It was a classic bottom-up implosion. You can actually see the demolition charges running up the top 6 floors.(click the same underlined __javascript link on the site)
Building 7 played host to then Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management command center, with the 23rd floor built in 1998 as a "bunker" with bullet and bomb-resistant windows, its own water and air supply, the ability to withstand 160mph winds, and a full commanding view of the entire WTC complex. Interestingly, on 9/11 Giuliani didn't bother to put the center to use (even though that's what it was built for) and decided to instead set up a makeshift command center down the street. Seven also served as the command center for the security of the entire WTC complex, which was headed by the President's brother, Marvin Bush, whose contract ended "coincidentally" on 9/11. WTC7's other tentants included the IRS, CIA, Secret Service, FBI, Department of Defense, and the SEC. It has been reported that several banks involved in sending money to the 9/11 hijackers had their offices there, and important files pertaining to the Enron investigation were stored there as well.

Look, these are the buildings that collapsed.

Look at building WTC 6. Half the building is destroyed in half!! Its in the direct path of the destruction of the debris from WTC 1 all the way to WTC 7.

Distance view of WTC 1 to WTC 7. Look at the pic showing half of WTC 6 showing on image.

Final image shows the damage the debris from WTC 1 goes to WTC 6 and 7.


Nuff said.

since your own photo has the text :
WTC 7, sustained minor damage and minor fires burning, still it imploded totally in its own footprint.

Until you show me HEAVY, still unconclusively shown damage to the south face center of WTC 7, I do not believe AT ALL in a gravitational collapse of WTC 7, and btw of all 3 towers.
These were engineered to fall on demand, not from the results of plane impacts.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

As some people have posted before...

It shows more than just minor damage...

Delta...

Here's another shot...

Thank you for that pic. Yours show more clearer and bigger than mine.

I see some black spots, nothing else, in the center.
Not at all something I could hang a conclusion on, like you 2 hang on.

Find me the rest of that NYPD heli footage, shot after they made that south corner shot with the damage in it, shot from above.
Ofcourse there must be many more photo's taken by this heli, and others crowdying the sky around WTC 7.
File a FOIA, to get access to them all.
NIST has them, and you know that, so why do they not show them to us?

deltaboy: you've wrote: "...debris going avalanche towards the building..."

I've got questions about it.

What caused that "avalanche" of debris ?
Since when collapsing building is "ejecting itself" in all directions that far away from building ?

Well...

How about this one?



This is from the first youtube that Delta posted...

Originally posted by LaBTop
I see some black spots, nothing else, in the center.
Not at all something I could hang a conclusion on, like you 2 hang on.

In the center eh?

Originally posted by STolarZ

What caused that "avalanche" of debris ?
Since when collapsing building is "ejecting itself" in all directions that far away from building ?

Since the bottom part of the building is trying to resist the top part that are collapsing, its bound to go spread outwards. Why not just drop straight down cleanly?

www.youtube.com...

Like this one.

from the top down, just as the two other towers.
Not a bottom up one like you show in that link above the text : ""like this one"".

And ofcourse if persons plan three events like that, they do not follow the standard demolition techniques. They plan it so, that all civilian experts can be easily convinced that they saw not some civilian demolition expert at work, like they are.
They have had access to all military funds available for this job, much more than all civilian expert firms will ever see in their whole life.

Because this was clearly a military operation, coupled to a damage control secret services operation, for the needed psychological suppression of the public aftereffects.

They blew a whole three stories high collumn packet, (because most of the blown away perimeter wall parts were 3 stories high), one after the other, with the cutter charges aimed and bursting inward, all around the center collumns packet. Automatically the floor trusses together with the on them resting floors dropped down with the blown out collumns.
That's why you see in the first frames of the start of collapses, INWARD buckling of the perimeter wall parts, and you see those perimeter parts been sucked DOWNWARD into the building first.

It was not needed to protect all placed charges for a plane impact, since all charges were detonated by radio signals, so you just have to program your detonation diagram to start sending the first radio signal to the nearest floor under the lowest impacted floor.
(And probably also to all the still functioning charges left on the plane-impacted floors, since nobody will notice a difference when the collapse started. They just counted the floor nrs by binocular.).
They just started with the 76th floor collumn packet for the South Tower, and with the 93rd floor collumn packet for the North Tower.

Two to three seconds after both collapses were initiated that way, the whole pack of cuttercharges still functional in the top section above the fires and impacted floors were detonated all together, that's why we saw both toppling tower top sections turn instantly into dust. No magic here, just simple programming done in ten minutes, probably by the few military trained demolition experts who stayed behind in that abandoned OEM command center on the 23rd floor of WTC 7.

They have placed 47 collumn charges x 36 floors (110/3 floors) = 1692 units in each tower. In the weekend before 9/11. They just used the only elevator which ran from bottom to top, the freight elevator, not used by office workers. And worked from the roof of that elevator, accessable by the emergency door in the ceiling, or the special sliding maintenance access door in the side.

That's why we didn't see any visible explosions on the perimeter wall sections, they were not planned for obvious reasons, one explosion visible would have exposed the planned nature of the events.

DeltaBoy, thank you for your link to that controlled demolition video btw, since we can very clearly hear the first inner COLLUMN charges explode, bottom to top, but do not SEE them at all, the visible outer wall collumn charges came seconds later on.
If they would have exploded them reversed, top down, you would have seen exactly the same effect as we have seen on 9/11, if they had used much more collumn charges, and no perimeter wall charges. And heard the same roaring sounds.


Jedi Master, concerning the FIRST video frame picture you grabbed from this video link of yours :
www.youtube.com...

that is HIGHLY suspicious that this YouTube video exerpt from a much longer video, started exactly with the ONLY single frame you see that straight vertical side of that black spot in the left WTC 7 part of the picture there, insinuating that you see a broken out building face there.
And it is not to be seen in any other frame of that partial video.
All the other dark regions you see in the rest of that video are clearly moving dark parts of the smoke blown away by the wind.
I suspect the one who posted that video to YouTube, is a con man. Photoshopper.
Perhaps mr Spak or the one who posted his altered photos? He already got caught with his clearly photoshopped out fire hoses.

There are however a few more interesting things to observe, those white flashing spots you see through the smoke, I addressed already in other threads and posts about this video. There is another very bright flashing point to see in the center of the screen, that's for sure not a reflection of sunlight.
Your guess as good as mine about the nature of these flashes.

Secondly, the other photo shows the well known roof parapet damage already known for years from FEMA and NIST diagrams. It is certainly not a "20 stories high, 10 meter deep hole in the CENTER of the south face" of WTC 7. And can have no effect at all on a total collapse as we have observed so many times by now, from numerous posted videos.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Since the bottom part of the building is trying to resist the top part that are collapsing, its bound to go spread outwards.

If that's true, then why didn't the collapse slow down?

Originally posted by bsbray11

If that's true, then why didn't the collapse slow down?

How much do you think all those materials weight coming down?

Jedi Master, concerning the FIRST video frame picture you grabbed from this video link of yours :
www.youtube.com...

that is HIGHLY suspicious that this YouTube video exerpt from a much longer video, started exactly with the ONLY single frame you see that straight vertical side of that black spot in the left WTC 7 part of the picture there, insinuating that you see a broken out building face there.
And it is not to be seen in any other frame of that partial video.

WRONG

I've got the .avi and am looking at it frame by frame via Virtual Dub...

Frame 50...



Frame 51...



Frame 52...



Frame 53...



Do you need more?

**ETA**

Secondly, the other photo shows the well known roof parapet damage already known for years from FEMA and NIST diagrams. It is certainly not a "20 stories high, 10 meter deep hole in the CENTER of the south face" of WTC 7.

And you know this how?

Do you have X-Ray vision and can see through smoke in a vid?

Put the two together, one shows top damage. one shows mid level damage...

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Jedi_Master]

www.youtube.com...

Look at the pieces going out faaaar away from the building, and fast!!!

Originally posted by deltaboy
How much do you think all those materials weight coming down?

A small fraction of the total mass of the building. It should have slowed down.

And that cap of falling floors quickly disintegrated and came over the sides of the building as it collapsed anyway.

Originally posted by bsbray11


A small fraction of the total mass of the building. It should have slowed down.

And that cap of falling floors quickly disintegrated and came over the sides of the building as it collapsed anyway.

A small fraction? What are you superman? Not to mention this WTC is not built to handled floors collapsing on itself. There are resistance, as the video I posted showing much of debris flying, some really large.

I posted a video showing the camera in the lobby, starting at 3:35 theres a rumble, count how long it takes from that time to the time darkness consumes the camera.

You're right, it wasn't built to collapse. And the floors on top, again, were a small fraction of the total building mass. I don't know where Superman comes into this; all you have to do is count the floors (try WTC1) and remember that the uppermost floors were lighter for structural reasons.

Think of anything else you possibly can. Nothing a fraction of a mass will fall into that mass, top to bottom, sending debris flying EVERYWHERE, without slowing down.

Why? Try to concentrate here, think hard:


A falling mass represents kinetic energy. Right? It takes a lot of energy to crush through hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Every bit of the material crushed takes a toll on the kinetic energy of the falling mass. And every time some of the falling mass falls over the edge (ultimately ~90% of it), that's less kinetic energy available in the first place.

Now, throughout all of this, whether or not you believe there was enough kinetic energy to fully collapse all the floors underneath, you MUST admit (if you have ANY brains about you AT ALL) that ENERGY MUST HAVE BEEN "SPENT" ON EVERY INCH OF BUILDING CRUSHED. That is LESS ENERGY AVAILABLE TO CONTINUE CRUSHING THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING. Visible result? DECERATION OF THE COLLAPSE WAVE.

Now that I've explained a very OBVIOUS and INTUITIVE fact about how anything can fall into something else, I want you to stop what you're doing (stop thinking about what you're going to post next, stop thinking about how you're going to respond to me), sit there, clear your head of whatever is in it, and think about what I just typed out. Decide whether or not it makes sense to you, and then respond INTELLIGENTLY. I can't take much more of this vague 'it was heavy' and Superman crap. You aren't thinking about what you're typing.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're right, it wasn't built to collapse.

You mean I was right, it can't handle the floors collapsing on them?

And the floors on top, again, were a small fraction of the total building mass. I don't know where Superman comes into this; all you have to do is count the floors (try WTC1) and remember that the uppermost floors were lighter for structural reasons.

Think of it this way, you believe that the top floors should never be able to take down the rest of the building below because it outmasses the floors on the top. Well that makes sense....after all, the bottom floors aren't doing anything while the top floors are moving. And any info you can link me that the top floors are lighter than the bottom would be appreciated. Because I always assumed that the whole building would be lighter from ground up.

A falling mass represents kinetic energy. Right? It takes a lot of energy to crush through hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Every bit of the material crushed takes a toll on the kinetic energy of the falling mass. And every time some of the falling mass falls over the edge (ultimately ~90% of it), that's less kinetic energy available in the first place.

Yes falling mass represents kinetic energy. Its possible that from the videos we have seen that somehow the top floors are dragging and causing the other floors at the bottom to start collapsing as well, before the debris goes outward. We cannot see the through the debris to reach a conclusion.

Now, throughout all of this, whether or not you believe there was enough kinetic energy to fully collapse all the floors underneath, you MUST admit (if you have ANY brains about you AT ALL) that ENERGY MUST HAVE BEEN "SPENT" ON EVERY INCH OF BUILDING CRUSHED. That is LESS ENERGY AVAILABLE TO CONTINUE CRUSHING THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING. Visible result? DECERATION OF THE COLLAPSE WAVE.

I don't know what deceration is, never heard of that word. I will admit that when debris starts falling outward, the remainder of the debris loses energy, HOWEVER, the floors that are in contact with the falling debris (causing the chain reaction) would replace that ones lost before it finally touches the ground.