"Lost" photos show ground level WTC7 damage and FEMA disinfo coverup

The Images


Washington Street looking towards ground zero on 9/11. WTC7 on left.

I 'found' this by 'chance' during rigorous study of the street car fires at ground zero. I actually had it buried in my own archives. It went overlooked many times because it was "mirror" backwards and I never placed its location. Finally, I was specifically scouring ever source for shots of the collapse debris and status of the cars on the streets (at a later time in the day) in front of WTC7 after finding this amazing shot by chance at answers.com:


The street directly 'in front' of WTC7. Guess what's probably going to happen to the cars behind the burning car...
High Res

The top cropped images came from high res images of these:



As you can see, this elusive side of WTC7 looks far different than the other side which seems to have scores of images out there. Because of the difference I set out to find pre-911 photos of that side to confirm the discrepency. Google Images then showed me the same picture as above, only this one was tiny in comparison and almost impossible to notice and demonstrate the damage in this scaled down version.


So it turns out that the image was in the FEMA Report on WTC7.
www.fema.gov...

The full quality photos show damage going down to about the 5th floor, as well as exterior columns form WTC1 sticking both out of the backside of the building as well as into the ground right at the buildings corner.
Previous WTC7 photos:
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

FEMA merely used the one image to show only that debris had landed between the 2 buildings.

This finding prompted me to contact my source of the high res images. I got them on a 2 CD set of other ground zero images from teh local 9/11 Truth organizer. She got them from a lady named "Janine" who apparently was the same person who sent Dr. Steven Jones his dust samples. Now I wanted to know who took the photos, and the FEMA report tells that. George Miller with the NY Transit Authority took the photos, and they used to be hosted up at subwaywebnews.com. That site is no longer there but Archive.org has them archived and some high res images can still be found:
photo1 photo2

Here's my images, while probably scaled down by photobucket, the ones I have are larger than that sites:
photo1 photo2
They're still mirrored how I found them.

The Dillema

We have 3 dicotomies:

1: Incompetence
FEMA wasn't able to see the damage that goes with the debris, which I spotted immediately.

2: Coverup
FEMA left those images out to hide the fact that the massive hole tapers off as it gets towards the bottom (from that view at least). It still shows WTC1 exterier columns sticking into street at the buildings corner and what appears to be columns sticking out of the backside of the building.

3: Disinfo
FEMA left out those images to allow controversy and doubts that the damage went past what was shown in the top view shots of the hole. WTC7 has become the prime focus issue with 9/11 conspiracy theories, and withholding important damage evidence and analysis has allowed virtually all of the other "Loose Change" arguments to persist. These arguments have all diverted both "Truthers" and "Skeptics" to bitterly argue over debatable issues instead of focusing on the "Actionable Consensus" issues that warrant a serious hardcore investigation / criminal charges / social movement regardless of whether or not "Loose Change Arguments" are true or not.

In my view the disinfo dichotomy is the one. Virtually any aspect of 9/11 involves disinfo and what screams of being intentional skewing of matters to fuel diversionary conspiracy theories. This issue in itself diserves its own thread...



Sorry about the limited image analysis tonight . My PC melted down the other night, my new MB still hasn't arrived, and I cant currently access my programs and extensive files from my other hardrives with this crappy PC I borrowed from work.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Cool pictures.

I'm still in awe over the fact that most of the perimeter of WTC7 remained untouched, yet they want us to believe it was damaged enough to collapse straight down just like in a demolition.

I also agree with the disinformation conclusion. I wonder if there are other photos out there that could have provided a "smoking gun" but were destroyed by the government.

Hi, I was just looking at your pictures and how they were buried on your computer and you got me thinking about my collection. I have a cd that hasn't seen daylight since that week. I have a load of shots from 9/13 when a family member was helping out with his fire house. He also gave me a slew of audio from the firemen's radio transmissions from 9/11. I am listening to one now and for the first time I heard the order for 26 federal plaza to be evacuted because of a bomb threat. They responded that it was already evacuated. I bet if I had the stomach to listen to them all, there must be some stuff that may be new to hear.

I wish there was a way I could just chuck up the whole collection without spending hours doing so. Maybe I will make a home page or something. I'd love to share these pics as they were taken by a family member working ground zero, and they are from a different point of view.

Thanks for the reminder.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
FEMA left out those images to allow controversy and doubts that the damage went past what was shown in the top view shots of the hole.

Hit the nail on the head.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by shadow watcher
I wish there was a way I could just chuck up the whole collection without spending hours doing so.

How large in disk size is it all?

Someone should alter these images and add indicators as to which buildings are which, because when I look at these images I have no idea which building is which. And the way the original poster worded his descriptions doesn't help much, no offense, but they just didn't paint a very clear picture for me. Hopefully someone can make it all a little more clear and concise...

Thanks IIB. I've been sucked into the debate at that other thread, and I really think there's something there, someone lying with photos, or else I'm reading it all wrong. After looking at this I'm guessing it's likely not the seam the OP there intended. So we see more photos showing "scooped out" damage, as the NIST etc. contend? This is what I waswanting to see... some verification either way. It still doesn't explain the type of collapse we saw very well. This issue's got my attention but it's way too late tonight for serious thought.

Diplomat - WTC7 is at left in all shots, damage is up several floors, hard to see clearly - but it matches what the NIST shows pretty well...


[edit on 12-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Well aren't these the least popular images ever...




I had a much better presentation with screenshots from 3d google earth and more. PC died after several nights of working with these after finding them about a week into my deep streets analysis ambition.

►FLAGGED◄

Nice work on this post!

Digging at this issue is great, I always thought something amiss in regards to WTC7. Once again IIB you show us things we haven't seen before, Thank you!!!

IgnoranceIsntBlisss I am trully impressed.
Hat down really.

Thanks guys. I go wherever the truth takes me. For about a year now, since I've been looking closely at 911 issues, almost every path I've gone down related to 9/11 ended up with what can be best explained by the disinfo dichotomy. It's like every single area you examine is just incredible, and at some point the consistent pattern starts to just stink.

Originally posted by shadow watcher
He also gave me a slew of audio from the firemen's radio transmissions from 9/11. I am listening to one now and for the first time I heard the order for 26 federal plaza to be evacuted because of a bomb threat. They responded that it was already evacuated. I bet if I had the stomach to listen to them all, there must be some stuff that may be new to hear.

I wish there was a way I could just chuck up the whole collection without spending hours doing so. Maybe I will make a home page or something. I'd love to share these pics as they were taken by a family member working ground zero, and they are from a different point of view.

I've viewed many pictures of 9/11, and would like to see more, but those tapes sure sound interesting. I would love to hear them. Would you consider adding them to your page?

This should be the real image,

Hey there goes some detailed images of that discrepency. I kept seeing bloated and manipulated images in that other thread, and I havent been able to contribute without my main hard disks and software and extra monitor.

I must say, those simply can't be ignored.

Quite an incredible controversy we have here before us. Regardless.

So it turns out that on one hand we have these images showing major damage, and on the other hand no damage with some 'slight' burns above the windows. Mind job.


I guess we must start with the sources of these photos/videos.

[1] Damage:
1+ NYC Police helicopter:
"official source"
2+ NYC Transit Authority images:
"official source"
1+ Ground level angle shots, by photographer Steve Spak:
stevespak.com...
There's always 4th generation MKULTRA arguments if we want to get real technical

[2]No Damage:
2+ The breif album you linked in:
Normal People right? Who took these photos?

-mute- I can't access my extensive WTC7 folders. I might have clear video via the archive.org and etc materials to confirm or 'disconfirm' the hole.



Weakening dichotomy:
Gas lines up the Southwest corner exploded the wall.

Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5.

It may all have been pumped out by 1 p.m., or it may have been pumped out at a rate as low as 29 gpm for 7 hours. Since this fuel was absent from the wreckage, it was burned. You can see it as the huge plume of black smoke rising from the World Trade Center, in panoramic photographs of that day. Diesel fuel can supply 2.13 MW of power per gpm given an air supply of 1333 cfm (cubic feet per minute). (11)

Thus, a diesel fuel gusher of 75 gpm burning with excess air would produce 160 MW of heat; a total energy of 1536 GJ for the 12,000 gallons. This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
www.counterpunch.org...

So there apparently were gas lines that dumped fuel up that corner, but decent glance is showing it ended at the 5th floor, which is the lowest possible revealed by the topic photos here.

The problem is that for the fuel to explode the wall, we must assume that it all went off at once, but the fires in the area hamper that possibility.

There's still the issue of the columns sticking into the ground at the corner / columns apparently sticking out the back of the corner there.

Welcome to crazy world. This is getting incredibly good, ala anything-to-do-with-9/11-style.


[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Hey there goes some detailed images of that discrepency. I kept seeing bloated and manipulated images in that other thread, and I havent been able to contribute without my main hard disks and software and extra monitor.

I must say, those simply can't be ignored.

Quite an incredible controversy we have here before us. Regardless.

So it turns out that on one hand we have these images showing major damage, and on the other hand no damage with some 'slight' burns above the windows. Mind job.

I guess we must start with the sources of these photos/videos.

Thank you for addressing that! It's nuts how many people have tried to simply pretend there is no discrepancy, or to ignore the sun as a time-telling tool. I look forward to your imagery analysis on the issue, and looking into sources and stuff is my task for Monday.

Additional explosions inside WTC7 in the PM but before collapse? Sudden westward movement of the sun before WTC collapse? Photo manipulation in one of the sources? The angles of the photos? What are we seeing here? ...



and more on this thread - next post

[edit on 13-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Images

Washington Street looking towards ground zero on 9/11. WTC7 on left.
[...]
As you can see, this elusive side of WTC7 looks far different than the other side which seems to have scores of images out there. Because of the difference I set out to find pre-911 photos of that side to confirm the discrepency. Google Images then showed me the same picture as above, only this one was tiny in comparison and almost impossible to notice and demonstrate the damage in this scaled down version.

So it turns out that the image was in the FEMA Report on WTC7.
www.fema.gov...

The full quality photos show damage going down to about the 5th floor, as well as exterior columns form WTC1 sticking both out of the backside of the building as well as into the ground right at the buildings corner.

I would also guess that's what those are - unless I'd seen the area "scooped out" right above that. How odd! I'm still wrapping me brain around this one, so let me see if I get it: We are now hearing via the NIST about this SW corner damage (before unknown or unsubstantiated?), illustrated by their heli photo (before unseen?) - other than that, thes are about the only photos available that show this SW corner damage - and that area is nearly invisible due to smoke and sun glare, and the damage it barely shows was not even mentioned in FEMA's report?


The Dillema

We have 3 dicotomies:

1: Incompetence
FEMA wasn't able to see the damage that goes with the debris, which I spotted immediately.

2: Coverup
FEMA left those images out to hide the fact that the massive hole tapers off as it gets towards the bottom (from that view at least). It still shows WTC1 exterier columns sticking into street at the buildings corner and what appears to be columns sticking out of the backside of the building.

3: Disinfo
FEMA left out those images to allow controversy and doubts that the damage went past what was shown in the top view shots of the hole. WTC7 has become the prime focus issue with 9/11 conspiracy theories, and withholding important damage evidence and analysis has allowed virtually all of the other "Loose Change" arguments to persist. These arguments have all diverted both "Truthers" and "Skeptics" to bitterly argue over debatable issues instead of focusing on the "Actionable Consensus" issues that warrant a serious hardcore investigation / criminal charges / social movement regardless of whether or not "Loose Change Arguments" are true or not.

In my view the disinfo dichotomy is the one. Virtually any aspect of 9/11 involves disinfo and what screams of being intentional skewing of matters to fuel diversionary conspiracy theories. This issue in itself diserves its own thread...

I'll need to study this, still oddly ignorant of the WTC attack details but it looks a tiny bit like a honeytrap as it stands, like I've been tackling over the Pentagon issue. Keep it up! If all this looks half as intriguing after I've checked you get a WATS for sure, maybe some cash.

Sorry about the limited image analysis tonight . My PC melted down the other night, my new MB still hasn't arrived, and I cant currently access my programs and extensive files from my other hardrives with this crappy PC I borrowed from work.

Computers! Mentats often crash but you don't lose your files.

As I said in the other thread, for a day that has thousands of images, it's suprising to me that there are so few of the damaged corner of WTC7 from anything other than the OTHER side - though I guess since it's closest to the WTC1, maybe there were security restrictions limiting where anyone that wasn't a rescue worker was able to stand to take pics?

Good point there, good point here.
One other thing - if this is a set-up it should run thus:
"the bldg was undamaged! Only a demo could bring it down! Show me a photo of damge!" (none forthcoming) "Hah! I knew it!" (photos and explanations surface) "Oh jeez, the building was damaged, that's why it fell."

Added bonus for the setup? It doesn't even explain the middle of the building falling first and the rest falling into its footprint, does it? I'd expect a leaning collapse southwest into the rubble zone. Am I wrong?

Are we on our toes?

How can they expect us to believe that, this building collapsed like a pancake onto it self due to structural failure...

You have to be pretty gullible to believe this.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by selfless]