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

Look, Im confused. Are you saying that WTC7 WAS sufficiently damaged to fall but that FEMA "hid" this in order to divert conspiratorial attention to the main towers? Or that the building was damaged but not in a way that could have led to the building collapsing. I thought the conspiracy theory for the last 5 or so years has revolved around the idea that building 7 wasn't damaged enough to warrant any collapse?

So what is it you are saying?

LEE.

Originally posted by selfless

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]

Hey selfless, is that photo showing wtc7 on fire as a reflection in the other building? Doesn't seem like too much damage from that photo.

Yet again , a HUGE waste of time and space with pictures that show
absolutely nothing of value . And just what was so " lost " about these
photo's ? If you found them , Well then they weren't that lost , were they ?
They just weren't of any value as evidence because they don't show
ANYTHING important . You just keep looking for something that does not
exsist , a " smoking gun ".

Originally posted by gen.disaray
Yet again , a HUGE waste of time and space with pictures that show
absolutely nothing of value . And just what was so " lost " about these
photo's ? If you found them , Well then they weren't that lost , were they ?
They just weren't of any value as evidence because they don't show
ANYTHING important . You just keep looking for something that does not
exsist , a " smoking gun ".

I have to wonder if people actually read threads. Or do they just jump on the first 9/11 thread they see and post their very opinionated opinion with nothing to back it up? I vote for the latter in most cases.

I challenge you, esdad, gwionx, snoopy et al to start backing up your claims. Else, I am going to start ignoring people. It is getting very tiresome (which is what I believe the point is...to try and get us so frusted that we either blow up and get banned or stop posting all together). Care to take my challenge?

[edit on 5/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by nyarlathotep
Hey selfless, is that photo showing wtc7 on fire as a reflection in the other building? Doesn't seem like too much damage from that photo.

It's the fire we see on the WTC7 directly.

The wolf had to blow freaking hard to tumble down this little pig's building....

EDIT: Here's a close up.




I think the wolf had some extra help...

Poor little pigs doesn't stand a chance against technology.

PS: I am talking about the 3 little pigs story...

[edit on 13-5-2007 by selfless]

Selfless,

I'm presumming that that photo is of the North facade? If so, that photo really doesn't show much as to how much fire was on the south or damage to the south. Anyway though, it DOES show that there was nothing wrong with the north facade. So, how did that portion of the building fail exactly with the rest of the building again? That's retorical and not aimed at you Selfless.

[edit on 5/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
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?

Well, internal damage that caused supports in the middle of the building to fail would explain why the middle collapsed first. How do explosives/thermite/mininiukes account for the middle falling first?

The penthouse failure leads me to think that no bombs were used, but instead that key failures led to a progressive collapse.

The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris. In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.

I'm curious as to why the pictures are not in agreement with the official reports? Where in the NIST or FEMA report does it state that the scooped out corner extended all the way to the ground?

These pictures clearly demonstrate where the damage starting at the 18th floor tapered out, proving that there was indeed major damage on the SW corner spanning over ten floors.

Also consider the debris. If the debris extended that far into the alley, imagine how far into the building it went. Further evidence that there was enough damage to the building to bring it down without bombs.

Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by LeftBehind]

Selfless, are you trying to be intentionally decietful?

If you are trying to pass off this pic as the only fire at 7, you are either lying to yourself or trying to lie to the rest of us.



Small fires? Maybe on the North side, and still those fires are big enough to have burned their way through from the south side, which looked like this.

Leftbehind,

Please show me any building of that magnitude that have collapsed from a fire in the past.

I have not seen one yet except 3 that just happened to be on the same day and looked exactly like buildings taken down from explosives.

I think i don't have to tell you which ones i am talking about right?



[edit on 13-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Selfless, are you trying to be intentionally decietful?

If you are trying to pass off this pic as the only fire at 7, you are either lying to yourself or trying to lie to the rest of us.]

No, i am showing the picture that people forgot to show, that demonstrates a very hard to believe fairy tale about a building that pancaked from a fire...

Especially since the ''north'' side was not heavily damaged and yet the whole building fell down symmetrically.

Some of my 9-11 collection
I am going to share pics as I dig them out. Some pics are from a disc that a NY fireman gave me, and some were collected over the years.
I'm still stuck as to how to provide my audio clips from the radio transmissions and the pdf. transcripts of some others. Does anyone have a hosting site that allows these media types?

Originally posted by shadow watcher
Some of my 9-11 collection

This album is maked 'private' and needs a password for us to access. Can you 'open' it up for viewing?

Your album isn't set to 'public'.

www.megaupload.com...
comes to mind for etc uploads. I'm sure there's some better ones out there.

sorry, try it now.
So much is set to auto load that I forget what is blocked.

Shadow watcher:

This album is private. Please login.

Still didn't get it.



It seems I missed some posts earlier by hitting the red arrow to get in.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Are you saying that WTC7 WAS sufficiently damaged to fall but that FEMA "hid" this in order to divert conspiratorial attention to the main towers?

Well these photos show where the damage tapered off, and that at least one section of columns speared into the ground / corner of the building. The looks of the one section appear as if they stick out of the back just above the 1st floor. But there's room for speculation on that one.

The general idea of my broad 9/11 "Disinfo Theory" is that virtually every aspect of 9/11 is left open for tons of speculation by our "noble leaders", and every single time these are the primary things that fuel the conspiracy theories in general. Pick a subject and I can throw together a list of example off the top of my head (I have a thread coming up about this issue in general), as can most anyone who's looked closely at any of the major aspects.

What we have here is FEMA, for starters, had and used these photos which show 'exactly' how far down the damage goes... and then some. Instead of them saying "look, here's the hole from the top view bgeinning at floor #18, and here's it from the ground view ending at floor #5-7, and then added core columns sticking out", they left it at the one upper photo and some assumptions, after scaling down the lower damage photo so that it left open all sorts of room for speculation / conjecture / conspiracy theories /etc.

Now that I think about it, it's safe to assume that people in many debates have pulled out that scaled down image to "prove" that there wasn't any lower damage at all, and would have been "right" as you can't see anything going on there.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by gen.disaray
Yet again , a HUGE waste of time and space with pictures that show
absolutely nothing of value . And just what was so " lost " about these
photo's ?

Wow, here I was thinking the "Conspiracist" crowd would be the most 'annoyed' by this revelation, and here the "Skeptic" crowd is the first one to fire off shots. Could it be that perhaps you had the belief that the massive hole never tapered off before the ground level??

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
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?

Well, internal damage that caused supports in the middle of the building to fail would explain why the middle collapsed first. How do explosives/thermite/mininiukes account for the middle falling first?

The penthouse failure leads me to think that no bombs were used, but instead that key failures led to a progressive collapse.

Could well be - here's the slide NIST showed of building damage.


(from www.wtc7.net...)

Beyond the corner damage we've been stuck on is damage to the middle of the south side, much bigger, also I think by twin tower debris, apparently extending into the building's center.
Does anybody have any photos of this damage to share? I don't think I've seen any yet.

The building did not fall perfectly into it's footprint, it fell to the south and to the east, damaging buildings across the street from it and filling the streets with debris. In fact, the opposite of falling into it's footprint happened.

I'm still not an expert in this stuff at all... but really? I'm not going to argue that right now - but the opposite would be going everywhere but its footprint, which I somehow doubt. Whatever...

I'm curious as to why the pictures are not in agreement with the official reports? Where in the NIST or FEMA report does it state that the scooped out corner extended all the way to the ground? [...] Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see the coverup.

I think (never sure w/IIB) that the problem is the damage is not mentioned or shown, essentially covered up, and probably to create wrong tracks (no bldg damage) for CTers to get stuck on. I dunno, new to the issue. Also there's the photos taken on the afternoon of 9/11 (we yhink maybe 2:15 pm) showing no damage in that same corner... meaning either a faked photo or corner-scooping that happened hours AFTER the main tower collapses... I'm still figuring that one out too (other thread)



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

first audio
Ok, I went to MegaUpload and threw some audio clips up there.
Here is the first one. If there is an interest, I have more.

EDIT: PICS ARE NOW UNLOCKED...I hope they were worth the bother.
I will add more stuff as I find it. I'll bump this when I do too.

[edit on 13/5/07 by shadow watcher]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I think (never sure w/IIB) that the problem is the damage is not mentioned or shown, essentially covered up, and probably to create wrong tracks (no bldg damage) for CTers to get stuck on. I dunno, new to the issue. Also there's the photos taken on the afternoon of 9/11 (we yhink maybe 2:15 pm) showing no damage in that same corner... meaning either a faked photo or corner-scooping that happened hours AFTER the main tower collapses... I'm still figuring that one out too (other thread)

I try not to be too sure myself, it can lead to irrational biases.

I'm still on the fence on the overall WTC7 issue, but i see the Disinfo Theory as most promising in again this case(irrational bias??).

If that's the right time (2:15) that's important. The 2 sections of core columns in the 2 'new' photos shows spearing, meaning they had to be there immediately after WTC1 collapsed. It just makes things more complicated for trying to explain the hole happening after the fact.

With these 'new' photos, it's a situation where if the hole photos were "fabrications", it makes it harder for these 'new' images to not be total fabrications. It gets trickier since it took over 5 years for some chum like me to happen to notice them while looking for something else. In other words, for them to fabricate but then not use them makes it even fishier.

Good times. I'll probably be particiapating in that faked images thread whenever I get my data back up...

[edit on 14-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Hi all,

I am on my way out of the other WTC7 thread, but thought I might add this.


images.google.com "core wtc"

My nice auntie gave me the book, Men of Steel: The Story of the Family That Built the World Trade Center by Karl Koch III and Richard Firstman; which sat in the bathroom a long time before I could open another 911 periodical.

Upon reading it, I found it to be a descent historical overview of this family’s construction management involvement with the towers. Granted there is a NIST-like chapter attached for official collapse explanation, but also some revealing anecdotes, such as the complete lack of thousands (yes thousands) of concrete floor panels found in the ground zero rubble.

These were very large steel, aluminum and concrete prefab units; the infamous ‘flap-jacks’ to the NIST pancake theory - which they now discount I believe. Regardless, few if any pancakes were recovered at ground zero, much less an acre sized 36’foot thick cake that would have been almost 4 stories of pure concrete ( ~110 floors x 4” concrete). A number that discounts the volume of steel spanning elements buttered in-between each concrete layer. So fine, if no pancake theory where are a thousand plus concrete floor sections? Unfortunately, the book doesn’t have much to say about WTC janitorial services, which evidently must have sucked, because AS steel towers ‘collapsed’ – we all saw just how 'dusty' they were inside!

I am only venting here out of my own frustration in asking you all how many fundamental anomalies must be encountered before that 100th monkey can break from his misconception fit to an actual discrete event? Face it, our structures don’t fall that often, and thousands of people hours and resources are specifically put into place to keep things standing. We don’t have to be physicists or engineers to ask the important questions. Did the buildings fall immediately after the plane strikes? Did any of NIST’s metal samples taken from ground zero show characteristics even close to steel deformation temperature – and what about those floors with no obvious fire or damage? What were the damaged sections of WTC1/2/7 falling through exactly– perfectly solid structure? Where is that central core steel box frame with its own separate floor system? Could that have gone to rubber or was it simply felled onto Central park….Ad nauseam

Sorry. I really don’t want to distract from your good thread, but all 3 buildings fell down flat - period! However very basic rules in margins of safety, material strengths, distributive loading, center of gravity, - even dumb sprinkler systems still try their damnest to apply even in the most chaotic events.

Please keep up the great work and discussion on all sides.

-scrap