I'm working on a WTC7 presentation, and finding that some of the
conventional talking points ("the fires were small" and "there was no
fire in the afternoon") unfortunately don't stand up to scrutiny.
I'd retreated to "there is no evidence of major structural damage to WTC7
except eyewitness testimony that so mutually contradictory that FEMA's
report simply disregarded it." (FDNY personnel had much motivation to
exaggerate the damage, but suggesting that would be highly impolitic.)
I know the Michael Berger position is to admit the fires were severe and
admit there was structural damage, but to claim WTC7 should have
collapsed asymmetrically. I'm afraid that claim may not be convincing
to ordinary citizens, many of whom believe the towers' collapse caused
earthquake damage to building 7.
The tower perimeter columns are quite distinctive; three square tubes joined
by three broad spandrel plates. I've got some great pictures of perimeter
columns that tore out a chunk of the Bankers Trust building across Liberty
Street, and some sticking out of the WFC3 building across West Street like
a spear. Of course neither of these buildings fell down. I'd like to say
that
the lack of photos showing any of these being taken out of the WTC7 debris
pile suggestive there were none, so NIST's ten-story gash is a fiction.
Now I've found a photo that's claimed to be tower perimeter columns
in the WTC7 pile.
http://tinyurl.com/hba6d (alternate link for above)
That photo looks unnatural to me, but I am no expert in faked photos. It
allegedly comes from a screenshot of a Quicktime stream of a CNN video.
The Windows Media screen of the same video yield the screenshots here:
Here are some of my Windows Media Player screen captures of frames
from about the same time.
http://tinyurl.com/ewjxo (alternate link)
If you've seen the QuickTime first, the Windows shots resemble it, but
I doubt a reasonable person looking at the Windows shots first would
conclude that they're tower perimeter columns.
Questions:
1. Does anybody know someone who can provide an expert opinion that
the alleged Quicktime screen grab was genuine or faked?
2. Does anybody know anybody who has Quicktime Pro and can presumably
make some screen grabs from the Quicktime stream to show whether that
grabbed frame is consistent with the others? (In the Windows stream those
columns are shapeshifters.)
3. Should I present the Quicktime photo in my presentation, along with
the Windows Screenshot, and let the viewer decide?
4. Is this all a waste of time? Have I lost perspective? Should I concede
the point of the structural damage?
5. I want to do a presentation about Norm Mineta's testimony about Cheney
in the bunker and the shoot-down order and the Newsweek story that the
9/11 Commission didn't believe his account. Maybe I should just set aside
the WTC7 thing and get to work on that?
Sorry I fell asleep in the meeting last night. I'd been up until nearly
dawn
pondering pixelated video clips.
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
I think that you have more research to do. This web page
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm will show you that the
firemen got people away from WTC7 because the damage that they could
see to the building led them to believe that it could collapse.
>From my own research I have come to the conclusion that the damage to
WTC7 was very extensive. Unfortunately, the Truth Movement didn't know
this for the first few years. Based on the (lack of) knowledge we had
we could only come to the conclusion that WTC7 had to have come down by
means of controlled demolitions. It is unfortunate that the 9/11 Truth
Movement has attached itself to an idea that turns out to be incorrect.
(Something we need to get used to.) We need to be adults about it and
announce that we were wrong and move on.
Having said this I am sure that some angry missives will come my way.
Save it people. Instead, spend your energy to research this more deeply
yourself. Don't write back to me that that web page is from someone who
criticizes most everything that we have believed to be true. Don't
bother. I've heard it before. Listen to the arguments on the subject.
Think about it carefully, and if your mind isn't ossified to only one
particular point of view, consider changing it. And consider this, I
think that much of what is on that web site is more than worth
considering and it speak against controlled demolitions of all three
buildings, nevertheless, there is still a good case that elements in
our government may have been involved in letting or making 9/11 happen.
Frank Runninghorse's research on Ali Mohamed is a worthwhile avenue to
pursue. He shows that AL-QAEDA & THE C.I.A. have a SYMBOTIC
RELATIONSHIP. If people want dirt against our
intelligence/military/business interests for their manipulations that
push our political system to launch wars of imperial conquest, you will
find it in his research. Unfortunately the research is in an unfinished
manuscript and he gives educational talks only in the Bay Area.
Vince
Stick by your guns on WTC7. So a few pieces of the Towers' perimeter
columns might have made it as far as the lower part of WTC7. So what?
The main thing that would demonstrate is the explosive force behind the
lateral ejection of material from the Towers. The debris field diagram
on the geocities debunking page conveniently omits the explanation of
the diagram that was originally included in the FEMA report. To wit:
"Figure 1-7 Schematic depiction of areas of collapse debris impact,
based on aerial photographs and documented damage. Striped areas
indicate predominant locations of exterior steel columns. Inner circles
indicate approximate radius of exterior steel columns and other heavy
debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminum cladding
and other lighter debris. Heavy Xs show where exterior steel columns
were found outside the predominate debris areas."
The outer circle (aluminum cladding and light debris only) is the only
one that touches WTC7, and only about a third of the building falls
within it. But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there WAS
"extensive" damage to the lower part of one side of WTC7 (how it was
caused, I can't imagine, given the government's own data), but if there
was, and it actually was enough to cause the building to fall, then it
would be like chopping down a tree - it would cause the building to
fall toward the weakened side, not collapse straight down.
So what if there were monster (but apparently well hidden) fires? Fires
don't cause steel frame structures to collapse. They never have and
they never will. Highrise buildings wouldn't be constructed out of
steel if they were known to collapse during serious fires. There's a
long track record on this. But even if let's say a HUGE amount of
damage on one side combined with a HUGE fire and the combination
somehow caused failure, the building would again fall toward the weak
side. We know at least one side of the building was in fine shape and
would offer more resistance to collapse than the presumably weakened
side.
Ditto on the mythical earthquake. Where's the evidence? Again, if such
a thing did occur it couldn't cause ALL (not just some) of the columns
to fail suddenly and virtually simultaneously later in the day, and
with the added nuance of a slight adjustment (the "kink") to make the
walls collapse inward.
Regarding the point that some people seemed to know WTC7 was going to
collapse, and passed along that information - whoever prepared the
building for demolition certainly knew it was coming down, and, as with
the Towers, warnings went out through certain individuals who then
passed them on to others in such a way as to make it sound like
somebody somewhere had unprecedented insight, leading to the conclusion
that fire could cause these buildings to collapse. The 9/11 Commission
report, for example, states on page 302:
"At about 9:57,an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department
and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that
the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse."
Who was this unnamed engineer and how did he know this? We don't have
that answer, but what this does prove is that a few people knew what
should have been un-knowable.
That Building 7 had many of the telltall signs of
demolition, including squibs and falling straight down
at freefall speed is indicative of a controlled
demolition. Most people in our group would agree. Your
"extensive damage" would still not explain this
fundamental problem.
-- Camille
--- skep...@pacbell.net wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanks for your reply. I read the debunking911 page and realized
that I had confused 911myths and debunking for some time.
My first impression of debunking911 was that it was rather hasty
and ill-researched. That page in particular marred by the
anthropomorphizing of the WTC7 wreckage "It's almost as if the
buildings last words were '[This] did it!..'." The paragraph
that follows is incoherent.
The claim that the Palisades seismographic station measures
collapse events is weak. I've seen in convincingly explained that
the Palisades station's data is useless in timing the collapses of
the towers because it was too close to the site for the
measurements to be intelligible. Add the fact that the
WTC7 seismographic traces recorded earthquakes smaller than
those associated with the aircraft impacts and I think we have
unreliable data.
And then there's the linked video, which doesn't work (a common
freeper tactic).
I've never seen that picture of the Bankers Trust building before,
and I'd steal it but then debunkers would get my IP address, huh?
Speaking of pictures, the guy who posted the hinky one I'm asking
about seems kind of defensive about my inability to reproduce his
results, and doesn't seem interested in helping me do it.
I share your concern that putting a lot of emphasis on WTC7 may
be a mistake. It's easy right now to sneer that NIST is eight months
overdue with their report, and to point to the discrepnacies
between NIST's theories and ASCE's, but what it they pull a bunch
of FDNY eyewitnesses and new photos out of their hat in, say,
October? Which is why I want to step very carefully.
I read Frank's first chapter with great interest, and I'll look forward
to reading more. Maybe a video presentation of some of Frank's
points would be a worthwhile project. I was drawn to WTC7
as a subject because I reacted with incredulity to the collapse
videos and I thought others might also. I also felt NIST's
late report showed vulnerability.
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Thanks for your kind words. The Newsweek article appeared in the
2/27/06 issue and was entitled "The Shot Heard Round the World".
The part I find interesting is on page 6:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11436302/site/newsweek/page/6/
"Around 9:35 on the morning of 9/11, Cheney was lifted off his feet
by the Secret Service and hustled into the White House bunker."
Now that's a shot heard round the world. The 9/11 Commission says
Cheney didn't get to the bunker until much later, safely too late
to have ordered the shoot-down of flight 93.
".... none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation
believed Cheney's version of events. A draft of the report conveyed
their skepticism. But when top White House officials, including chief of
staff Andy Card and the then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales,
reviewed the draft....the report was toned down. The factual narrative,
closely read, offers no evidence that Cheney sought initial authorization
from the president."
Keep up the good work!
Brian
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
Thanks for your thoughts on this. I had missed the fact that
FEMA 1-7 delineates the heavy debris fields that conspicuously
fail to reach WTC7.
The argument that asymmetrical damage should yield
asymmetrical collapse is compelling to me, but I sure wish
we could quote a genuine structural engineer to
provide authority for that fact of physics. I'd guess that
only a few engineers are qualified by training and experience
for studies of building failure (seeing as how it's so rare), and
that makes the others reluctant to comment.
I'm working on the oral histories on WTC7 now.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html
I'd like to get clear on when the fires in WTC4 and WTC5 were brought
under control. WTC6 seems to have been generating substantial amounts
of smoke too, and it's possible that most of what see see pushed up against
the south face of WTC7 in FEMA 5-17 actually came from WTC 5 and 6.
Brian
>From: "Chuck" <cthu...@thurston-sf.com>
>Reply-To: sf911...@googlegroups.com
>To: "sf911truth" <sf911...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: SF911Truth: Re: WTC7 Photos
_________________________________________________________________
Help > Participating in a Group > Posting
Can I post an image or share a file with my group?
You can post photos or files to your group by emailing them as
attachments to your group's email address. When doing so, please keep
the following in mind:
- the size limit for attachments is 1MB
- you can only post attachments to a Google Group (not to a Usenet
newsgroup)
- you can only post attachments via email (not through the Google
Groups interface)
Once your message is in your group's archive, it will stay there as long
as your group exists or until you remove it. Also, we don't offer a
specific file storage system, so you'll need to find the message with
the file in order to view it.
--
Kai Middleton
kai...@fastmail.fm
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web