See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Wtc 7 - Photo Of The South Side
Source:
Loose Change Forum
URL Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_C ... m/index.php?showtopic=7477&hl=
Published: Apr 14, 2007
Author: Track this topic | Email this topic | Pr
Post Date: 2007-04-14 20:18:47 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 412
Comments: 34
According to the NIST report, the south face of WTC 7 had damage between two exterior columns - roof level down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known. The picture below was taken while WTC 1 was still collapsing. The photographer was on the Brooklyn Bridge and captured a clear shot of the upper floors of WTC 7 from the south and east, before the building was obscured by smoke after the collapse The south side of the top of WTC 7 is very clear in this image. It is also clear that there is no gash. The debris coming down did not reach the top floors of WTC 7. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: honway (#0)
NIST clearly used an altered photo of WTC7 to give the impression that the corner of the building was badly damaged.
Just doing a little thinking out loud here... Someone posted a video or pictures of building 7 taken before its collapse that showed what appeared to be a very clean, straight chunk missing out of south side of the building. Someone else posted that it looked too clean and symmetrical to have been a gouge caused by falling debris. Looking at this photo, it is obvious that nothing has damaged 7 at this point of the collapse. Could it be that once the building was obscured by the dust cloud, a partial demolition occured, but failed to completely take down the building? Maybe one string of explosives fired on schedule, but the rest failed to fire for some reason? A failed controlled demo could explain the symmetry of the damage seen in that video or picture I saw here.
#2. To: honway, christine, kamala, Skydrifter (#0)
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#3. To: Critter (#2)
So it was meant to fall with the 2 towers.
A failed controlled demo could explain the symmetry of the damage seen in that video or picture I saw here.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#4. To: robin (#3)
Yup
So it was meant to fall with the 2 towers.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#5. To: robin (#3)
Do you remember the photo or video to which I was referring?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#6. To: Critter (#5)
Here's the NIST photoshopped WTC7 Here is a side by side of the photoshopped image and the real one, compared 
#7. To: Paul Revere (#6) (Edited)
Wow, that is an interesting comparison. Holy smokes!
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#8. To: Paul Revere, Robin (#6)
This is the image I was talking about: That is from Honway's post here: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48834&Disp=0
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#9. To: Critter (#7)
I got that from a thread at DU in the 9-11 dungeon. It's got "photoshopped" in the title and it's way down the page. The thread has some good discussions about the alleged damage to WTC7.
#10. To: Critter, honway, christine, kamala, SKYDRIFTER, Paul Revere (#4)
[Critter #2] Could it be that once the building was obscured by the dust cloud, a partial demolition occured, but failed to completely take down the building? [robin #3] So it was meant to fall with the 2 towers. [Critter #4] Yup If Towers 1 and 2 are explained by aircraft hits and the resulting fires, and if Tower 7 had fallen at that time, what would have explained the fall of Tower 7 (other than demolition charges)? The availablity of some plausible explanation, other than demolition charges, would have been needed. Wouldn't this theory indicate the intention to hit Tower 7 with another aircraft to provide some explanation for its sudden collapse?
#11. To: nolu_chan (#10)
There is a theory which says that 7 was supposed to come down with one or both of the towers and be blamed on the towers collapse.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#12. To: Critter (#11)
Of all the towers, I think tower #7 was the furthest away from #1 and #2. 1 thru 6 were all in that complex, but #7 was across the street. #2 is so far away, I don't know how it could be blamed for dropping #7 without dropping everything else in the neighborhood. The official story is less than persuasive and I don't know for sure what happened (sort of like the JFK assassination). It seemed that the time factor of this theory almost called for a plane (the one down in PA?) to be intended for the third tower.
There is a theory which says that 7 was supposed to come down with one or both of the towers and be blamed on the towers collapse.
#13. To: Paul Revere (#1)
The NIST! What a waste of 20-30 million dollars. It is nothing more than a Rube Goldberg, computer cartoon, research project.
Mark
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#14. To: nolu_chan (#12) (Edited)
But the falling tower is being blamed for the damage, fires, and subsequent collapse 7 hours later and there are people that believe it. If it had collapsed while hidden by the clouds of dust of the tower collapse...
I don't know how it could be blamed for dropping #7
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#15. To: honway, Christine, Brian S, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#0)
Interesting picture - the building is in pristine shape, obviously. Debris was hurled as much as 400 feet from the towers, but WTC-7 seems to be beyond that distance. Given the sum of the corruption, I don't doubt that the building was laced with blast & arson points. This picture may get 'disappeared,' however.
#16. To: SKYDRIFTER, *9-11* (#15)
This photo provides a good perspective concerning the relative distance WTC 7 was from the Towers. Interesting picture - the building is in pristine shape, obviously. Debris was hurled as much as 400 feet from the towers, but WTC-7 seems to be beyond that distance.
#17. To: All (#16)
#18. To: SKYDRIFTER (#15)
That can happen. You highlight an important reason to save significant images to a disk. Below is the best example I know of: This picture may get 'disappeared,' however.
#19. To: All, *9-11* (#17)
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7477&st=0&#entry13182858 Post from the originating website: This mystery looks like it has an answer. arie appears to be right. The picture in question is when WTC2 came down, and the tall building pointed out by arie is WTC1. Here's why: If you go to Wired New York... http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm ...the tall black building in the foreground of DoYouEverWonder's picture is the Millenium Hilton... http://www.wirednewyork.com/hotels/millenium_hilton/ ...and looking at the map layout of the WTC area (see the wirednewyork map), the Millenium Hilton lines up just north of WTC1, which is an indication that the tall unidentified building is indeed WTC1. Then, if you go to the Ultraradio site where the picture came from... http://www.ultradio.com/september11/ ...the picture in question is number 007 (unfortunately, there is no timestamp for this picture). But look at the pictures before and after 007... This is indeed a picture of WTC2 coming down.
#20. To: All, *9-11* (#19)
Is this a picture of WTC 1 or WTC 2 collapsing? I do not know the answer but I believe it is worth further consideration before a conclusion is made,imo.
#21. To: ALL (#0)
For those who seek an alternative to the nonsense posted at 4um: http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc or http://911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Here's a video showing damage to south side.
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
#22. To: BeAChooser (#21)
Kook blogs you wrote yourself?
And if you want more images and SANE discussion of this, just visit the links at the top of this post.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
#23. To: BeAChooser (#21)
Speaking of nonsense, have you ever asked yourself what force might have been necessary to propel that debris that far?
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#24. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#21)
BAC, BAC, BAC - you obviously don't like us here, at the 4um. Just leave - quickly! (Asshole!) For those who seek an alternative to the nonsense posted at 4um:
#25. To: Critter (#23)
That may be the most important question of all. Speaking of nonsense, have you ever asked yourself what force might have been necessary to propel that debris that far?
#26. To: Critter, ALL (#23)
Yes, Critter and you'd paid the slightest attention you'd have see this the many times I've posted it. http://911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html Check out the calculation near the bottom of the article.
Speaking of nonsense, have you ever asked yourself what force might have been necessary to propel that debris that far?
---------------------------------------------------------
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
#27. To: beachooser, nolu_chan, Robin, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#26)
That's at least 11 too many. You're an asshole, BAC! Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
#28. To: Critter (#23)
Anyone who can look at the videos and still say the towers didn't explode as they collapsed is a shill for the official story.
Speaking of nonsense, have you ever asked yourself what force might have been necessary to propel that debris that far?
#29. To: honway (#20)
I believe that is shot from the Liberty Street (south) side and shows Tower #2 collapsing. The last tall building before the cloud appears to be 1 Banker's Trust Plaza at 130 Liberty Street.
Is this a picture of WTC 1 or WTC 2 collapsing?
#30. To: nolu_chan, *9-11* (#29)
I agree. The photo captured the collapse of Tower #2 or the South Tower.
I believe that is shot from the Liberty Street (south) side and shows Tower #2 collapsing.
#31. To: honway (#20)
I do not know the answer but I believe it is worth further consideration before a conclusion is made,imo. Excuse me. It appears the photo you asked about was shot with a long telephoto from the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge. http://www.ultradio.com/september11/ The set of 64 images by photographer Mike Schade is at the above site. http://www.google.com/maps?q=Ann+St,+New+York,+New+York+10007,+USA&sa=X&oi=map&ct=image You can navigate on the linked map to show the bridge and the WTC. The photographer is somewhat South and East of the WTC and shooting North-West. http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/wtc_map.htm The above link will show the relative locations of various buildings in the WTC area. I do not see how, from that perspective, that the building in the background is WTC-7. WTC-7 would be to the right and to the rear of WTC-1. Picture #7 is displayed here. It appears the pictures are displayed in sequence. Picture #5 shows the two towers burning but not yet falling. Picture #6 (two pics shot very near each other in time) clearly shows WTC-2 going down and WTC-1 still standing. You can see the photographer's perspective from pictures #5 and #6. Slide show of the WTC - 64 photos taken by Mike Schade. Spectacular views and shots, incredible clarity. Begins just after first tower struck, crowds walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, some people covered with soot and debris, more. Streets covered with debris and dust. He appears to have shot with a long telephoto lens from Brooklyn. Photo #2 says, "September 11 2002 9:01 am. Lower Manhatten from my roof in Carroll Gardens Brooklyn" Photo #3 says, "September 11 2002 9:10 am. The "Promenade" in Brooklyn Heights." You can check the map for Brooklyn Heights to see his perspective for shot #3. The perspective of #4 shows he is not on the bridge at that time. WTC-2 began to collapse at 9:58:59 a.m. WTC-1 came down around 10:28 a.m. The photographer appears to have left his house and walked across the bridge to Manhattan. He appears to have been in the process of crossing the bridge, still near the Brooklyn entrance, when he photographed WTC-2 coming down. View pictures #5, #6 and #7 and the sequence and perspective appears to lead to the conclusion that the building coming down is WTC-2 and WTC-7 is not in sight.
Is this a picture of WTC 1 or WTC 2 collapsing?
http://brainstormsandraves.com/attack/images/
[Mike Schade, http://ultraradio.com]
#32. To: SKYDRIFTER (#27)
That's at least 11 too many. You're an asshole, BAC! BAC on restriction? Too funny. LOL
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 12 posts I'm allowed each day.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#33. To: BTP Holdings, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#32)
BAC must be incredibly desperate, in some format, to post here. He takes a beating that I wouldn't wish on anyone , who was less an asshole than he/she/it - whatever that closeted and treasonous queer considers itself. {Hey BAC, aren't you really glad that Trace officially outed you. You don't have to hide in the closet anymore. You don't have to make up excuses about the manhood that you don't have. Kinda like being born with four arms - almost.} BAC on restriction? Too funny. LOL
#34. To: All (#25)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest