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: 1024
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
#2. To: honway, christine, kamala, Skydrifter (#0)
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.
So it was meant to fall with the 2 towers.
Yup
[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?
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.
#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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Critter (#2)
A failed controlled demo could explain the symmetry of the damage seen in that video or picture I saw here.
#4. To: robin (#3)
So it was meant to fall with the 2 towers.
#10. To: Critter, honway, christine, kamala, SKYDRIFTER, Paul Revere (#4)
#11. To: nolu_chan (#10)
Replies to Comment # 11. 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.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.