Found a photo of the south side of 7 hole.

[Debunking911]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

This should put to bed the idea that there was just small fires and no impact from the towers.

[mrgerbik]

1. so why

wasn't this released before? Why don't we see countless angles of this hole which would "close" the case once and for all?

[Debunking911]

2. NO this wasn't shown and...

If you have any photos which show NO damage after the north tower collapse please post them.

There are MANY photos of the south side with tremendous smoke which obscures the hole. Their is even a video which shows this tremendous smoke as firefighters say they need to pull everyone out.

WTC 7 was hit hard enough to tilt and for it for firemen to conclude it was doomed. It was a good call. Nothing more.

[petgoat]

4. Tilt schmilt. If it tilted why did it fall straight down?

And what's that piece of wreckage, where's it from, and
how come nobody ever took a photo of it after the collapse?

(Wouldn't it have been a nice courtesy for the insurers who
paid $861 million?)

How come the four firemen pictured never testifed to that hole?

How come Capt. Boyle alone did?

How come Steve Spak didn't give this photo to FEMA or NIST?

How come it was never published?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Isn't that a perimeter column hanging from the face of 7, petgoat?

How about that.

[Grateful for Hope]

6. It does look like "a" perimeter column all right

How many columns are we talking about here?

[petgoat]

10. I'll withhold judgement until I have time to blow it up. (I see you don't!

I'm not sure whether I see a spandrel plate on it or not.
Looks more like a square-section tube running across the
three columns.

Does anybdy have any idea what that crane-tower thing is?
Piece of the corner assembly?

[Debunking911]

7. Are you calling the firemen lairs?

Because THEY are the ones who said it. They put a transit on the building and knew it would collapse. Do YOU have any evidence it wasn't tilted?

Fireman did say they saw the hole.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Are you saying Steve Spak is "In on it"??? Is everyone who produces evidence automatically assumed to be "In on it?" Can't you think for yourself? He saw never asked to PROVE there was a hole in the south side of seven. It's a logical fallacy to say that just because YOU didn't see the photo before and believed the conspiracy theorist that it doesn't exist. It would be EASY to prove the photo a fake. Just produce a photo of the south side without this hole. It's that simple. You can't, you know why? You have the same problem I had in tracking this photo down. No one was taking photos to disprove conspiracy theorist.

But there are PLENTY of photos of the south side on fire so bad you can't see the building.

The NIST HAS this photo because ScottS gave it to them. The question is why couldn't the so called "Scholars" find this photo. Why are they showing grainy photos taken far away, just after the collapse of the north tower, before the fires grew and not even of the lower half which was the damaged area. WHY?

Steve had this in his archive until I asked him for it while I was doing research on this. If I didn't ask it would still be in his archive. The question is, if the "Scholars" thought there was no hole why didn't THEY ask Steve? They seem to never do any research at all.

http://www.jod911.com

[petgoat]

11. Do YOU have any evidence it wasn't tilted?

Unlike you, I distinguish between a tilt and a bulge.

Deputy Chief Hayden said there was a bulge between 10 and
13 at the SW corner. Nobody said it tilted. The problem
with that is there's no evidence that Hayden was actually
there, and according to that gray photo of NIST's, there's
no SW corner between 8 and 14.

So I'd kind of like to hear from the men who actually did
the transit work.

Fireman did say they saw the hole.

Captain Boyle said it was 20 stories high. Chief Fellini
said it was four stories high, between floors 3 and 6.
Got any more descriptions?

But there are PLENTY of photos of the south side on fire so
bad you can't see the building.

I've never seen one. All I've seen is photos of smoke that could
be from WTC5 and WTC6. Have you got a single picture showing
flames on the south side?

why couldn't the so called "Scholars" find this photo.

Perhaps it's among the 7,000 photos that NIST has that the
Scholars have requested and haven't yet been given. Why is NIST
hiding the photos?

[Jazz2006]

22. "Got any more descriptions?" Yes.

Aside from Chief Hayden,, Chief Fellini and Captain Boyle, if you look up the statements of firefighters Daniel Nigro and Richard Banaciski, Battalion Chief John Norman, and Deputy Chief Nick Visconti, I believe that they all reported damage on the south side as well. There are probably more but those are the ones I recall at the moment.

I haven't got time to look up the links but you'll find them at the link to the NY Times statements and the Firehouse site, both of which you are familiar with, so you should be able to find them easily enough.

[boolean]

23. Hilarious!

When the conspiracy theorists have eye witness accounts that go against their own conspiracies, the witnesses are either liars or unreliable.

But all those people that witnessed helicopters shooting the buildings down, or who heard strange explosions where there should be no explosions? Those people are like the Gospel.

[KJF]

12. Do you have a link for the insurers paying that amount?

It strikes me that, if the building was demolished, then far from committing insurance fraud, Larry saved his insurers lots of money. The insurers of the Deutsche Bank building, for example, were hit for abatement and demolition costs (long court case), although the Lower Manhattan Development Council finally stepped in a paid some of them. Surely there would be a clause in the WTC 7 contract saying the insurer had to pay for stuff like abatement and demolition - and maybe even lost profit while the building wasn't usable.

[petgoat]

15. 911research ascribes the $861 million amount to Don Paul's book,

Facing Our Fascist State.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. If you have any photos showing damage please send them to NIST

Apparently they have not been able to find any photos or videos either.

One thing NYC had was a camera/film crew that goes out to document disasters who were on site. Plus there were at least a few freelance photographers who just wormed their way in. One of them was killed in the 2nd collapse. If there was a big fire burning for over 3 hours that afternoon there would probably be a picture of it. Since even NIST can't find one I would say the minimal fires we have seen were about it.

Bement made a request to the public and the media for photos or video images that could aid NIST's probe. More specifically, NIST is seeking images of WTC 7 and views from the south and west sides of the two WTC towers. Bement says, "In particular, there is a dearth of photos of the south side of WTC 7." That side, some have said, was hit by debris from WTC 1, which may have started the fires that led to WTC 7's collapse." NIST is asking anyone who has or knows of such images to contact the agency at [e-mail] or by fax at [phone].

http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021209.asp

[greyl]

3. Yes, thanks. Already spotted on your site in this thread:

here

:)

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Yes, debris hit all the buildings

that were around the perimeter of the two towers. Obviously, WTC 7 withstood whatever damage it sustain has a result of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

What still has not been proven is the extent of the fires in WTC 7 and if they were big enough, for long enough to cause the total failure that occurred at the end of the day.

There are plenty of pictures of smoke but it is not clear in any of them the source of the smoke. WTC 5 & 6 both had raging fires going, so they probably generated a fair share of it.

The only pictures of seen of fire in WTC 7 are relatively small. Where's the fire?

[petgoat]

9. The NIST progress report from 6/04 (Appendix L) says the wind from

the NW generated a lee in the south side of WTC7 that
sucked up the smoke from WTC5 and WTC6 right up aganst
the wall.

[Jazz2006]

27. No, that is not what it says.

That is your spin on what the NIST report says but it is not what it actually says.

It's odd that so many "truth" seekers seem to consistently paraphrase in a manner designed to mislead instead of just quoting accurately.

[Jazz2006]

28. Not proven?

Obviously, WTC 7 withstood whatever damage it sustain has a result of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

Yes, it sustained the initial structural damage for a while, but ultimately succumbed to the structural damage and fires within 7 hours.

What still has not been proven is the extent of the fires in WTC 7 and if they were big enough, for long enough to cause the total failure that occurred at the end of the day.

Not proven? As you know, there were numerous reports from numerous sources about fires on numerous floors throughout the day and at different times. If you've read the NIST report and the various eyewitness accounts, you also know how the various fires spread and moved and how some burned out at different times while others spread and moved throughout other parts of the building, and you know that there were numerous large fires burning over the course of several hours.

(If you haven’t read the NIST report or any eyewitness accounts, start here: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf (see pp. L 22 – L 25 re fires and/or pp. 17 – 22 re impact damage. If you haven't read any of the eyewitness accounts about the fires, do a quick search on previous threads that cite the reports of same by firefighters. If you can't find those, do a search at the Firehouse site http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/ and at the NYT Oral Histories site http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html)

Moreover, the firefighters lacked firefighting capacity in WTC7. This, too, has been extensively reported upon. They ascertained early in the afternoon that the building was in a very dangerous state, that they would not likely be able to salvage it, and that the empty building was not worth risking the lives of more firefighters after more than 300 had already died that morning.

Certainly, you are not suggesting that all of the people who reported the numerous fires on numerous floors were lying, right?

Further, you know that the professionals who were on the scene and determined that the building was unsafe and likely to collapse due to damage and fire are actual professionals whose expertise is in making those very assessments, and whose lives and the lives of their colleagues depend upon that very expertise, right?

I'm sure that you realize how chaotic the day was, particularly after the towers came down. In light of the geography, numerous buildings on fire, debris piles on fire, scores of cars and emergency vehicles on fire, trying to contain various fires from crossing streets so that people could continue to be safely led away from the area, is it not reasonable to conclude that all of that contributed to a paucity of photographers being in just the right place at just the right time to snap photos of everything that was going on throughout the day? Add to that the fact that FDNY cleared a collapse zone around WTC7 around 3 p.m. and add the distance shots of WTC7 that are available showing the massive plumes of smoke billowing out of and around WTC7: don't those facts and evidence also indicate how difficult it would have been to get the kind of photographic evidence that you seem to be demanding?

You are not suggesting that if it wasn't captured on film, it didn't happen, are you?

[dailykoff]

13. Where's the hole?

I seem some minor damage to the corner. What am I missing?

[Jazz2006]

14. Where's the corner?

That might give you some insight on where the hole is and where the damage is....


Just saying.

[mirandapriestly]

16. I'm with you, I don't get it..eom

[HamdenRice]

17. Here's a better photo and some comparisons (dial up warning)

Pictures of the damage to wtc7 have been around since 9/11. Here's a picture that makes it easier to see the extent of the damage in relation to the entire building:



The point has never been that there was no damage to wtc7; it was that the damage was not sufficient to bring the building down five hours later in an implosion. Compare wtc7, which collapsed, to these other damaged buildings at ground zero (apparently these pics are not showing up; please right click the pic box, copy and paste the properties in your browser to see the pics):

wtc3 after the south tower collapsed:



wtc3 after the second, north tower collapsed, and what's left of wtc 3 is still standing:


Here are wtc 5 and 6 which bore the direct brunt of the collapses of 1 and 2 and show massive structural damage



Neither collapsed on their own and had to be torn down, even though fire had raged in both. Here is wtc5 on fire:



Although wtc 7 was admittedly damaged, the damage is trivial compared to the fire and structural damage to other buildings which did not collapse.


It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

[KJF]

18. I have some questions

(1) What amount of WTC 7's gravity load-bearing structure is NIST saying was lost after WTC 1 fell? 10%? 15%?

(2) Were all the columns in WTC 7 the same size, or were they different like in the Twin Towers?

(3) The amount of combustibles in the Twin Towers was supposed to be 60 lb/ft2 (although NIST used 75 lb/ft2 in its severe case simulation). What was the amount of combustibles supposed to be in WTC 7?

(4) Does anybody know anything about the fire-proofing in WTC 7? Specifically, a theory was once advanced here (and attributed to one of WTC 7's architects!) that the debris from WTC 1 removed much/most of WTC 7's fire-proofing, although how they could have done this without pinging around inside the building for some time is beyond me.

(5) Isn't there a study somewhere that says the fuel tank had nothing to do with the collapse? Larry didn't tell his insurers about it or something?

Any ideas anybody?

[dailykoff]

19. Answers:

1) It looks like less than 1%, but you know the NIST report as well as anyone.
2) They were almost certainly sized individually.
3) Utterly irrelevant.
4) Ditto.
5) If there is, it's correct.

[Make7]

20. .

[Jazz2006]

24. I think that the reason that the smaller buildings

did not collapse in the manner that WTC7 did is because they were only 7, 9, and 22 storeys high respectively, and the debris from the towers fell directly on top of them, damaging them from the top down, as opposed to damaging lower floors from one side or another, thus not leaving the damaged lower structure to sustain dozens of intact upper floors as was the case with WTC7. Particularly in the cases of WTC5 and WTC6, given their locations and the fact that they were so low to the ground, it is difficult to imagine how they could have been hit in a manner similar to that of WTC7 - and, if I'm not mistaken, the fires in those buildings were able to be fought by the firefighters.

WTC3 didn't really stand a chance against being crushed by both towers, given its location, but again, from the top down, and it was less than half the height of WTC7.

Conversely, the debris damage to WTC7 was lower down the building, primarily on the south and southwest sides, putting much stress on the damaged lower area to sustain the weight of dozens of storeys above, and the firefighting in that building was minimal to non-existent due to the lack of firefighting capacity re: water pressure and danger to the firefighters.

In other words, different structures, different locations, different pattern of damage, different firefighting capacity, different results.

Every one of those buildings, as you rightly noted, ultimately came down due to structural damage and fire, although the remains of a couple of them had to be pulled down later.

The point has never been that there was no damage to wtc7; it was that the damage was not sufficient to bring the building down five hours later in an implosion.

Well, the professionals who were on the scene at the time disagree with you about that. By early afternoon, FDNY most certainly did expect the building to collapse due to structural damage and fire, and they were right.

Edit to add the funky grey quote box for clarity :)

[Jazz2006]

21. Delete - wrong spot. See #22 above

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. I see smoke

but there are no flames.

The smoke could be coming from any number of places including WTC 5 & 6 which were on fire.

[Jazz2006]

29. See post #28

for details and links.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jazz2006]

31. kick

just because.

[Woody Box]

32. Where's the hole?

and how big is it in relation to the building?

Can you elaborate, please?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. It's the big gash in the side that smoke is coming out of. n/t