wassertanzen13

Random stuff, stuff I like, blog improvement stuff. The usual...

Saturday, June 03, 2006

WTC 7







(Thanks to wtc7.net for the animated image and video links)

Once again, another topic which can hardly be done justice to short of a book length posting, so I will just bring up a few points about it (in addition to what I've already mentioned) and add a few links which readers can use their skepticism about in terms of discerning the validity (or not) of the arguments presented.

I strongly recommend viewing at least one of the videos of the collapse of WTC 7 (preferably at least one which also includes the collapse of the east penthouse a few seconds before the rest of the building collapses)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc-7_1_.gif
http://whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7big.rm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/7collapse.avi












Close comparison of the two photos (one from the video inserted within the other) will show that while the photographers may have been elbow to elbow to get their shots, there were two cameras used to take them. Look at how far WTC 7 has fallen for the timing of the shots. Look at the alignment of the rear passenger window in relationship with the building on the right side of the picture. Look at the space visible between the car and the Police van across the street. Clearly close cousins, but two cameras. Then compare the buildings on the left and right sides of the high quality photos with the same buildings shown in FEMA's Figure 5-23 (page 26) (I would upload a copy, but the ones I've seen copied lose too much resolution in the shadows, so best to compare directly). You'll see that a third photographer (credited to Roberto Rabanne, but so are the video stills FEMA shows which are clearly from an elevated perspective since you can look down on the roofs of buildings, so I'm not sure who took which shots)was taking shots from perhaps half a block or so further back. I wonder how many photographers there were standing around on that street just waiting to capture the big moment on film? Anyway, that was fun. Now let's take a look at what we can find as far as photographic evidence of damage to the south face of WTC 7 shall we?
According to FEMA in at least in one mention of figure 5-16 (a copy of which is shown below- the one with the red box in it) it shows
damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7 at approximately floors 8 to 20, 24, 25, and 39 to 46
But, if we compare with figure 5-17 and count down from the top of this 47 story building we can see that the burn damage on the west face of the building is at floors 29-30. Using that as a reference point, we can see that the side of the Verizon building (and/or smoke) obstructs the view of all floors below the 16th or thereabouts. Note that the angle and positioning of the camera make the wedding cake layering shape of the Verizon building appear rather like big gouges are missing from it; a front on perspective of the damage on to the Verizon building shows this to be a trick of the angle. See below:

But, never fear, FEMA, I'll help you out and provide another image of the damage

I can see damage there down to about floor 10 or thereabouts. Once again, however, I notice a photographic perpective angle which seem to me to be chosen for a psychological effect. When one actually counts across on each floor level to see how many windows one can see undamaged on each floor, for instance, the damage does not appear as great as it does at first glance at that photo. Not to minimize the damage which did occur, but let's put it in a bit of perspective, shall we? The following photo shows the damage to the Banker's Trust Building, which was closer to the South tower than WTC 7 was to the North tower (which supposedly damaged it sufficiently that fires later made it collapse).
Oddly enough, the Banker's Trust building did not collapse. I've yet to see a photograph showing damage even that extensive to the south face of WTC 7. Wouldn't something like that be worth documenting on a building which apparently some people on 9/11 thought was going to come down that day?



For further skeptical reading on WTC 7, you might try Chapter 5 of the FEMA report and/or WTC 7's annotated version of that report. The 9/11 Commission didn't seem to have anything to say on the topic, as I've mentioned previously.

You might also try NIST's report, though I'm not certain whether or not this is actually their final version.

You might want to keep in mind the observed length of time it takes WTC 7 to fall from roof height to the ground (or alternately towards ground level in 5 seconds) in comparison to the time claimed for a significantly shorter (13 apartment stories + 3 parking garage stories) partially completed building to undergo progressive collapse mentioned previously as follows:
The entire structure collapsed, first the west tower and then the east tower, in 5 seconds, only 2.5 seconds longer than it would have taken an object to free fall from that height. source
. Unfortunately, that quote is of limited usefulness, since it talks about 2 different towers. The difficulty in such a progressive collapse explanation is that each successive floor provides resistance to the collapse. If the top layer collapses onto the one below it, the one below has to begin moving towards the ground from a rest acceleration position. If the collapse begins from (or near) the bottom of the building (as was apparently the case with WTC 7, then each bottom floor has to be crushed (or pulverized) by the floors above it in order for the collapse to proceed. Does the observed collapse timing, movement and resulting debris pile correspond well with similarly observed times and movements on non controlled demolition collapses? I don't know. It would be nice to have more data about such things.

If you are interested in looking at some of the information regarding a controlled demolition explanation for the collapses, I would recommend Steven Jones's paper as a good place to start research on that topic. Once again, be skeptical of all of these sources is my recommendation.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home