Video showing WTC7 extensive south side damage.

[Carefulplease]

Edited to add the last link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

I saw this linked from a message in the Bad Astonomy and Universe Today forum

http://www.bautforum.com

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=813918#post813918

[Carefulplease]

1. Here is a still from the video...

[spooked911]

7. that's clear as mud and does nothing to detract from the fact that

wtc7 was controlled demolition.

Nice try though.
:)

[Bolo Boffin]

12. take off the blinders, spooked

WTC 7 was heavily damaged by debris from the North Tower. You can see part of that damage, and no one can mistake the billowing clouds of smoke that are coming out of that building.

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

13. Just for the fact that the building was damaged,

in no way disproves that it was a controlled demolition, nor does it prove that it was a 'collapse'.

The video only proves that there was damage on the South face of WTC 7, contrary to the many 9/11 'truth' videos/books which assert that there 'were only small fires & no damage' at WTC 7.

DVD quality version (24 megs), http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OWHCJ973

[greyl]

14. What you're saying isn't untrue.

Yes, the main point is that this evidence is contrary to many 9/11 'truth' myths and memes which are repeated as evidence for controlled demolition. You'd have to admit, "WTC7 wasn't severely damaged" has gotten around in pop culture for some reason, even while photographic evidence has been available to people who make the effort to look for it.

To some people, as always, it doesn't matter how much evidence comes to light. They'll just label it fake.

[rman]

2. questions

- how far down does the damage extent?
- how could it cause near perfect symmetrical collapse?
- why aren't the NYPD photos released that allegedly show the damage more clearly?

[canetoad]

3. Sure?

You are quite sure that is a view of the south side of WTC 7?

[rman]

4. There are photos/videos of the north face,

that don't show damage nor this amount of dust/smoke, except for a few localized fires.

[Carefulplease]

10. Sure, that is the south side...

See the video and the surrounding area when the camera zooms out...

[petgoat]

5. So how come it took five years for the video to show up?

And where did it come from? What network is this?

Who are those people in the clip? How come FEMA didn't
have access to this?

[QuettaKid]

6. Looks to be from a local ABC affiliate.

Peter Jennings is doing the voiceover and Sen. Biden is the man on the right. not sure who the woman is.

[greyl]

8. Is there some statute of limitations only you are aware of?

Let's just stop the search for evidence and all the FOIA requests right now, then.

[petgoat]

11. No statute of limitations, simply questions about the original and

proximal source of evidence, and its chain of custody, little things like that.

These issues have not been addressed with respect to this video as far as I am
aware. (PerpetuallyYnquisitive very courteously PMd me at one point to tell me
the tape was under discussion, but I was incommunicado at the time and missed
it.)

[greyl]

9. It sure does.

I can't think of any other explanation for what we see other than it being extensive south side damage.

[DoYouEverWonder]

15. You must be Superman

because you can see things through think smoke that no one else can see.

Yes, the south side of WTC 7 suffered damage, there is no doubt.

The doubt is how severe was that damage? No one knows for sure and there are no images available that show significant damage. Just blurry pictures from a distance obscured in smoke.

Yes, there were fires in WTC 7. Most of the ones documented in photos are pockets located in different parts of the building. There is no evidence of a 'raging' fire consuming the south side of the building.

Besides didn't you read the latest from NIST. Even they are not claiming that it was damage from WTC1 or from fires that brought down the building. All the reports I've read so far are pointing to an explosive event involving the diesel fuel that was piped through parts of the building.

Why do you OCTers insist on perpetuating myths, when even your NIST bible doesn't agree with you anymore?

[The Straight Story]

16. Cause,

There is no reason to lie about wtc 7. Other buildings were messed up, and destroyed later.

WTC 7 was badly damaged. No one would let their people into it, and had it stayed standing they would have demolished it as well. But it was damaged, on fire, and it fell.

I don't see any mystery/conspiracy at all.

[AZCat]

17. Why do you insist on treating us as a monolithic group?

Does it really appear that way to you, or is it just simpler to stereotype than to address each of us individually?

It's pretty clear to me that even among the so-called OCTer's there is disagreement about the NIST investigation, but you choose to treat us as one voice parroting what you claim are myths about the events of September 11th. I don't see this as a productive dynamic, but am at a loss as how to improve it without some help from you. What compromise is necessary to reach some sort of an accord?

[vincent_vega_lives]

18. Yeah right

Look at the scale of that gash. Hard to tell how far down the building it goes, but you can tell from the vid the width and depth.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. All of the buildings around the perimeter of the Towers

suffered major damage, include big gashes in many of the buildings. Yet, they remained standing. Other buildings like WTC 4, 5, 6 suffered a lot more damage from the falling towers and had major fires that burnt out most of the three buildings, yet they remained standing or suffered only partial collapsed.

In WTC 7, there is no visual evidence of a major fire consuming the south face of that building, just a lot of smoke, most of which was coming from the other 3 buildings that did have fires raging.

However, it is speculated that the south side of the 5th floor of WTC7 may have been on fire. If it was the fire should not have spread through the entire floor since there was a masonry wall that ran down the middle of that floor that would have prevented the spread to the north side of the building. Again, we are supposedly to believe that asymmetrical damaged could cause the symmetrical failure of the entire building?

BTW: The NIST does not think the damage to the building and/or the fires were what brought the building. They now claim that they are looking at the possibility of an 'explosive' event on the lower floors.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. The whole picture

You have to take.

1. The debris from the collapse clearly hiting the building in the video.

2. This picture of the damage to the south face of WTC7.

3. The unique construction (transformer/truss layout) of the building and generator fuel system that may have doomed it from the start.

4. The fire that burned unfought for hours. Multiple sources state this was the case despite your claim.

BTW, your conclusion to the NIST quote is false.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Let's look at the most recent statements from NIST about WTC7

Five years later they still only have a 'working collapse hypothesis' for WTC 7 based on the OCT version of what happened. That's not much to go on is it? Especially, since they've still haven't done a proper investigation into WTC7 and most of the evidence has been destroyed by now.

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analysis. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

* An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

* Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

* Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I do agree with you that, the unique construction (transformer/truss layout) of the building and generator fuel system that may have doomed it from the start. However, none of the generator fuel system was part of the original design and was all installed after the 1993 WTC Bombing.

Why would anyone run a pressurized fuel system that spanned the entire 5th Floor, the same floor that contained the unique truss system that held up the building and then not bother to install a fire suppression system for it?

Why did Rudy put his Office of Emergency Management in WTC7 only to abandon it before the Towers fell?

Why is it that 5 years later the NIST is starting to consider the possibility of an explosive event on the 5th - 7th Floors that may have brought down the building?

If an explosive event brought down the building, then it was not the damage from the collapse or the fires that were observed in various parts of the building that caused the failure, even though they may have contributed. Something else happened and NIST is still scratching their asses trying to figure it out.

[Carefulplease]

22. "Just blurry pictures from a distance"

Have a look at the video also (message #1). PerpetualYnquisitive also posted a link to a higher resolution version of the video in message #13. The gash that is seen on the top fey floors is unambiguous.