Closeup of WTC1 impact site seems to show structural collapse

[psychopomp]

without the use of explosives. Take a look and tell me what you think:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC

[rman]

1. thermite / thermate is not an explosive

yet it can cause very significant structural weakening.

[psychopomp]

2. Did you see the video?

The collapse appears to begin exactly where the fires are.

[rman]

6. Thermite burns at 2500c - one would expect fires where thermite burns.

I've seen that video more times than i care to remember.

[psychopomp]

10. But the fires were there already, right?

Again, the addition of a thermate cause to what is taking place is seeking explanations where the obvious reason is already at hand.

[rman]

61. Fire does not melt steel, thermite/thermate does.

And there was molten steel.
How do you explain the molten steel?

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

73. this is usually where skeptics step off

:banghead:

[libertypirate]

3. The drip, drip, drip of molten metal right in the middle of the frame /nt

[psychopomp]

5. Yes, that is more clearly visible on other clips

I have to wonder, though, about the impossible coincidence of the molten metal supposedly generated by thermate being in the precise location of the fire and subsequent collapse. Do not most people who ascribe to the theory of "thermate cutting charges" believe they were in dozens, if not hundreds of locations? If so, is it not a coincidence that the one charge that exposed molten metal to plain sight was in the precise location where the building began to collapse?

My layman's opinion is that the simplest explanation is likely the correct one: the molten metal was something other than the result of a placed "cutting charge" and the building collapsed due to other forces, mainly the impact and resulting fire.

[rman]

7. Not even the govt claims any more that the fires could have melted

the steel, because it's completely ridiculous.

It's interesting though that even OCT-ers come up with alternate explanations to the OCT in order to try and debunk the inside-job scenario.

[psychopomp]

8. I am not up to speed on that

do you have a link that provides more detail on the government changing its explanation for the collapse?

[rman]

11. Check out the FEMA report and NIST report

Supposedly the NIST report supersedes the FEMA report, but neither says melting of the steel caused the collapse - the official claim is that weakening due to high temperatures caused the collapses. Except for the collapse of WTC7, which neither explains.

It seems both NIST and FEMA have recently rearranged their respective web sites, and i'm having a hard time finding the reports there.

[psychopomp]

12. That seems to be what happened

I think that the photos here are suggestive of just such a scenerio:
http://members.tripod.com/toolateforregrets/photosshowbuckling.html

[rman]

35. yes, well - anyway: no melting of steel

[petgoat]

63. You know how light wavers over hot asphalt roads in the

desert? How do you know the "buckling" in those photos isn't simply an artifact
of sheets of hot air flowing along the external walls of the building?

[psychopomp]

13. Didn't firefighters think WTC7 would collapse?

http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/WTC7.html

That building was badly damaged, or wasn't it?

[dailykoff]

15. Yes, some firefighters knew it would collapse, but no,

it wasn't badly damaged. It wasn't damaged at all. They could barely keep a modest fire going on two floors.

The real question is, how did Larry and his firefighter pals know there were plans to "pull it"?

[sabbat hunter]

18. it had a fire

on more than two floors. i have posted pictures of this. it also had significant damage.

how many people would have to be involved for this theory of yours.

silverstein, the NYFD, the people who placed the explosives and or thermite/thermate.

seems like a whole lot of people would be involved. how do you get such a large group of people to not talk?








notice that it was indeed heavily damaged

[BuddyYoung]

19. By my count, it would take at least three people.

Covert operations are often designed so that each team member only knows enough to carry out his/her part of the plan. Tends to keep people from knowing enough to be able to say anything meaningful (and believable) even if they wanted to. Besides, normal people aren't inclined to be suicidal.

[dailykoff]

22. And one of them blabbed on TV.

OCTers keep saying it's impossible to keep a secret like that. Well, Larry spilled the beans four years ago.

[psychopomp]

25. I think too much is made of that quote

In my opinion, he meant "pull" the rescue workers and firefighers from the building, not "demolish it with explosives."

[petgoat]

66. "he meant "pull" the rescue workers"

That sounds plausible--except there weren't any to pull.

[LARED]

67. except there weren't any to pull?

Evidence please

[sabbat hunter]

28. just fyi

i am not a believer in what the 911 commission has to say. they are covering up the complete failure and incompetance of the current regime.

do you think that larry silverstein is so stupid as to tell someone to destroy his building over an open channel?

what did he have to gain from this? nada zip zilch.

the insurance money he received was to rebuild the WTC.

the WTC as it existed did not need the asbestos removed contrary to some thoughts. asbestos in buildings is generally left there unless it is in an public area, because removing it would cause more problems than just leaving it alone.

so what did silverstein have to gain? nothing.

but according to people who believe the buildings were destroyed by explosives/thermite there are a whole lot of people that would need to be invovled.

silverstein
the NYPD
NYFD
the port authority of NJ/NY
the persons planting the explosives/thermite


the conspiracy number grows.

[dailykoff]

30. Larry made a deal.

He got a new building, and 3,000 people died. Good thing he made that dermatologist appointment.

[sabbat hunter]

32. he lost money

in rent and revenues. the money he got back from insurance pays for the rebuild. what kind of deal is that?

[BuddyYoung]

39. Did Larry seem real upset that WTC7 was "pulled"?

Most people that know much about the WTC7 collapse have read or heard Larry's "pull it" scene. I don't know how hard he tried to sound upset, but I'm not aware of any reports that Larry himself collapsed because of what happened on 911. If he DID collapse, it was due to his having received a blessing that in his mind must have been Heaven-sent.

[dailykoff]

23. The dust in the first pic isn't coming from 7

and that second pic looks about as real as Michael Jackson.

[psychopomp]

26. It is not dust, it is smoke (video)

This link should put to rest your doubts about whether the fires were extensive on WTC 7 and whether the smoke is coming from a number of floors (about 20?) or not:

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

[sabbat hunter]

27. the second pic fake?

well you better go tell webfairy and killtown, cause the pic is on their sites.




care to reconsider whether the second pic is fake.


the smoke in first obviously isnt coming from 7, but did you happen to notice the extensive damage to the building? the entire length of it burnt and damaged?

[dailykoff]

29. Yep, unless the cookie monster took a bite out of it.

What can I say? Buildings aren't cookies.

[sabbat hunter]

33. so you are telling me then

that killtown and webfairy are using a faked pic. you may want to alert them about it as they use the pic on their sites

and the building didnt have a 'bite' taken out of it as you describe. it was damaged by WTC 1 and 2 collapsing.

killtown and web fairy use the pic to show that there wasnt much of a fire in the building.

well a ton of debris falls on a building it gets damages and parts are knocked off. that picture is on many CT sights as a picture showing that it WASNT damaged that badly, although i will disagree with that assesment.


care to try again?

[dailykoff]

47. Let's just say it's had a little work done

to enhance its natural beauty.

[sabbat hunter]

55. well then

you may want to tell killtown and webfairy....they use the picture as an example that the building wasnt damaged too badly.

why do you think the picture was altered? do you have any proof of that? or is it just because it doesnt fit your theory that it MUST be altered.

[psychopomp]

31. I see you are ignoring your blatant error

Hmmmm... Who else does that..?

Give it up, friend, your efforts to muddy the waters are useless.

[dailykoff]

46. Smoke doesn't blow laterally, it rises.

That's dust.

[psychopomp]

48. Don't know why you continue to assert that

watch the video.

[DemInDistress]

53. WT7 in the afternoon on 911.. notice any massive amounts of

smoke indicating a "raging inferno" was happening. I don't see it. That's not to say there were no fires. That FEMA picture is very misleading. WTC 7 on afternoon of 9-11-01. WTC 7 is the tall
sky-scraper in the background, right. Seen from WTC plaza area.


another view:Ground Zero Vicinity
Photos of Ground Zero Shortly After the Attack
These photographs appear to have been taken on the day of the attack. At least the first and third ones were. The third photograph shows Building 7 still standing. It's redish west wall is visible to the right of the Verizon Building.
many more photo's here:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/groundz...

[psychopomp]

58. Please see post 50

[Bolo Boffin]

62. That is NOT the afternoon, it's the morning.

And could very well be before the North Tower fell, which is what damaged 7.

Look at the sunlight. It's coming from the east. It's illuminating the east side of 7. Morning.

You keep posting this picture and calling it afternoon. That's no way to run a truth movement.

[petgoat]

65. Maybe Mr. Silverstein DID talk. On National TV. And yet

only a handful of tinfoil hatters cared!

Also, similar photos taken at the same time as the one FEMA cherry-picked
show smoke coming from WTC6--all that smoke there could have come from WTC6.

[psychopomp]

71. Watch the video

The smoke is coming from WTC 7.

I have posted two videos in this thread that show smoke billowing out of at least twelve floors of WTC 7.

[canetoad]

76. This particular picture troubles me

on a number of levels.

First, look at the roof of the Verizon building, particularly the balcony type floor at bottom centre. There is absolutely no sign on debris from the collapse of the towers. Compare with the other, directly overhead shot of the same building obviously taken at a later date. The uppermost level of Verizon roof is also pretty clean on a day when dust ruled.

Then there is the pale, V shaped area, which extends around the back of WTC 7. Close up of the windows - something not right here. Those heavy black lines look as if they have been added later and are only visible in seemingly arbitrary areas. Close up shows a rounded top. If indeed they are the shadow of the interior corner of window recesses, the overhead point of view should show a neatly cropped top to those lines.

Last but not least, this pic has been around for a while, but seems to have slipped under the radar of many claiming WTC 7 collapsed from structural damage. I believe (need to check this) that it was originally presented to show proof of damage to 7. I wonder why it was not aggressively promoted to prove the official CT.

[rman]

34. Officially it was a complete surprise

And it was not heavily damaged

supposedly the building was "on fire", reality is there were a few localized fires:



no debris fell on top of wt7:


other, far more damaged buildings did not collapse:

[psychopomp]

37. Incorrect

"A few localized fires" is not correct; those photos do not show the south side of the building, which had fires on about twenty floors, hence the billowing smoke. I posted a link to the video of WTC 7 burning upthread; you can see for yourself.

[rman]

42. How come the 'smoke' on the south side is gray - same color as the dust -

while the smoke from those fires where the fire itself is visible, is black?

And how come other buildings that were more heavily damaged than WTC7 did not completely collapse?

[psychopomp]

50. Are you claiming that the smoke is dust?

watch the video.

As for the damaged building in the photo, it looks like it did collapse. As for how WTC 7 collapsed the way it did, I do not know how it happened. But, to claim that the fires were small and localized is incorrect.

Another video:

http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged . A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[rman]

60. Even if the south face of wtc7 was damaged -

of which there is no visual record - then how come that asymetrical damage cause symetrical and complete collapse that started at ground level?

And again: how come other more heavily damaged buildings did not collapse, how come FEMA didn't know about that damage, how come NIST does not address wtc7?

Also in the video http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi it is obvious that at least some of the dust/smoke is originating from ground level outside the building (near the left corner of the building) - it moves up and to the right in front of the building.

[psychopomp]

70. Smoke

Also in the video http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi it is obvious that at least some of the dust/smoke is originating from ground level outside the building (near the left corner of the building) - it moves up and to the right in front of the building.

Okay, believe what you will.

[rman]

43. Moreover, why does FEMA not mention it,

and why does NIST not address the collapse of WTC7 at all?


FEMA
World Trade Center Building Performance Study
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm
chapter 5 (wtc7)
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
page 31
5.7 Observations and Findings

"...Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

[BuddyYoung]

38. Surprise? Y ou mean surprise BLESSING! Who would have wanted

WTC7 to be "pulled", and why? Who benefited? Who would NOT want the public at large to know that the building was "pulled", and why? Who would benefit from promoting the WTC7 OTC? Is there a reasonable, plausible, convincing reason why people who DENY they are right-wing Republicans would spend so much time promoting the Bush WTC7 conspiracy theory? How likely is it that you'd find a neocon Republican supporting a search for the truth about 911? Whether here at DEMOCRATIC Underground or on a GOP site?

[psychopomp]

40. Give it a rest, BuddyYoung

I have been looking into this as long as anybody else and I have seen no evidence that the collapse of the towers was anything other than the result of the planes crashing into them. I have also seen enough to make be think 7 was also damaged enough to collapse. I posted a link upthread but here it is again, anyway.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

I am not a *bush supporter, which you would know if you had been on this site (well, DU rev.1 anyways) back in 2002 when I and others were looking critically at how 911 benefited the *bush administration.

Not being convinced of explosives, demolitions, fake airplanes, etc. does not make me a GOP'er.

FYI, I am still very much a LIHOP-believer. There was too much info available that was quashed or ignored to believe that they did not know a major attack was coming.

[rman]

41. Why did you claim the steel was melted if you've been looking at it

as long as anyone else?

How come you wasn't "up to speed on that"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=96857&mesg_id=96889

The last thing we need here is OCT-ers telling us not to debate this, as much as we don't need OCT-ers as guardians of the 9-11 truth movement...

[psychopomp]

49. I did not claim that the steel was melted

and your statement that the government had reversed itself led me to believe that there was a new explanation that I had not heard yet.

I never told you not to debate anything. Quite the contrary, if you look at my original post.

Finally, I told you I am not an "official conspiracy" advocate, so why do you keep implying that I am?

[BuddyYoung]

44. There's really no such thing as "LIHOP" in 911. What proof do u have?

I'm not sure what "LIHOP-believer" means. One either KNOWS something or they don't. I know a lot about a few things, but I don't "believe" in any of them and I don't worship them. BELIEF implies faith, and I have faith in God, but certainly not in the absurd notion that Osama bin Laden is suicidal, and he'd have to be if it was true that he plotted an attack on U.S. "symbols" of power. An action that any fool would have known would be considered an act of war, resulting in the very thing that Mr. bin Laden has allegedly said he most resented; that is, the presence of U.S. armed forces in the Middle East.

Come to think of it, I guess it would be a huge act of FAITH to believe in the OCT.

[psychopomp]

51. Sorry, buddy, that is beyond the scope of this thread

Start a "What proof for LIHOP????" thread on your own and I am sure you will get plenty of responses.

[BuddyYoung]

54. YOU brought it up. Here's what you said:

"FYI, I am still very much a LIHOP-believer. There was too much info available that was quashed or ignored to believe that they did not know a major attack was coming."

Seeing as how YOU didn't hesitate to post whatever you wanted on this thread, I thought you might appreciate the opportunity to explain something that many knowledgeable people say is impossible.
Go ahead. I think most people would like to hear your explanation.

[psychopomp]

57. Yes, I posted that...your point?

Like I said, if you need some help with LIHOP investigations go ahead and start your own thread. It is beyond the scope of this thread. If you do not understand why, please check the OP.

[petgoat]

64. NIST says there was a ten-story section scooped out of

the south wall. There are no pictures to show it. One fireman reported a twenty-story gash in
the building. Some didn't mention the gash at all, but claimed a corner was out of line.

Apparently FEMA regarded the damage reports as mutually contradictory and unreliable. They
didn't think enough of them to provide details, and concluded that fires brought WTC7 down.

[petgoat]

72. That building was badly damaged, or wasn't it?

The video link doesn't work for me. I can play other .avi files with no problem.

At this link http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi I get audio but no video.
At this link http://www.911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi I get nothing.


Apparently FEMA did not take the damage reports seriously. I suppose that had something
to do with the fact that they were mutually contradictory.

Captain Boyle said there was a hole 20 stories high, and said nothing about a bulge.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge and said nothing about a hole. Chief Fellini
said it was a four-story hole from 3 to 6.

In the pictures that show more of the scene, such as this one, it appears that most of
the smoke is coming from WTC6.



In the pictures of other heavily damaged buildings (Bankers Trust, WFC3, and WTC4)
tower perimeter column assemblages are conspicuous and easily recognizable. You would
expect that when they took the WTC7 pile apart, finding these perimeter columns in the
pile would have been a big event. "There's the culprit!" Somebody would have snapped
a picture. Somebody would come forward to say they saw it.

Nobody did. Dwyer and Flynn's "102 Minutes" puts it this way: “The firefighters had
decided to let the fire there burn itself out.”

That makes sense to me. After experiencing the explosions in the towers, either the
chiefs were unwilling to order their men into WTC7 or the men refused to go. Then
they had to invent the tale of the structural damage to explain why they didn't fight
the fire. They claimed there was no water, but the Hudson River was two blocks away.

[psychopomp]

74. IF you cannot watch the video you need to update your codecs

I highly recommend the k-lite mega codec pack:

edit: added the direct link...

http://www.k-litecodecpack.com/

you can just use the lite version, that is a faster download

Now, I hope you will try to view the video again.

[mrgerbik]

14. but...

have to wonder, though, about the impossible coincidence of the molten metal supposedly generated by thermate being in the precise location of the fire and subsequent collapse.

I personally believe that the molten metal seen falling out in and around that spot was not supposed to be visible. It was probably "pushed" there because of the funny angle at which the plane hit that corner. I think the thermites reaction wouldn't have been visible if the plane had hit WTC2 the same way as WTC1. It is very possible too that this is why WTC2 collapsed first, because the people responsible didn't want the public to see this happening.


is it not a coincidence that the one charge that exposed molten metal to plain sight was in the precise location where the building began to collapse?

The opposite can also be said: isn't it a coincidence that the building collapsed right where a thermite reaction was seen taking place.


the molten metal was something other than the result of a placed "cutting charge" and the building collapsed due to other forces, mainly the impact and resulting fire.

What was the molten metal and why was it so hot? Those fires weren't hot enough to have caused metal to melt at those temperatures.

[psychopomp]

21. Could it be metal from the airplane?

Airplanes are constructed of aluminium.

The opposite can also be said: isn't it a coincidence that the building collapsed right where a thermite reaction was seen taking place.

But this fire is in the impact zone, where we would expect the fire to be. You are engaging in a convoluted attempt to rationalize your idea.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

45. molten aluminum looks like this

molten steel










2+2!=5

[psychopomp]

52. Point taken

Hmmm...

[DemInDistress]

56. ok but this was found on Cedar St.

Possible Molten Iron From A Possible Thermite Reaction, On Cedar Street At Ground Zero, Likely From Collapsed WTC 2 , With 90 West Street Building In Background, 9/11/2001 it doesn't look like molten aluminum to me.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

59. agreed

Molten iron or steel requires a certain amount of energy to produce; too late for a proper forensic investigation so the only thing left to do is identify possible energy sources and narrow it down to the most probable. more importantly, rule out sources that are improbable i.e. jet fuel, kinetic, etc

[greyl]

68. Depends on the temperature of the aluminum. nt

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

69. agreed, it’s possible for..

aluminum to reach very high temperatures that would cause it to appear similar to molten steel/iron but it’s somewhere between improbable and impossible that these temperatures would have been reached in this situation. Casting temperature is around 100 to 150F above melting temperatures requiring temperatures of 1300 to 1350F for aluminum; this assumes material is being heated in a furnace/vat type environment with a concentrated source of heat.. would be interesting to compile a list of energy sources that could explain this.

[Sinti]

4. Without the use of explosives

Only being able to see the one corner, which already has a hole, it's impossible to say what's going on with the rest of the building. I don't know that I can say "without the use of explosives". The steel on the opposite side is what had to give for the building to fall. Any softening of the steel which was already cut has pretty much zero effect on the structure's stability, because that small amount of steel is not supporting anything anymore.


Actually, there's a hell of a fireball that blows outward in that video as the collapse begins. Different eyes see different things, I guess. :shrug:

[psychopomp]

9. I guessed it was the air pressure of the rooms being squeezed

That fire on the corner looks pretty hot and when the air on those floors gets forced out the flames bellow out into the resulting cloud of dust and debris.

[quickesst]

16. If it was the air pressure...

from one floor pancaking onto another, why don't we see the same effect on every floor? Thanks.
quickesst

[psychopomp]

20. What is in question is the reason for the eruption of the fire

into a fireball at the point of collapse. In the event cited, there is a fire burning, apparently quite hot.

There were no such fires on every floor, thus the effect is not produced on every floor during the collapse.

[quickesst]

36. But...

It is clear in videos that several floors were affected with a blowout, which many believe are explosives(squibs). You can see it clearly on floors which were never on fire. That's the same explanation(pancaking, air pressure) given for these occurrences by the OCT. At least I've heard it multiple times. Why not the blowout effect on every single floor? The fact that the floors on fire produced fireballs when they collapsed is only a visible marker. The same effect was seen on several lower floors. No fireball because there was no fire on these particular floors. Thanks.
quickesst

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. You are only looking at a small section of the whole building

there is not enough information in that video to determine where anything started.

Since that area was already severely weakened, I would expect it to fail before the parts of the building that were still intact around it.

[psychopomp]

24. When the camera zooms out you can see the fire

from the impact on the wall left of the corner.

I agree with your assessment: dince that area was already severely weakened, we can expect it to fail before the parts of the building that were still intact around it.

BTW, sorry, all, that is WTC2, not WTC1. The video title is in error as is my OP title, which I cannot edit any longer.

[psychopomp]

75. Here is another link to video of the same area

You can see exactly where the location of the portion in the close-up in my original post is here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390&q=osama+bin+laden
at about 2:20