10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

One on right has lots of smoke and flames showing there is an obvious fire which you can see from the windows on the west side

The one on the left does not have this fire or smoke on the left side but has evidence of such fires that have obviously gone out

The one on the left is later than the one on the right therefore any extra damage could have occured in this time

Unless you have accurate timings for the pictures you cannot cry fake.

Shadows are very unreliable for working out time especially in cropped photos like you are using

Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.






NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Shadows are the oldest way of telling time.
A reasonably accurate estimate [+ or - 1/2 hour] can be made using shadows.

This photo was taken about 3 p.m.
As you noted, the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning.

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2955/copyofsw11th7.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7...unlightmj1.jpg


NIST used this photo to determine that the fires on the west side had gone out before 2 p.m.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3...pyofsw1mf1.jpg

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp, if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakery

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?

Is it easier just to ignore stuff you cannot reconcile? At least we try to answer your questions and points, you made the claims about explosives that no-one could hear you have to back it up?

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

How do you explain the fires raging in the windows and floors that have supposedly gone out?

The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

Quote:

You cannot use shadows from those photos as time stamp,

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

Quote:

if anything the one supposedly from before 2 pm looks far the later picture to me which would tally with the worse damage, this may point to a mistake by NIST in the timings of the fires being out on the floors not fakery

It definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Quote:

Its either that or the smoke around the supposed earlier photo is what is masking or obscuring the damage?

NIST or the other photo?

***********************************************

Quote:

Still no silent explosives C7, why do you run away from this and the jennings description of the lobby and the hole?

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...54#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]

The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

He also said "Blew us back into the 8th floor"
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters. You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no difference since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.

Chris, I sincerely hope that you know it is impossible for someone to rig the building for a CD while the building is on fire, using explosives that make no noise and do not flash when ignited.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Now there's an intelligent, mature response by someone who is totally boxed into a corner.

You demand something you know doesn't exist

Quote:

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters.

and insist that's all that matters.

Quote:

You can talk about shadows all day long and it will make no difference

The shadows show what time of day the two photos were taken.
This is important because:
The NIST photo shows the fires in floors on floors 17, 18, 19 and 22 had burned out.
The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the photo was taken around noon.
The other photo shows the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still burning around 3 p.m.

Therefore, eather
The WTC 7 portion of the NIST photo was taken after the fires had burned out, sometime after 3 p.m.
or
the fires on 17, 18 and 22 started up again and the windows next to the corner on floors 14 and 15, and the fascia between them, magically reappeared.

*************************************************

Quote:

since you claim the building was taken down by a CD. Why talk about shadows, let's get to the evidence of the CD.

The evidence for CD is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...03#post2301403

When boxed into a corner, you try to change the subject.

[respublicus]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

The invisible, silent explosives is all that matters.

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

[respublicus]

Originally Posted by notheist

Do you really think all explosions require "Explosives"? Natural gas can also explode,

So lets say you have a build-up of explosive gas inside WTC7, Say from hot diesel fuel. ... oxygen rich air meets hot fuel rich gas and BOOM!

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Furthermore, 'things falling' does not mean collapse.

Just one point I have to take issue with. Things falling, have to fall from somewhere. After the debris from the WTC towers had all fallen, the only source of things falling was for them to be pieces falling off buildings. If you want to argue that there's a fundamental difference between a partial collapse and pieces falling off a building, you'll lose credibility very fast.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by respublicus

Colloquially, we call it an explosion when gasoline goes "boom" inside a piston. But technically, this is a deflagration, a rapid but subsonic ignition of fuel.

Any fuel - air mixture will give you fire, not a true explosion. To achieve supersonic blast effects, explosives MUST contain their own reagents and cannot depend on the atmosphere.

Go and read this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_bomb

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by respublicus

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.
But an interesting claim was made on History Channel, that no scraps of wiring, detonation cord or blasting caps were found.

It would seem that wiring could be used that would resemble regular electrical wiring.

How about this question: "Can det cord and blasting caps self-destruct?" posted at http://911blogger.com/blog/2959

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?
Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

There is also the matter that materials were pulverized and the evidence destroyed. But those are not new points. The above question is one I haven't seen answered before.

Show us the videos and recordings of these explosions from WTC7. Exactly the same as the ones contained on the Implosionworld site videos that C7 so kindly supplied for us.

There were thousands of onlookers that day, where are there reports of the very loud and huge explosions that should have been present?

C7 cannot answer the above question can you?

When was it rigged?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Galileo

NIST is investigating the cause of the blast event.

There was a blast event ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by respublicus

As for silent there are plenty of reports and even recordings of loud explosions.

Actually, there are reports of a clap of thunder, but a controlled demolition, even an uncontrolled one, would have to be much, much more than that.

Quote:

These items are actually explosives. Couldn't they be made in a way to blow themselves up completely?

How do you manage to ensure that the entire assembly is destroyed to the point of non-recognition ? Explosives tend to explode -- that is, they send stuff flying outwards -- so how do you make sure that nothing escapes the destruction ?

Quote:

Or put another way -- are producers of commercial blasting caps required to make them detectable after detonation, for forensic purposes?
Would it be actually easier to make them in ways that leave no trace, e.g. in polyethylene cases that won't survive the explosion?

Asking questions is not evidence ?

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The evidence for CD is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...03#post2301403

Sorry Chris but I didn't see any evidence for a CD at the link you posted.

Try this link, and be sure to check out the video of the CD. Watch it go boom, boom, boom and flash, flash, flash.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...highlight=barn

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The only explanation is the NIST photo of WTC 7 was taken later than the other photo, i.e. after 3 p.m.

OK, not fakery then?

Quote:

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

Its not the oldest way as you have claimed though is it? It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law. Especially as it looks likeNIST may have made a mistake when they used this method

Quote:

It definitely points to a mistake by NIST.

Ok, but I would say possibly at the moment

Quote:

[i]NIST or the other photo?

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage

Quote:

The 'silent explosives' question is a stupid, sarcastic subject shift.

No, you made the claim about the lack of noise from the explosive and then ran from the question, we are just trying to get you to explain

Quote:

I have stated my position on Barry's statements.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...54#post2932754

I was reminding jaydeehess of the point you made.
If you're going to take part of Barry's statement as true, then you have to take all of it as true. [even though it ain't necessarily so]
The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Barry said "It looked like King Kong had came through it and stepped on it"

He also said "Blew us back into the 8th floor"
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both thru a closed fire door.

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

I am quite happy to disregard all of his tesimony as would happen in court due to inconsistencies, you must also though

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

OK, not fakery then?

In the NIST photo, the fires on the west face had burned out.

The other photo shows the fires on 17, 18 and 22 were still burning at about 3 p.m.

The WTC 7 part of the NIST photo was taken sometime after that.

The shadows on the Verizon building show that part of the NIST photo was taken around noon.

The NIST photo is a FAKE

Originally Posted by C7

You can use shadows to reasonably approximate the time of day.
People have been doing this for thousands of years.

Quote:

It would probably not stand up as accurate in a court of law.

Shadows are conclusive evidence of the time of day [+ or - 1/2 hour]. They would stand up in a court of law.

Quote:

Especially as it looks like NIST may have made a mistake when they used this method

Police photos have a time stamp.
NIST did not use shadows to determine the time.

Quote:

The smoke in the NIST photo could be obscuring, but to me it looks like the later photo of the two which would explain the increase in damage

The damage to floors 14 and 15 is not obscured by smoke.
The NIST photo shows a ragged edge, stuff hanging, the corner windows missing and damage to the second window on 14.

[Galileo]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

you have to disregard everything jennings says and not just cherry pick the bits you think support you, this is very dishonest

he states that the lobby looked like king kong had trashed it and he was taken out a hole in the wall

this would say to me there was lots of damage in the lobby

you either use all his testimonies or you disregard it all

i notice you are running away from someone else when asked about your silent explosives

please tell me where i can get some

The 'king kong' remark is not specified by Jennings as to have occurred before WTC 1 fell.

sorry.

[GT/CS]

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank you

[GT/CS]

Chris, you may want to see post #65 from the attached link before you get too deep into your shadow theory. Using shadows to tell time among buildings is extremely difficult and you will need to provide some pretty serious geometry calculations for us to accept your findings.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...3&#entry408373

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Will someone please post a link to Jennings' entire quote, or testimony, or interview, or whatever both sides keep cherry picking?

Thank you

From the NIST report:

Quote:

At 9:59 a.m., WTC 2 collapsed, and debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7. At 10:28 a.m., WTC 1 collapsed and a significant amount of damage was done to WTC 7. A large amount of debris crashed through the front center of the building from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped a part of the southwest corner off from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also appears to be responsible for starting fires inside of WTC 7. With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help. Firefighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs. In addition, a security officer for one of the businesses in the building was also was trapped on the 7th floor by the smoke in the stairway. As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor and firefighters escorted him down the stairs. Other firefighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlight through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8 floor saw the flashlight beam and heard the firefighters calling and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building. NIST NCSTAR 1-81 p.109-110

An abbreviated version. Article dated September 11, 2001:

Quote:

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

I see that Christopher 7 is claiming that a NIST photo is fake. He's a real good photo analyst. One of the best. I wonder what happened to him ordering the copies of photos from NIST, which he said he would do long ago.

Maybe someone can explain why people are still attempting to talk sense into him. Has he shown that he's open to reason in the past year?

[GT/CS]

Thank you for the information, Gravy.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by GT/CS

Chris, you may want to see post #65 from the attached link before you get too deep into your shadow theory. Using shadows to tell time among buildings is extremely difficult and you will need to provide some pretty serious geometry calculations for us to accept your findings.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.p...3&#entry408373

Thank you for the link
You are a gentleman and a scholar.

The sun was due south at 12:52 p.m. EDT
The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:47 p.m. EDT
[+ or – 10 minutes for angle error]




Azimuth is the angle along the horizon, with zero degrees corresponding to North, and increasing in a clockwise fashion. Thus, 90 degrees is East, 180 degrees is South, and 270 degrees is West.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
o , o ,
W 73 55, N40 44
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard TimeDaylight time is not implemented in this program. When daylight time is in use, add one hour to the times listed in the table.

Altitude Azimuth (E of N)
h m o o
11:50 53.6 179.1*
12:00 53.6 183.3
13:40 46.3 220.8
13:50 45.0 223.9*
14:00 43.7 226.8

Source
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Article dated September 11, 2001:
First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

On 9/11 he also said "We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both through a closed fire door.
[he probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO]

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.

The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Quote:

I see that Christopher 7 is claiming that a NIST photo is fake. He's a real good photo analyst. One of the best.

Thank you

Quote:

I wonder what happened to him ordering the copies of photos from NIST, which he said he would do long ago.

Report not final, therefore, documents will not be released.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

On 9/11 he also said "We made it to the 8th floor. Big explosion! Blew us back into the 8th floor."
This was obviously an overstatement as it would have required blowing them both through a closed fire door.
[he probably meant the 8th floor landing IMO]

Barry is not your go to guy when seeking an accurate description of damage.
The professional firefighters, sometimes referred to here as experts, gave a fairly detailed description of the lobby.
"No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed"

Thank you

Report not final, therefore, documents will not be released.

he is not your guy to go to about explosions before the towers fell then?

he is all you had for this unless you can post Hess statement?

are you admitting we have to totally disregard everything jennings says now?

i'm happy to if you are

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Galileo

The 'king kong' remark is not specified by Jennings as to have occurred before WTC 1 fell.

sorry.

And?

[Christopher7]

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

[buka001]

Seems awfully familiar to Terral's pentagon timeline theory. Use of shadows to determine time.

Can you clearly outline your hypothesis in regards to the time. Indicate clearly on the photographs. I would like to see your calculations. You have not done this. You quoted some text and you have drawn some nice lines on a cartesian plane. Detail the calculations. Show the shadows. Illustrate how this contradicts the official time of the photo.

I am struggling to see the direct connection. I see alot of words but no proof.

[twinstead]

Why do conspiracy theorists always claim to be expert photo and video analysts?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

And?

And he stopped reading there, obviously.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Why do conspiracy theorists always claim to be expert photo and video analysts?

Because, like most people, they give their senses too much credit, and give other people's expertise too little.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9...graphicsp8.jpg

You're making the same kind of mistake as Terral over on LCF.

The shadow on the Winter Gardens* isn't being cast by the top of the building, as your line would indicate. It's being cast by the base of the building. Also you have it just clipping the Winter Gardens. In the original photo it's much more central.

I accuse you of i) wilful distortion or ii) ignorance

*sorry, I'm in a rush here. As I recall this is what that structure was called.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by buka001

Can you clearly outline your hypothesis in regards to the time. Indicate clearly on the photographs.

The shadow of the Merrill Lynch Building [on right] intersects Wintergarden right where the damaged section meets the lower section on the right, and continues up to the [11].

The Azimuth* of the sun in the following graphic is 225°

Quote:

I would like to see your calculations. You have not done this.

I did, in post #3661 [probably wasn't very clear]
Here's the main part:

NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard Time Daylight time is not implemented in this program. When daylight time is in use,
add one hour to the times listed in the table.

*Azimuth is the angle along the horizon, with zero degrees corresponding to North, and increasing in a clockwise fashion. Thus, 90 degrees is East, 180 degrees is South, and 270 degrees is West.

..............................Azimuth
13:50 [2:50 p.m. EDT] 223.9
13:54 [2:54 p.m. EDT] 225.0*
14:00 [3:00 p.m. EDT] 226.8

Source
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz

Quote:

Illustrate how this contradicts the official time of the photo.

NIST states this photo shows the fires on the west side burned out before 2:00 p.m. Shadows on Verizon building confirm the time that portion of the photograph was taken.[about 1:00 p.m. EDT - Azimuth 183.3° ]

The conundrum is:
The first photo shows the fires on floors 17, 18 and 22 are still going at 2:50.

The WTC 7 portion of the NIST photo was taken sometime after 2:50 p.m. EDT.

***********************************************

At 2:50 p.m. the corner windows on the west side on floors 14 and 15 and the fascia between them were not seriously damaged.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The sun was at the angle shown in the following graphic at 2:50 p.m. EDT

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9...graphicsp8.jpg

Christopher7, your W, S and E arrows are ca 30 degrees off the true directions. In other words your S arrow is pointing 210 degrees to SW and not 180 degrees straight south as it should. If you correct this in your photo, then suddenly the 2:50 p.m. arrow is close to where your S arrow is pointing.

Please feel free to check this fact with any map you like. Like Google Maps, the maps are oriented along true north.

Here are some photos of the WTC 7 and the Verizon building just before noon and at noon.

Why did you do this mistake Christopher7?

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

In the
The NIST photo is a FAKE

The NIST photo is not a fake. What you are looking at in the NYPD photo that NIST used in its preliminary report on WTC 7 is the effects of light refraction and maybe to some degree lens distortions.

All relevant details are present in both the NYPD photo and the Aman Zafar photo. Since the NYPD photo is taken from above, the light from the damaged area have to move up through a lot of hot air/smoke that is rising up along the face of the building. But the effects of refraction is very evident in all parts of the NYPD picture when you look at the window frames.

Relevant Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

refresh my memory Chris. on what page of this thread did we already cover those two photos.

I don't know if anyone has answered my question yet (don't have time to look) but this (the supposed fake NIST photo of WTC 7's corner damage) was covered starting on page 44 of this thread.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The shadow on the Winter Gardens* isn't being cast by the top of the building, as your line would indicate. It's being cast by the base of the building.

The lower parts that stick out are also set back from the corner.
The shadow is being cast by the corner.
[in the next photo]

Quote:

Also you have it just clipping the Winter Gardens. In the original photo it's much more central.

Wrong
Winter Garden has 4 sections [and a little blurb in front].
Section 4 is closest to the river.[closest to us in this photo]
Section 3 is the largest.
Section 2 has a hole in the roof as does
Section 1
[The blurb in front is not visible in these photos]

The shadow starts where sections 2 and 1 meet on the right side.



The direction of sunlight line goes thru this point.
[see post #3671]

Quote:

I accuse you of i) wilful distortion or ii) ignorance

Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.

[jaydeehess]

Chris, perhaps you'd like tp correct your compas direction for South. It is incorrect. None of the WTC buildings faced directly south.

[alexg]

Chris, look at the pieces of debris sticking out of the windows on the 15th floor. They are the same in both shots. The long, angular stuff hanging out..

And look at how much wider the windows are in the upper view. The image is definitely stretched possibly by a factor of 2, but only as you near the edge. I have no idea why this is the case but it is.

I submit the photos are showing the same damage. The upper shot is at a bad angle and is distroted. That is all. This is a classic cherry pick, IMHO.

In your inevitable attempt at a rebuttal please address these 2 points specifically.

And keep in mind that we have already established the apparent corner at this level is not a corner, it is too close to the damaged windows, the corner is destroyed. There is no mystery here except why the one upper photo, supposedly directly from NIST, is distoreted in aspect near the corner.

From the NIST photo it is clear that the damage gets dramatically worse JUST below what is visible in the other photo. Too bad. That photo is simply not helping you.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Christopher7, your W, S and E arrows are ca 30 degrees off the true directions. In other words your S arrow is pointing 210 degrees to SW and not 180 degrees straight south as it should.

I was going by this graphic. Oops
Vesey Street runs east and west. Note the north indicator - upper left.


Note the 'late afternoon' turned out to be right

Corrected graphic:



.............................. Asmuth
15:50 [4:50 p.m. EDT] 252.3
15:55 [4:55 p.m. EDT] 253.2*
16:00 [5:00 p.m. EDT] 254.2




...............................Asmuth
13:00 [2:00 p.m. EDT] 207.2

Quote:

Please feel free to check this fact with any map you like. Like Google Maps, the maps are oriented along true north.

Corrections made, thank you.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

The NIST photo is not a fake. What you are looking at in the NYPD photo that NIST used in its preliminary report on WTC 7 is the effects of light refraction and maybe to some degree lens distortions.

Effects of light refraction? Grasp at straws much?
There are distortions but the corner windows on 14 and 15 and the fascia around them is clearly missing or severely damaged in the NIST photo and clearly there in the other photo.

Quote:

All relevant details are present in both the NYPD photo and the Aman Zafar photo.

No. There is stuff hanging from a raged edge and the windows on 14 and 15 are just not there in the NIST photo.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by alexg

Chris, look at the pieces of debris sticking out of the windows on the 15th floor. They are the same in both shots. The long, angular stuff hanging out..

More or less

Quote:

And look at how much wider the windows are in the upper view. The image is definitely stretched possibly by a factor of 2, but only as you near the edge. I have no idea why this is the case but it is.

The photo has been stretched out to make the damage look bigger.
How can the windows furthest away, top to bottom, get stretched to twice their normal size?
The photo did not come out of the camera that way.
Things further away from the camera appear smaller.

Quote:

I submit the photos are showing the same damage. The upper shot is at a bad angle and is distroted. That is all. This is a classic cherry pick, IMHO.

Classic denial IMHO.

Quote:

In your inevitable attempt at a rebuttal please address these 2 points specifically.

And keep in mind that we have already established the apparent corner at this level is not a corner, it is too close to the damaged windows, the corner is destroyed.

The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.

Quote:

From the NIST photo it is clear that the damage gets dramatically worse JUST below what is visible in the other photo.

So what?
The damage on 14 and 15 is clearly different in the two photos.