10 story hole in WTC 7

[twinstead]

Sorry Chris, but as a layman, I must categorically reject your image analysis (at least for now) because I suspect you aren't qualified to perform image analysis at all.

So, I will need a second opinion. Find an expert.

[phunk]

I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:

img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg

If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.

[Drs_Res]

Originally Posted by phunk

I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:



If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.

Added the image for you.

[alexg]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

More or less

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.

Classic denial IMHO.

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

Quote:

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.

Ah, but here you are guessing what we see is exterior wall material, it could be anything, even crushed wall, interior wall, anything, you take a superficial resemblance and assume much, particularly since we KNOW that corner has been damaged. You have no more than a barely tenable hypothesis here. Calling fake is pure speculation.

That there is a distortion which may exaggerate the damage in favor of the OS, oh so slightly, is a more rersonable suggestion. Now find out why it is distorted detective Chris.

[alexg]

Chris look closely at your supposed rectangular windows on 14 and 15, in the lower angled shot, the window ends at the corner are broken off - there is clearly an indentation - what appears to maybe be the window edge is not an edge at all. This is easy to miss with the straight on angle. But imagine moving the camera around to the side ever so slightly and suddenly those areas indented and deeper in will at a point vanish, and leave what we see in the NIST photo.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

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.



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

No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report and the original Aman Zafar photo and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Drs_Res

Added the image for you.

Norseman pointed that out.
Here's the revised posts:

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report and the original Aman Zafar photo and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.

Refraction, my elbow.
In the NIST photo, the west side is pushed in. The corner is gone and what's left of the window on 14 is heavily damaged.

Here's another comparison:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Kinda makesya think thats the way it was in the first place.
Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.

What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all. Thanks for clearing that up - I might bookmark your post and use it for debunking next time someone claims that the two photos disagree.

Dave

[funk de fino]

If you have software that could take away the smoke and the dust etc, this would be a good time to use it otherwise your analysis is useless

Why would they fake a photo saying the fires had gone out earlier than they needed to when they would have been better faking them to show more fires that lasted longer. It would have supported the official theory better.

There is no point in faking the photo to make the damage look worse, why not just focus on the huge gouge and use that?

explosive type please C7? stop running away

[alexg]

Where does the rotational software aquire the data to create parts of the image that the lens could not see? You want fake, there's your fake right there. That simply does not work.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

...the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all....

My exact thoughts when I saw the new photos. The straight on shot shows stuff that is in the background, not at the corner.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

Why does the 'curve distortion' occur only in that area?
The only distortion in the original NIST photo is the stretched windows.
Rotating corrects this distortion.

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable
opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame."

Quote:

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole.

That's the wall next to the window, not something internal.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Chris

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.

Back to school, with you!

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.

Quote:

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.

Irrelevant to the point that the two photographs, after your modifications to the NIST one, clearly do not disagree as to the damage to the corner. Your claim that at least one of the photographs is fake is rejected.

Dave

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

Is this picture on Flicker good enough. Look at the lines of the building and the letters that is visible through the hot gases of the small fire in front of the building.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.

Sorry, Chris, that was rather a knee-jerk reaction. You need to understand that your appreciation of refraction is desperately inadequate if you recognise that refraction would be observed looking across a desert, yet you fail to understand that refraction would be observed when looking downwards at a building fire for exactly the same reason. I would explain this, and could also explain why the distortion appears greater in the lower parts of the building (basically because they're further from the viewpoint so the bending of the light creates a greater lateral deflection), but I don't really have the time to write a textbook on geometrical optics. I strongly suggest, though, that you find one and read it. You're embarrassing yourself.

Dave

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Is this picture on Flicker good enough. Look at the lines of the building and the letters that is visible through the hot gases of the small fire in front of the building.

Excellent find.
Evidence, presented in a straightforward manner, is always appropriate and appreciated.

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

NIST says the fires on the west face had burned out when the picture was taken.
The breeze was blowing the smoke [hot gases] to the south east.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places, and that for some reason the refraction of light due to random density variations in unevenly heated air may not have occurred just on that day, at that time. You're standing on a rooftop shouting out your ignorance for the world to hear. Really, it's quite embarrassing to watch.

Dave

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Dave

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Excellent find.
Evidence, presented in a straightforward manner, is always appropriate and appreciated.

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

NIST says the fires on the west face had burned out when the picture was taken.
The breeze was blowing the smoke [hot gases] to the south east.

Just looking at pictures.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places, and that for some reason the refraction of light due to random density variations in unevenly heated air may not have occurred just on that day, at that time. You're standing on a rooftop shouting out your ignorance for the world to hear. Really, it's quite embarrassing to watch.

Dave

I'm saying that looking thru a gas flame up close at details is not comparable with the photo in question.
The refraction effect was minimal when looking thru a flame.
There are no examples of this phenomenon in any of the photographs from 911.
The fires had gone out on the west side and the hot gases were being blown to the south west.
This is very clever but it cannot account for the missing window and wall in the NIST photo, nor can it account for the stretched out windows and the curved wall.
Walls do not curve. The granite cladding would have broken off if the wall were pushed inward.
The Zafar photo shows the wall and granite cladding around the windows on 14 and 15 are intact.

[Belz...]

Quote:

Walls do not curve.

These do.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Belz...

These do.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...92c4f64e35.jpg

Good find.
The bowing out occurs over about 30 feet.
This is quite different from a wall bending in over a few feet.
WTC 7 had a stone facade that would have broken and fallen off if the wall was bent in.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The fires had gone out on the west side and the hot gases were being blown to the south west.

You should be very careful with that claim Christopher. The wind gave the impression that the fires had gone out on the West side. But as you can see in this video, when the wind lost strength for a moment smoke poured out of the windows on the West side. But when the wind blew stronger, it went in through the broken windows on the West side and blew the smoke out of the broken windows on the South side.

And if you look at figure 5-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 7 the photo gives the impression that fires had burned out on the West side. But when you look at figure L-22a in the NIST interim report on WTC 7 and the Aman Zafar photo, both photos taken later in the day, you will notice an increase in the number of broken and burned out windows. And also a lot more smoke coming out of the windows in the Zafar photo. So evidently the fires continued burn and spread on the West side of the building throughout the day.

[funk de fino]

I like the bit where someone says "look at the hole in that building....its gonna come down"

I wonder why he thought that?

I wonder if he seen them planting the "silent" explosives C7 cannot find any examples of?

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by funk de fino

I like the bit where someone says "look at the hole in that building....its gonna come down"

I wonder why he thought that?

I wonder if he seen them planting the "silent" explosives C7 cannot find any examples of?

Yup. Don't you know "it's gunna come down" is code for "I know the building was rigged with explosives"?

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

I'm saying that looking thru a gas flame up close at details is not comparable with the photo in question.
The refraction effect was minimal when looking thru a flame.
There are no examples of this phenomenon in any of the photographs from 911.

In addition to the NYPD photo you can take a look at this photo on Flickr. The photo is taken at noon at a moment when the wind allowed hot smoke and air to move a bit North.

In the photo it looks like the top part of the Verizon building is tipping over. Also note how all the details of the building is smeared out and how some of the windows have take on twisted shapes, in this regard look at the small building structure at the foot of the upper part on the North side. That building part should look more like it those in this photo, even though all details of the Verizon building is smeared out in this photo also, due to hot air and smoke swirling around the building.

When looking at du first photo again, notice how the buildings behind the Verizon building appears through the heat shimmer from the fires at Ground Zero, while the top of WTC 7 looks quiet sharp. And also take a look at the buildings in the upper left corner, there are some lines there that should have been straight.

Photographed from a different angle and distance about 20 seconds later the Verizon building looks like it should, but take look at the lower NW corner and North wall of the Verzion building, those it look straight to you?

Finely take a look at this photo to. Notice how the buildings in the upper left corner have a stretched appearance.

And I find it very likely that the NIST photo is from the same series as the pictures that I have linked here, taken by Olympus C-2100 UZ with only 2 MP.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Finally it is time to address the mistakes you did in the interpretation of the above photos Christopher7.

Quote:

In the NIST photo, the west side is pushed in.

No, the west side only appears to to be pushed in. If you look at the NYPD photo (figure L-22a) in the NIST interim report on WTC 7 you can see a gray haze of smoke raising from the foot of WTC 7 up towards the SW corner window in area of floor 21. This is where the line of the SW corner starts to curve in. Because of this smoke there is a layer of hoter air between WTC 7 and the Verizon building, this causes the light to change direction going from the hot layer to the colder layer above, crating the effect of the lower part of WTC 7 being pushed in. This effect is enhanced by the fact that the corner plates on floor 17 and down are gone. Photographed from other angels this effect is not noticeable. Therefore we can be pretty sure that the west side of WTC 7 was not pushed in. While the stretching of the windows in the upper right hand corner of the photo, could just as well be due to design compromises in the construction of the camera lens and sensor.

Quote:

The corner is gone and what's left of the window on 14 is heavily damaged

Yes, that is a correct statement. This is evident in all the photos including the photo in figure 5-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 7. The corner plates are gone together with corner column. And all the photos show the same details regarding the damage to the corner area.

Quote:

Here's another comparison:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Kinda makesya think thats the way it was in the first place.

What your software did was to correct for some distortions likely introduced by the camera. But this you did at the price of messing up the picture more than ever. Perspective is totally changed, the window frames now look ragged and uneven, items that in the original photo appeared be down on floor or below the window sill now appears in the middle of the window, or seems to be a part of the lower window frame, and the roof of the Verizon building looks like it is a part of the bellow of an accordion. And the frames of the corner windows from floor 17 and down looks like they are curved around the corner. You only managed to make the damage look a lot worse than it really is. You know, you can not use software to get out of focus pictures sharp, or correct for air refraction's in one part of the picture. You can use software to correct for uniform lens flaws in a picture, like curved building lines in a picture taken by a wide angel lens.

Quote:

Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

Yes, but not in the way you imply. The corner plates on both the west side and south side of the SW coner are gone, together with the corner column from below floor 18 and down. This fact is very evident when we look at the right hand close up crop that you posted above. But it is only the right hand frame in the corner windows, on the west side, that is gone. Even in your wildly distorted version of the NYPD photo the corner windows are clearly visible. Below floor 14 the corner windows are hidden by smoke in the NYPD photo.

Of course there is something there when we look at the Zafar photo, because that photo is taken from an angle where we are able to see the south side of WTC 7. While we in the NYPD photo, that is shot from an angle where we can not see the south side of WTC 7, we are looking straight through the spots where the corner plates and the corner column should have been on floor 17 and 16. What we in fact are looking at in the Zafar photo is the edge of the wall on the south side of WTC 7. Again this fact is very evident when we look at the close up crop that you posted, and even more evident when you compare the close up crop with the drawing in figure 5-11 in the FEMA report.

The red arrow from your close up crop is pointing at the wrong place in your distorted version of the NYPD photo, because it points at an object that appears to hang outside the second window frame from the SW corner. While the object it should point at, is inside the corner window to the right of where the arrow now points in your photo.

The only claims, regarding structural damage, that NIST have made based upon the NYPD photo are that the SW corner is damaged from floor 18 and down to floor 8. And that the NYPD photo indicates that a least two exterior columns were severed. That the corner column is severed is very evident from the photos above. While I also find it likely, judging from the NYPD photo and the other photos, that at least one of the two columns next to the SW corner on the west side could have been damaged or severed. In fact I find the claims NIST makes very reasonable, given the available information we have. And keep in mind Christopher7, the damage to the SW corner is ruled out as causing the initiating event in the collapse hypothesis that NIST discusses in the interim report:

Originally Posted by NIST

If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade

The only ones who have presented versions of the NYPD photo with the appearance of exaggerated damage is you and your fellow CT'ers.

The fact is that the NYPD photo, as presented in the NIST interim report, is completely consistent with all other available photos of the SW corner of WTC 7.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

You should be very careful with that claim Christopher. The wind gave the impression that the fires had gone out on the West side. But as you can see in this video, when the wind lost strength for a moment smoke poured out of the windows on the West side. But when the wind blew stronger, it went in through the broken windows on the West side and blew the smoke out of the broken windows on the South side.

It's not my claim.
NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on pg counter]
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

Astute observation. If the wind was blowing thru the windows on the west side and blowing the smoke [hot gases] out the south side, when the NIST photo was taken, then there would be no distortion due to refraction.

Quote:

And if you look at figure 5-15 in the FEMA report on WTC 7 the photo gives the impression that fires had burned out on the West side. But when you look at figure L-22a in the NIST interim report on WTC 7 and the Aman Zafar photo, both photos taken later in the day,

The FEMA photo 5-15 was taken about 2:00 p.m.
The shadow of the Verizon building is just past the north wall of WTC 7.



The NIST photo was also taken about 2:00 p.m.




The shadow of WFC 2 on Winter Garden puts the time of the Zafar photo at about 4:30 p.m.*

Quote:

you will notice an increase in the number of broken and burned out windows.

No, the FEMA photo doesn't show anything above the 9th floor.
The Zafar photo doesn't show any broken windows, just smoke on floors 17, 18 and 22.

Quote:

And also a lot more smoke coming out of the windows in the Zafar photo. So evidently the fires continued burn and spread on the West side of the building throughout the day.

The Zafar photo only shows the first 2 windows on the west side so we can't tell if the fires spread on the west side.

* GlenB, you were right about using the bottom of WFC 2 as the proper point to determine the shadow. The aerial photo is centered on the WTC plaza so the top of WFC 2 is to the left of vertical.
Correction made, thank you.

[GT/CS]

Chris, I'm pretty sure you still have your directions skewed. Please post the aerial with North at the top and South at the bottom.

[Zlaya]

Originally Posted by LashL

How many times do you have to be told that the final report on WTC7 is not yet complete, Christopher? What part of that do you not understand?

You do know, don't you, that they are currently working on said final report and that they hope to publish it this spring, right? You can tilt at windmills all you like in the interim but if your posts here to date are any indication of your (lack of) rational, logical and critical thinking skills, well, let's just say that I won't be holding my breath waiting to hear anything intelligent from you in the future.

It was due in September of this year. What is taking so long? I mean Bin Ladin was proven to be guilty 10 minutes into the event, and we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.

Why is the report into what brought down WTC 7 taking so long in comparison?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

* GlenB, you were right about using the bottom of WFC 2 as the proper point to determine the shadow. The aerial photo is centered on the WTC plaza so the top of WFC 2 is to the left of vertical.
Correction made, thank you.

Very decent of you to say so.

In retrospect, my point was in fact rather minor in the grand scheme of things, and made much too aggressively. My apologies. Spending too much time debating Terral can make folk a little tetchy....

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

It's not my claim.
NIST Apx. L pg 24 [28 on pg counter]
Before 2:00 p.m.
• Figures L–22a shows fires that had burned out by early afternoon on Floors 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30 along the west face near the southwest corner.

The FEMA photo 5-15 was taken about 2:00 p.m.
The shadow of the Verizon building is just past the north wall of WTC 7.

The NIST photo was also taken about 2:00 p.m.

The shadow of WFC 2 on Winter Garden puts the time of the Zafar photo at about 4:30 p.m.*

No, the FEMA photo doesn't show anything above the 9th floor.
The Zafar photo doesn't show any broken windows, just smoke on floors 17, 18 and 22.

Sorry, I meant figure 5-16 in the FEMA report just below figure 5-15. It appears to have been taken before noon. This photo gives the impression that the fires have burned out on the west side. Notice the corner window and its closest neighbor on floor 22, where only the right half of the corner window appears to have be broken. Also note seven broken and blackened window frames on floor 29 and 30. And there is no or very little smoke coming from the the windows on floor 17 and 18.

In the NYPD photo (figure L-22a in the NIST interim report), that you estimates to have been taken at 2:00 pm, the two windows on floor 22 now both appears completely broken and blackened. While the seven broken and blackened windows on floor 29 and 30 now have become eight. And there appears to be some smoke from the windows on floor 17 and 18.

And finally in the Zafar photo, that you estimates to have been taken at 4:30 PM, a lot of black smoke appears to come out of the two window frames at the corner on floor 22. And from windows on floor 17 and 18.

What this shows, is that the appearance of the NYPD photo likely have led NIST to underestimate the level of fire on the west side in the interim report. This is not exactly like NIST exaggerating the level of fire and damage in its interim report. Generally I find the NIST report to be very conservative and careful in its estimates of the damage and the fires in WTC 7, quiet contrary to what you have tried to imply in this thread Christopher7.

And by the way, figure 5-15 in the FEMA report and figure L-22b in the NIST interim report shows smoldering inside the rubble between WTC7 and the Verizon building, with shimmering hot air and some smoke raising up between the buildings.

[Norseman]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Good point Belz, I have been considering this for some time, even though I do not think that the NYPD photo shows the effect of sagging floors pulling the exterior walls in, like they did in WTC 1 and WTC 2 as the photo above shows.

Given the fact that WTC 7 was a tube in tube design like WTC 1 and WTC 2 it seems likely that this could have developed in parts of the building during the day. But none of the available photos show this effect. The most likely place would have been the south side with the heaviest fires, but that part of the building was obscured in smoke, so we do not now.

If this developed in parts of the building during the day, it certainly would not have be good for the stability of WTC 7.

Judging from photographs of the rubble heap of the collapsed WTC 7 building, it seems very likely that the exterior walls could tolerate some bending without the granite panels breaking and falling off, as Chiristopher7 claimed they would.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, considering the fact that this thread is beyond ridiculously long, it really, really is time to let it end, while we all wait for the NIST draft report for public comment due at the end of the year. And if Christopher7 is not happy with the conclusions in the final report he can start a new thread. Or even better write a public comment to NIST explaining what he is unhappy with, if anything. Personally, I find the NIST interim report very reasonable indeed so far.

[GT/CS]

Originally Posted by Zlaya

It was due in September of this year. What is taking so long? I mean Bin Ladin was proven to be guilty 10 minutes into the event, and we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.

Why is the report into what brought down WTC 7 taking so long in comparison?

If they produced it quickly would you not then be whining about them not doing a thorough job and rushing out an incomplete product?

[firecoins]

World Trade Center # 7 never collpased. Its still there today. There is a CT saying 7 collapsed. The video of collapse is just a holligram to throw you off the real ct, that aliens were behind 9/11.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Zlaya

we had the list of 19 hijackers the next day.

Brief correction. We had the list of 19 hijackers atabout 11am on 9/11. Fast work, huh?


Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, "We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001." (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn't take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists." [New York Observer, 2/11/2004]

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Very decent of you to say so.

In retrospect, my point was in fact rather minor in the grand scheme of things, and made much too aggressively. My apologies. Spending too much time debating Terral can make folk a little tetchy....

No worries mate.

I appreciate the correction.

Chris

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Norseman

Sorry, I meant figure 5-16 in the FEMA report just below figure 5-15. It appears to have been taken before noon.

I would put the time at about 1:00 p.m.
Note the sunlight on the fence rail at the corner of the promenade [3rd floor exterior plaza] on the left, and on the WTC 1 framework section leaning up against the promenade.
That puts the sun a little east of due south.
12:00 [1:00 p.m. EDT] sun azimuth 183.3

Quote:

This photo gives the impression that the fires have burned out on the west side. Notice the corner window and its closest neighbor on floor 22, where only the right half of the corner window appears to have be broken.

The fire has just started and has busted one window pane. [note the smoke]

Quote:

Also note seven broken and blackened window frames on floor 29 and 30. And there is no or very little smoke coming from the the windows on floor 17 and 18.

In the NYPD photo (figure L-22a in the NIST interim report), that you estimates to have been taken at 2:00 pm, the two windows on floor 22 now both appears completely broken and blackened. While the seven broken and blackened windows on floor 29 and 30 now have become eight. And there appears to be some smoke from the windows on floor 17 and 18.

Right, the NIST photo was taken some time after the FEMA photo.

Quote:

And finally in the Zafar photo, that you estimates to have been taken at 4:30 PM, a lot of black smoke appears to come out of the two window frames at the corner on floor 22. And from windows on floor 17 and 18.

And therein lies the rub.
NIST figure L-22a shows the fire on floor 22 had burned out.

If the wind was strong enough to blow the smoke out the south facing windows, as you suggested.
That would eliminate refraction as a factor.

If the fire is burned out on floor 22 then the WTC 7 part of the NIST Photo was taken after the Zafar photo.