10 story hole in WTC 7

[A W Smith]

Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/w...ges/Fig02L.jpg

http://img477.imageshack.us/img477/8...arison2de3.jpg

Look four floors below the yellow circle to the last relatively intact veneer spandrel. You will see a piece of debris hanging out an opening. compare that debris to the same debris in the right photo. below that is where the major damage begins and all but three floors below is obscured by the WFC, the winter garden, and smoke in the right comparison photo.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/w...es/FigD_01.jpg

sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Against my better judgment, I followed that Loose Change thread.

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

This isn't proof of anything.

Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.
http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

[jaydeehess]

I haven't been following MM's 'faked photo' $4it but I take it that the imageshack image that MM links to shows two separate photos of the SW corner superimposed next to each other, one from NIST(though it does not look exactly like picture L-22a in NIST's appendix L) and the other from I believe Spak's photos.

Aside from focal length differences and different angles, I see the same damage done in both pictures.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Distortion was introduced on the left comparison photo when the original was polygon selected and deskewed in an attempt to make a comparison
................
sorry I see no evidence of tampering on the police photo other than a poor attempt to deskew the photo perspective for comparison.

Also consider that you are not looking at a 90 degree building corner.

I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.

[e^n]

Originally Posted by Kent1

Forgetting about the poor photoshop skills and the warped building, I see corner damage in this photo also.

Yep I see that too, I'll go post it over at LC so none of you have to venture in

Quote:

I didn't see any "real smoking gun" issue. All I saw was (1) frustration that the photo is the "only one" released of the corner, and it's "from the government," and (2) some complaint that it doesn't "look like" a different photograph, taken from a different angle. From this, most but not all of you conclude that it was "Photoshopped."

I hope you're not referring to one of my posts there, I simply remarked that the photoshop morphing of the image to line up with the one taken from w-s-w could confuse some people into thinking that was the original picture and it is obviously fake. The two actual photos provide very little ability for analysis.

I wanted to point this out because I've read quite a lot of your posts and I must admire your approach to the subject

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gravy

The building had severe, uncontrolled fires on many floors.

The building was visibly bulging over three stories.

The building was missing a large portion of its southwest corner.

The building had a huge gouge in its south face.

The 47-story building was groaning and creaking.

Talk to some high-rise engineers and see what they think about all that. But be warned: they may introduce difficult concepts such as "stress" and "shifting loads."

If you won't talk to them and learn about these things, what does that say about your interest in the truth?

Have you read what the engineers at NIST said?

Apx. L pg 36:
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"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 vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

PG 41:
"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads due to the redundancy of the moment frame.

The severed and damaged perimeter columns put 'stress' on the the entire building, the loads were 'shifted' to the surrounding columns.

The stress would have been pulling to the south and west.
The initiating event has a column failure to the east.
The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckling to the east.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I would have liked NIST to have a convention of showing views either from the south or north, instead they choose one or the other for every instance. Yes they show the columns failing to the east in the horizontal progression of collapse, opposite of what I had expected. However I also see their reasoning. In those diagrams it supposes that the damage to the trusses occured at columns 79 and 81 which indeed would pull those trusses down on their east end.

This has to do with the horizontal collapse though and not the initiating event which was the direct cause of the original vertical progression. That initiating event need not have occured on the 7th floor or lower. It is the original vertical collapse that is supposed would damage the truss(es) 1&2. That would have heavy debris plunging from the roof top through to the 7th floor(at least) and failing the truss(es).

Another possibility is that the column splices just above floor 7 fail when a large debris load is dropped onto floor 7(but floor 7 buckles downward but does not immediatly fail).

I am not an engineer but I still wonder at the lateral stress that would be imposed on floors 5 and 7 due to the loss of south perimeter columns. IMHO it would be pulling those floors to the south at the position of the lost columns which would have the lateral load at columns 79,80,81 due to that damage being towards the south and west, if the floors 5 and 7 had some ability to twist and strictly to the south if they acted more rigidly.

The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

Quote:

At any rate the fact that the elevators were ejected greatly suggests that there was core damage that had pulled the core columns out of vertical.

I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

Quote:

Whether the column was being pulled south, east or west would not be known. If it was the result of perimeter column damage then it would be to the south, if debris had entered the core (ie. into the elevator shaft itself)then it would depend on which side of the elevator that the damage occured, east or west.

The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

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

Which does not preclude perimeter damage contributing to the stresses in the area of initial failure.

Quote:

The initiating event has a column failure to the east.

Wanna point it out where NIST says that again real quick. Perhaps you meant 'in the eastern part of the building'.

Quote:

The horizontal collapse depends on the core columns buckleing to the east.

In the senarios which have trusses 1&2 being severed or buckled at their eastern ends due to falling debris from the initial failure. This is not neccessary for a senario in which the column splices just above floor 5 or 7 fail due to floor buckling.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

The stress was to the entire building, not just floors 5 and 7 in the area of the initiating event. The stresses would be the greatest near the area of the severed columns.

I disagree. It suggests that a single core column was damaged IMHO.

The possible damage to a core column would have been to the west of the area of the initiating event and therefore pulling to the west.

Floors 5 and 7 would ofer more rigid transfer of those stresses along the core than other floors(especially ones below 5)

It suggests damage to core column(s). You simply cannot say one as opposed to more just because you wish it so.

Pulling to the west as a contributing factor in the initial failure, yes.

[Gravy]

Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns. That's not smart of you. You really should know better by now, but apparently you are utterly incapable of comprehending what you read.

When a portion of the structure is removed, the load it once carried is redistributed to other structural members, agreed?

And where was the creaking and groaning coming from? Do you know?

And why do you think you, who can't get anything right, can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?

[Randy Mott]

The Debunking 911 site has a real comparison of Jones' "squibs" on WTC7 and the collapsing southside. He was definitely misleading folks deliberately IMO.

My question in why would Silverstein order to NY Fire Department to demolish the building? This seems to indicate that the NY Fire Department planted the alleged charges. Then Silverstein describes his orders to them on a public broadcast? Great conspiracy.... use a public agency and involve ,what, ten or more fire dept supervisors and dozens of firemen to "plant the charges"), then announce on PBS that you ordered them to blow it up?

I think that the CTs ask us too foten to suspend belief. Most of this stuff would not even make a Hollywood script because the studio would say it was too lame to be credible in even a movie!

Randy Mott
Lawyer

Note: I added that, because I am nw here and often read guys discussing legal issues. I was a litigator for twenty some years in DC. Now I work in Central Europe on other stuff.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

I see now , that is why the left image is reminiscent of figure L-22a. It was photoshopped by CT's in an attempt to compare the two images.

So they are complaining that figure L-22a was a photoshopped image but they arrive at this conclusion by themselves altering L-22a and claiming that the result of their alteration should exactly match the other image.

Yep, that's a doosie.

Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.

The NIST submission;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/907...ougefv4bz3.jpg

Reality of the day;
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/946...damage2zq4.jpg

Composite for comparison;
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4...damage3is2.jpg

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM

[A W Smith]

The hanging debris matches.. You will have to save the image and then zoom in

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

The hanging debris matches.. You will have to save the image and then zoom in

Wrong term of reference. Your hanging debris is too poor an image to make a definitive match.

I'm using a start point that is easily matched in both photos.

Both photos clearly show the double row of blackened windows higher in the tower. I've marked them with a 1 & 2.

Count down 7 floors to the next blackened window, another reference check (equally matchable in both photos and marked with a "3").

From there you can count down 10 more floors with no large scoop revealed in the intact corner. There is some smoke obscuration but not enough to hide the intact corner and adjoining windows.

From the NIST photo, if you start counting down floors from the same blackened window marked "3", at 4 floors down, damage is encountered and very well established by 10..absolutely no intact corner after you reach 3 or 4 floors down. It's easier to count the floors in the NIST photo if you view about 3 windows in from the corner.

MM

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Typically fear of reality makes you blind to the truth.

you would be a prime example of that.

Quote:

You can attempt to argue angle distortion all you want, but the details remain clear enough to determine the visible lower floors in the corner are no where near a match.

MM

This reminds me of a poster on BAUT who adamantly insisted that the Pentagon security camera was crystal clear in showing the the inbound aircraft was an F-4.

You can take the NIST photo and use photoshop to attempt to deskew it all you want it will not further your cause to prove that the NIST photo is faked.

There are details in each photo which will be visible in one but not the other due to sun angle, smoke, camera/wall angle and the bulge/lean in the building above the gash and there is no photoshop magic that you can do to make both pictures show the exact same details. there is enough detail in both pictures though to conclusively state that they show the same damage to the building.

In http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/946...damage2zq4.jpg you can see that the window column on floor 16 is very much askew. This is one illustration of the bulge in the building. We also know that the west wall of the building meets the south wall at an angle that is not 90 degrees. The NIST photo is taken from the NW making the angle between camera and west wall even more oblique than if the west wall was at 90 deg to the south and north walls. With the building also leaning or bulging the damaged SW corner gets even more out of line with the camera. This will all serve to obscure details of the SW corner.

However, when I look at the NIST photo there is at least 3 floors relativly intact below floor 18 and as many as 4. That jives with the other photo that shows damage to the actual corner starting at floor 14 below which the corner is not visible due to smoke and the intervening building.

[A W Smith]

MM perhaps you need a larger monitor. I can easily see the debris I pointed out matching.

[Kent1]

Deleted

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

MM perhaps you need a larger monitor. I can easily see the debris I pointed out matching.

AW, You can see larger pictures here.
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

Yep the piece is a match.

Again, Looks like you can see some of it here also.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

[Miragememories]

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.



MM

[A W Smith]

Ok again. Look at the debris hanging out the front bay on your two number fourteens.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Ok again. Look at the debris hanging out the front bay on your two number fourteens.

I might as well look at the pentagon 1 frame of the AA jet before it hit the Pentagon for all the quality in your hanging debris image. The angles are extreme and the detail is too poor for you to prove anything with that debris argument.

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/920...ge3rnk5.th.jpg

MM

Your numbering is also off a bit as you get further down. 11-17 needs to be moved up on your left photo. You should also use a better photo that is in the NIST report on page 17.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

Again I see no problem.

[A W Smith]

I'm not disputing the references, I never had, My dispute is drawing conclusions from one photo taken at an extreme elevated angle with one taken flat on of an obtuse building corner thats obscured by wfc and the winter garden. I can see some of the same debris in both photos. Of course its going to look different from those two vastly different perspectives. its 3 dimensional debris for Christs sake.
And another thing. why would they alter the photo with effects that would hurt their conclusion? Wouldn't the building then have to fall in that direction if so much was missing from that corner? The initiating event was supposedly way over on the other side of the building to the east. nowhere near this southwest corner.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

My method of referencing to clear matching reference points in both images and then counting through easily identifiable floors is foolproof. And while your at it look across from 15, 16 and 17. In the NIST photo you see extreme corner damage/loss. In the comparison photo the corner is intact!

MM

Actually, it is impossible to determine that from a single still photo. It is entirely possible for the corner to be caved in, but in line with the direction of the camera. This will, of course, give the illusion that it is in line.

I tried to line up a ruler with some of the straight line of the upper portion of the corner, to see if the 15-17 area matched it perfectly or not. With my monitor, it appears to me to be off by a couple of pixels (certainly not much, but movement on the x axis need not be proportional to movement on the z axis). (Also, it is entirely possible that the pixel difference is the result of lens distortion, or an artifact of my monitor. A large, high resolution print might be better suited for such an examination.)

The best you can do from the second picture is to note that the corner is not deflected (much) on the x axis. One still picture cannot determine the z axis deflection, and that deflection may easily account for the differences you perceive between the two shots.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

And ignoring 'hard evidence' in favour of soft inconsequential issues, is obviously the JREF way of avoiding unpleasant realities.

"Hard" evidence :

Quote:

I think a faked photograph, the only photo NIST distributed as proof of that WTC7 corner damage is more important.

How do you know it's faked ? Because it's the only onw you have ? How is this "hard" evidence ?

Quote:

You by your chosen interest in a non-debate worthy issue (squib directions) show your true colors and genuine lack of interest in the big picture.

Ah! The BIG picture. What WE call 'Da Conclusion. Of course, your conclusion really is your starting hypothesis, so working backwards and ignoring all contrary evidence (that's everything there is) becomes easy, though stupid.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by MM

Wrong term of reference. Your hanging debris is too poor an image to make a definitive match.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

So, basically the pictures are too fuzzy to tell... but you use them anyway ?

[e^n]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

I tried to line up a ruler with some of the straight line of the upper portion of the corner, to see if the 15-17 area matched it perfectly or not. With my monitor, it appears to me to be off by a couple of pixels (certainly not much, but movement on the x axis need not be proportional to movement on the z axis). (Also, it is entirely possible that the pixel difference is the result of lens distortion, or an artifact of my monitor. A large, high resolution print might be better suited for such an examination.)

I checked this with GIMP and came to the same conclusion, there is evidence of inward deflection in the second picture and significant evidence that the corner structure has been seriously damaged (note you don't actually see the side wall join the south wall at any point beneath where the NYPD picture shows damage occuring.

It's an interesting picture, but not proof of a government coverup by any means.

My post regarding it at LC is here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ost&p=13007389

[FactCheck]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Since reading my directions was obviously too much bother, I've numbered the windows on each photo so they are in sync with the matching floors.

It should be quite clear that the NIST photo shows significant corner damage on floors that are intact in the comparison photo.

Click on the thumbnail image to get a full view.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/920...ge3rnk5.th.jpg

MM

Kent1, isn't there a ledge of possibly the verison building visible between floor 15 and 16 on the photo taken from NJ? I know I see a ledge but I don't know where it's from.



Maybe you covered this but I didn't see it.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Which does not preclude perimeter damage contributing to the stresses in the area of initial failure.

NIST made no mention of the damage to the perimeter columns contributing to the in initiating event.
So why are you?

They did say:
"If a group of perimeter columns failed, the perimeter framing above this area would have redistributed its loads, due to the redundancy of the moment frame."

They made no reference to lateral stress from the severed perimeter columns.
So why are you?

Quote:

Wanna point it out where NIST says that again real quick. Perhaps you meant 'in the eastern part of the building'.

To clarify: The initiating event hypothesis includes fires causing floor systems to fail, causing one or more core columns to buckle to the east.
Again, no mention of lateral stress from the perimeter column damage.

Quote:

In the senarios which have trusses 1&2 being severed or buckled at their eastern ends due to falling debris from the initial failure. This is not neccessary for a senario in which the column splices just above floor 5 or 7 fail due to floor buckling.

OK

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Floors 5 and 7 would ofer more rigid transfer of those stresses along the core than other floors(especially ones below 5)

1) NIST made no mention of this.
2) You are not qualified to make that statement.

Quote:

It suggests damage to core column(s). You simply cannot say one as opposed to more just because you wish it so.

Same argument in reverse:
You cannot say that more than one column was damaged just because you wish it so.

Quote:

Pulling to the west as a contributing factor in the initial failure, yes.

1) NIST made no mention of this.
2) You are not qualified to make that statement.

[firecoins]

Today I saw building # 7 standing. Prove to me it collapsed at all.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Chris, you're implying that I suggested that the collapse should have started with the perimeter columns.

No

Quote:

When a portion of the structure is removed, the load it once carried is redistributed to other structural members, agreed?

Yes
NIST Apx. L pg 36:
I3.1 Perimeter Moment Frame Arrests Failure Progression:
[boulding mine]
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 frame, which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame.

Quote:

And where was the creaking and groaning coming from? Do you know?

Most likely from where all the severe damage was.
[the west half of the south side]

Quote:

And why do you think you can better assess the condition of the building than the experts who were on the scene?

The firefighters at the scene were in a better position to access the damage to the west half of the south side but the engineers at NIST are more qualified to analyze that assessment.
Furthermore, the firefighters had no knowledge of the conditions in the area of the initiating event other than the office fires that were reported.

[Miragememories]

Here's a better quality composite of the NIST photo and the reference image.



I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Reference points #15 to #17 shows a major loss to the building's corner in the NIST (NYPD) photo. The comparable #15 to #17 in the reference photo clearly shows no hint of that amount of loss to the building's corner.

MM

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Here's a better quality composite of the NIST photo and the reference image.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4...ireswx4.th.jpg

I still feel that the picture clarity is sufficient to prove that the NIST (NYPD) photo is missing data that should be showing!

Reference points #15 to #17 shows a major loss to the building's corner in the NIST (NYPD) photo. The comparable #15 to #17 in the reference photo clearly shows no hint of that amount of loss to the building's corner.

MM

In the photo on the right, the feature that looks like the corner of the building actually appears to be the exposed and displaced corner perimeter column (see the apparent gap between the face and the column from the floors marked 13 through 15).

In the NYPD photo, the building face between the rightmost windows appears to be mostly intact (although heavily damaged) until below the floor marked 15, where the damage is much more severe and material is actually missing. This looks consistent with the photo on the right, where the material between the floors marked 15 & 16 appears heavily damaged and raggedy, with material missing. It's difficult to see what's going on below that in this photo.

[Kent1]

The 15-17 are also a touch low now. Floor 15 especially needs to be fixed on the left photo. One thing you'll notice if you've looked at many of the other photos, is that there is a large amount of smoke coming from the 16th and 17th floor areas.

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Kent1

The 15-17 are also a touch low now. Floor 15 especially needs to be fixed on the left photo. One thing you'll notice if you've looked at many of the other photos, is that there is a large amount of smoke coming from the 16th and 17th floor areas.

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

That's nit-picking. The numbers are placed accurately enough to be clear what floor is being referred to without overly obstructing the image.

Yes there is significant smoke but it is is possible to identify reference numbered floors 15,16 and 17 in both photos. In the corner, there is an extreme difference in visible structural details that smoke alone can hardly account for. The right hand image shows much intact building face, whereas in the comparable parts of the left hand NIST (NYPD) image, the building is badly mutilated and a major corner portion totally missing.

You guys are trying awfully hard to pretend you don't see the obvious.

MM

I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Kent1

I pointed out 15 because I was mislead when I first looked at it. I don't see the extreme difference. You also need to realize you are also looking at a 3 dimensional object. Smoke does make it more difficult on the lower floors. Its clear from all photos (and the Wille Cirone photo) there was damage in this area. Sorry but I think this one has been put to rest. You can continue foot stomping all you want.

http://209.85.48.10/6550/12/upload/p12663692.jpg

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM

[A W Smith]

I see the same piece of debris I pointed out earlier in yellow on the Cirone image MM. Get over it.

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I'm quite aware that photographs are 2-dimensional records of 3-dimensional views.

The Wille Cirone photo was taken from such an extreme angle that every piece of debris projecting from WTC7 is going to appear in profile with the compressed view making it easily appear to be part of a corner gash.

You folks can't effectively deny the validity of my photo comparison so your say in effect; "ahh lets forget that NIST photo and use this really bad photo which shows how hard it is to prove your point."

The point is, that NIST put out that photo because they wanted it to be part of their argument that this debris-created corner damage assisted in the ultimate collapse of WTC7. Their photo fails the test and in a side-by-side comparison with a straight on shot of that WTC7 corner, reveals inexplicable differences unless the photo has been intentionally altered.

Clearly the primary interest here is to protect the dogmatic belief in the NIST Official Story and ignore or bury any evidence to the contrary.

MM

Now your just ranting....I've denied the validity of your photo comparison just fine. The other photo only further supports the damage claim. Now your calling foul on that one also because it further hurts your wild claims.
Stomp away...