Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
I remember watching the building collapse on TV. A friend of mine worked at the SEC, which was in 7 WTC, so I was very interested in the scene. Number 7 came down IIRC around 5pm on 9/11. It appeared to have been weakened from the lower parts of the building, so that it collapsed almost like an accordion at the bottom, and then the rest of the building fell in from the impact. That's what it looked like at the time.
|
Yes, many eye witnesses confirmed what your friend described about the initial collapse happening towards the bottom, and uniformly.
Assuming that the photograph provided in the NIST report was accurate, there is still a question as to how what was supposedly asymmetrical damage to the building (the scooped out area) can lead to a symmetrical collapse across an entire floor or set of floors, which is not only what was described by eyewitnesses such as your friend, but which is supported by videos of the collapse like the one I presented above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by loquitur
When those buildings were all up, they were pretty close together. #1 and #2 had a space between them, connected underground, but there wasn't that much space between #1 and #7, and there was a bridge across West Street extending out of #7 behind it. The Customs Service was in #7, too, IIRC.
|
It's good you mentioned this. I forgot to include a layout of the WTC preceeding 9/11.
This is the layout. Both the North Tower (WTC 1) and the South Tower (WTC 2) fell reasonably into their footprints, though the cloud of debris from the bottoms each spread quite far. You can actually see the cloud from the collapse of WTC 1, the collapse closest to WTC 7, decending after striking the side of WTC 7 in the photograph that contradicts the NIST photograph. That actually gives us a very good idea of when the photograph was taken.
I do not know, however, when the NIST photograph was taken. That information isn't available.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MSD
I checked contrast, brightness, and color pallet in both regular and Neither shows any signs of blatant doctoring, although the low resolution of the smaller picture makes doctoring difficult to detect.
|
This is precisely the conclusion I reached regarding the pictures. Clearly one is mistaken.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MSD
Do you know the amount of time that lapsed between the two photos being taken? the shadows seem to indicate that the larger picture was taken mid-day and the one with more damage taken either when the sun was lower in the sky or when significantly more sunlight was blocked by smoke. Was there any non-catastrophic structural collapse preceding the total collapse that could have occurred between when the large photo was taken and the one with more damage was taken?
|
The larger photograph taken by the amateur was probably taken anywhere from 20 seconds to 10 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1 (which occurred at 10:28 EST). The description used in an interview with the photographer used the phrase "just after". The possible conclusions:
1) The picture is doctored
2) The picture is correct and was taken after the collapse of the South Tower and proves there was no damage
3) The picture is correct and was taken after the collapse of the South Tower, but the damage in the NIST picture somehow happened afterwards.
I can't think of another explanation, but maybe someone else can. The only thing I can be sure of is that the NIST picture is intended to show damage to WTC 7 caused by the collapse of WTC 1, as it's clearly stated in the NIST report.