Title: Another Discrepancy...
Jethro - September 14, 2006 11:28 PM (GMT)
Popular Mechanics states the collapse of WTC 7 was due to a massive chunk of the south face being "scooped" out by the falling debris of WTC 2.
They maintain that photo evidence does exist, and that they were permitted to view it, although NONE of these photos have ever been released to the public (like the phantom Pentagon plane we have never actually SEEN).
What I find interesting about this is... If the damage to WTC 7 was SOOO terrible and obvious as a "25 to 30% portion" of the building missing, then why did the Original FEMA report state that "the collapse was due EXCLUSIVELY to FIRE" (not MAINLY, they say EXCLUSIVELY)
Was FEMA NOT allowed to view these photos?
They maintain that photo evidence does exist, and that they were permitted to view it, although NONE of these photos have ever been released to the public (like the phantom Pentagon plane we have never actually SEEN).
What I find interesting about this is... If the damage to WTC 7 was SOOO terrible and obvious as a "25 to 30% portion" of the building missing, then why did the Original FEMA report state that "the collapse was due EXCLUSIVELY to FIRE" (not MAINLY, they say EXCLUSIVELY)
Was FEMA NOT allowed to view these photos?
number3 - September 15, 2006 01:52 AM (GMT)
maybe the scoop allowed the fire to enter the building which then took it down
btbalance - September 15, 2006 02:39 AM (GMT)
how does popular mechanics get to see the photo yet the public doesn't?
also, what would the effects on the fire be with such a large portion missing? would it feed the fire or cool it?
also, what would the effects on the fire be with such a large portion missing? would it feed the fire or cool it?
waterdancer - September 15, 2006 05:45 AM (GMT)
Pop. Mechanics had best put up or shut up on that damage pictoral evidence.
We've now established from NIST quotes-
We've now established from NIST quotes-
| QUOTE |
| No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited |
(at 12:15) http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf and the lobby is front (south) and center. (see this thread)
| QUOTE |
| According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. |
from the annotated FEMA report @ WTC7.net
The two images below show clear areas of the south face (including the center) between approximately the 11th and 17 floors when taken in combination with each other. Aside from the known damage evident to the southwest corner between flors 8 and 18, where and how big was that hole exactly, Popular Mechanics?
The two images below show clear areas of the south face (including the center) between approximately the 11th and 17 floors when taken in combination with each other. Aside from the known damage evident to the southwest corner between flors 8 and 18, where and how big was that hole exactly, Popular Mechanics?
Rainman71 - September 15, 2006 05:53 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| what would the effects on the fire be with such a large portion missing? |
Okay....let's get this settled.... Whether it had a chunk out of it or not is irrelevant...
Look at the building in Oklahoma City.. It was bombed and missing it's entire facade and it still stood.... Fire brought WTC 7 down?..........bullshit!...
Fire will not bring down a building as one giant peice...in order for that to happen all the supports would have to give out at the exact same time. If that bulding had a chunk out of it then it would of tipped over from the damage. It would not have come down the way we witnessed it coming down. The supports in WTC failed at the exact same time and it came down straight as an arrow. Look at WTC 5 & 6.....they burned completely...every frickin floor and they still stood....The only reason they weren't destroyed or collapsed was because they didn't house bank documents or offices of Gov't agencies. God wake up people!!!!!!!!!!