Just before the collapse.
There was a tv crew there until about 4.50. I posted it on another thread. It is confirmed because they said, just after the collapse, 'we were right there less than half an hour ago filming'.
The Uniqueness of the WTC7 Collapse
- Thread starter Josh Heuer
- Start date
There was a tv crew there until about 4.50. I posted it on another thread. It is confirmed because they said, just after the collapse, 'we were right there less than half an hour ago filming'.
jomper
Inactive Member
Can you show that explosives were even tested for? Where is the section of the NIST report which documents the investigation's analysis of the physical evidence, and its reasonable efforts to eliminate every possibility of accelerants being involved?
I think a reasonable person would consider NIST's attempts to relieve itself of the responsibility for testing for accelerants and other agents a bizarre and weaselly text in view of the magnitude of the events of 9/11 and the obvious impression the video evidence the collapse of WTC 7 gives: it is even more spurious than the justification for not documenting the debris field of such an unprecedented collapse event.
I realise that "there's another thread" for the discussion of NIST's failure to test for explosives, but as I have already pointed out, there's a powerful geopolitical case for eliminating the question of foul play as clearly and explicitly as possible in the case of the unique collapse of WTC 7.
Quibbling over a deviation of 3% from the perpendicular at the onset of the "skin collapse" or pointing out that there is folding later in the event when the evidence shows a near-simultaneous initiation in all four corners of the structure does nothing to address the fact that most of the Muslim world does not believe fire was the cause -- and with good reason.
The technical nature of NIST's investigation does not excuse it from the obvious implications of this wider context, and that is why its nonsensical claims that there were no explosions and so forth are entirely reprehensible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jazzy
Closed Account
Covered completely by showing/watching videos of the collapsing WTC1 striking WTC7.
The buckling was not at the base, it was probably around the 7th to 14th floors.
How convenient is it that they never show the upper floors in these sims so that it can be compared to the actual visual record.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jazzy
Closed Account
Wow, great picture, Oxy.
I reckon it would be pretty boring up top without the penthouse...
At this stage in a hugely chaotic simulation, you are only going to get broad strokes. It's enough to show it could collapse, not precisely what it would visually look like later. Like a break in pool, you know the balls are going to scatter, you don't know where they will end up. You can't perfectly simulate a break by inputting data from photos of a rack.
But you can see the top of the building at this point in the wider video. Other than some folding at the top it, it matches as well as you could expect.
Stop it at 08 and 09. These are huge discrepancies and it ends way to early. If that collapse sim continued it would look nothing whatsoever like the real collapse, which is presumably exactly why it stops there.
Also on the lead 'still shot' there are discrepancies where the sim shows the entire penthouse gone and the floor below but in reality the main part of the penthouse is still standing.
Last edited:
BTW, That is building 5 that is on fire and from where most of the smoke is coming. Also the cameraman obviously thinks the action is around 5 which is why he has positioned himself there.
See also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cr...wtc7-report-uncovered.2332/page-15#post-69954
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
