Showing the South side of WTC7, broadcasted by ABC at 1:45 PM.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413

high quality XVID (640x480 de-interlaced) :
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CV4PU0IQ

link to archive.org (@ 22 minutes):
http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109111323-1404

Screencaps:







extra image from this file: http://www.911myths.com/news_wtc7_1.mpg



So NIST was right:



But WHY don't they show the hole and explain it? Perhaps because it would be impossible to explain such a straight 28-floor cut by falling debris. Surely they would love to show as much damage as possible. Why not show a photo of that gash?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This clip shows some of the fires in detail. Broadcasted by ABC at 4:45 PM.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3859529288033431294

high quality XVID (640x480 de-interlaced):
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IJOX7S8X

link to archive.org (@ 39 minutes):
http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109111609-1651

That's interesting, I agree with FEMA's record of the damage, but by concluding fire initiated collapse being a low probabability outcome they kindof admit they are grasping at straws trying to explain how that kindof damage can make column 8 on the east side fail first, and then subsequently bring the entire structure down in such a manor.

Any ideas? Dare I say it - a laser beam??

question: Was it an elevator shaft? Because that could have been somehow destroyed, and the gash doesn't look perfect as in, it's not a clear clean cut down 8 floors.

answer: no it was not an elevator shaft.



And to me it seems like an awfully smooth and straight hole.

Yes.

But if it is a gash... then it looks very strange to me.

Hard to imagine how debris can make so clean an straite line gash.

It runs directly down between 2 exterior columns. That even shows in the photos.

Best guess is WTC1 debris hitting, then falling straight down guided by the columns and cutting the gash as it fell.

It matches FDNY testimony, also.

When compared to the surrounding buildings, one could argue that what appears to be gash with well-defined vertical lines is actually a sharp shadow from the low angle sunlight.


MM

What local structure do you propose could be capable of casting such a shadow? It's very thin, and very precise.

At this point... that is most likly, (in my opinion)

a shadow of what?

also was the shadow on the south end right? It was morning on east coast, so sun would be rising from east, not north...

It is very strange that there exists no photos of this gash, which is decribed as a 20 storey hole by one eyewitness, Capt Chris Boyle.

http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

NIST would only have one motive for wanting to hide this evidence, and that would be if it had indeed been created by some form of explosive detonation, or even conceivably by some form of Directed Energy Weapon - though here we are entering the realms of speculation.

I think it must came more new pitcure of wtc 7 south side next weeks or months.

I want to see more and better pitcure before I say it is a gash.

The reason for I think at this point that it is some kind of a shadow is, that I dont belive that debris can cut so nice clean gash... and I even think that space beams can not do it :P

Is the gash as big as this one ?

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1029/wtc7gashvm3.jpg

Wow, never seen that long straight gash. Always read about it but never saw it. So what caused that gash which runs perfectly straight? Hmmm. I guess Morgan Reynolds would eat this up in a second. B)

I suspect a shadow is the most likely explanation.

A shadow of what?

WTC1+2 had collapsed before the film was shot. What was left, that was thin enough and close enough, to cast such a sharp shadow ?

The gash matches the line of the roof-level damage.
It matches eye-witness testimony.

What you're both doing here with the "shadow" explanation is just burying your heads in the sand.

How do you explain the straight vertical gash then? Looks nothing like debris damage to me...

If I post photos etc to demonstrate, will I just get banned for my troubles?
That seems to be the way it goes here on LCF.

Ah, but what the hoo...

Here's a composite of the "new" film and an old photo of the roof-level damage, plus a shot of WTC1 debris hitting WTC7 - are you not familiar with this stuff?

Derek, MM etc. If you want to claim this is a "shadow", then you proclaim to the whole world that you haven't a clue. Please don't.

p.s. I have a 95% expectation of being banned for this (screen shot taken).

Good photo gwb.

It could theoretically be debris damage, I suppose, though how on earth the chunk of cladding, or whatever it was, managed to produce such a clean, surgical cut is beyond me.

But if so, why would NIST be so coy about letting us see images of this amazing 'slice' through virtually the entire height of the building? They are known to hold thousands of unreleased photographs of the WTC, so there must, somewhere. be more pictures of such a noticeable feature as this.

It would be totally in the interest of NIST to make this known, if it were debris damage. Yet their description of the gouge on the south face does not describe such a vertical gash , although the location is exactly the same.

Even if there were no other photos, they must surely have been aware of this one, coming straight from live footage from a major network.

This is clearly something NIST do no want us to see.

If we assume NIST's aim for the last 5 years has been to debunk CTs then yes, I'm surprised it hasn't surfaced before.

If, on the other hand, they've just been going about their job then why would we expect them to publish every photo that relates to our view of a CT?

And all this assumes they were even aware of the film. Thousands of devoted 9/11 Truthers and sceptics seem to have taken over 5 years to unearth it from some old news archive.

As for the mechanism of producing that gouge, it doesn't seem too difficult to me. A section of WTC1 outer wall impacts edgeways on, between two outer columns. It then falls, guided downwards by the same columns. There was no shortage of WTC1 wall (as opposed to cladding) in front of WTC7, so we know wall sections could travel that kind of distance. The collapse photo above also strongly suggests exactly this.

(p.s. thanks, but the photo wasn't my work. Found it elsewhere and kept a copy)

That photo provides absolutly no new insite into the collapse of wtc7, the supposed gash is comletley striaght and nothing like what you'd see if it was caused by debris, it looks more like a shadow to me, Certainly the damage at the top is actual debris damage, but the building did'nt have the required amount of damage to cause the entire building to suddenly go limp and fall unifomaly into it's own footprint at free fall speed, perfectly symmetrically.

Look it's a controlled demolition, it's so blatant it's un-true, seriously, people need to be more responsible and get real instead of trying to muddy what is without doubt a controlled implosion.even if that supossed gash was a gash (which it isnt imo looks more like a shadow due to it's perfect edge) that wouldn't have caused the collapse, this was a building that was over designed, to withstand all manner of senarios, including a missile attack.It was designed so you could actually remove floors and it still would'nt be compromised.

Whats wrong with people ? is a building displaying every chareteristic of a controlled demolition not good enough evidence for you ? just what would make you think it was a con-dem if this doesn't ? do you litrelly need pictures of the bombs strapped to the columns before you can see what is blatently obvious to anyone objectilvly looking at wtc7 ?

Who said anything about banning. I'm not even an admin here. Anyway I do not condemn you or anyone who brings in real work and research. We, I, respect that.

Also, I never said it WAS a shadow. Just stated that I did not know what it was or caused it and also how straight it was.

Anyway what does that red X represent on that photo? From where the pictures were taken? If so how come the gash is on the opposite side from the debris falling. If not then I still don't know how debris could do that to the building. Straight gashes are not made by a chaotic fall by a nearby building, well not in my mind. Please elaborate and go on with your research. Even if this means that the truth is not the truth I want to be!

No suggestion that you were about to do any banning, Derek. Sorry if I gave that impression.

Given the time of the film (between 1:30 and 2:00) the sun would have been relatively high. A very hard shadow of that height would need something very thin and at least as tall as WTC7 close by. There was no such structure to the south of WTC7.

My astonishment that people can even suggest it's a shadow doesn't mean much in terms of science or evidence. But I'd say it's understandable, when people are proposing a shadow when even cursory knowledge of WTC (or a look at a street plan) would immediately demonstrate this.

The red "X" is not relevant to this discussion (I put it there some weeks back during a debate about where the BBC film was shot. I was wrong by a few blocks. It's much more obvious now). Should have cropped it out.

Are you GlennB from JREF?

Yes.

W is my middle initial.

223 is my new tenpin bowling lifetime best, set 40 years after the previous (184). I hear the pins are much bouncier these days, making those pesky 7-10 splits much less common.

I appear to be the only poster here , and at present virtually anywhere, as far as I can tell, who thinks that is neither debris damage nor a shadow but can only be explained as an (accidental) strike by an advanced weapon.

You would expect this to have attracted the interest of Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds, but none of them have responded to an email alert I set out last Friday.

Absurd though it sounds, I can think of no other cause at present, and of course it provides a perfect explanation for the startling lack of documentary evidence. Controlled demolition, by all means, but this is something else. This is unknown territory and I am fully aware of the extreme reluctance many truthers have at going down this avenue of speculation. For some time I have expressed the view. along with Sofia of 911 Mysteries, that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a 'highly unconventional ' ( her words, not mine) method of demolition. This gash could be a tell-tale error that has been suppressed for five and a half years.

It is amazing that it has taken so long for that shot to surface.
The South Face Gash has largely been highly intrepretive of .. I can't remember now... a few FDNY testimonies?

The definition and straightness of the cut edges are remarkable, and I can see how suggestive of a laser-type beam it is.

But I also suspect the spacing, which appears to be precisely between two outer steel columns, is not random and would guess in the light of the more extensive roof area damage, that the neighbouring Tower collapse caused a heavy falling column to act as a cutter on rails creating the apparently clean edge.

Occams razor an'all.

i have a video version. but i don't think that collapse shot of the north tower shows anything hitting wtc7. i have other views which show quite the opposite. nothing goes near the roofline of building 7. whether something hits further down is harder to tell. but no pieces tore straight down the building . i have no idea what caused it by the way. it's got me stumped still. i have a theory that the demo of 7 was botched. something went wrong. maybe this section is signs of a 'half demolition' that had to be finished off?

Have another look. A plume of dust curves towards the WTC7 roofline (red) and another one appears to curve away from the same area (yellow).



The roofline damage as shown in the composite photo up above is in this same (red) area.

How can you deny there was impact damage from WTC1 debris? The same flying debris is visible in other films and photos, e.g.



from the Hoboken film at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRxRtG-4d60

watch around the 0:26 - 0:30 mark.

What does NIST specifically say that caused the straight vertical gash?

As far as I can tell the film footage has only just been unearthed from the ABC news archive.

I don't recall any mention of the observed gash in NIST reports, although they do mention roofline damage and some vertical damage. This from the NIST interim report :

"Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present."

Found some more footage showing the damage on the top.



And NIST actually very precisely describes the damage in this figure:



If you take literally the "19-47 th floors" it desrcibes the damage perfectly.

I find it quite misleading to describe the damage like this, no one would imagine that figure representing that straight gash that can be seen in the photos.

No one is denying that TC7 was hit by flying debris. What seems weird to say the least is that a stream of dust and chunks of metal could cause such a neat gash, as opposed to the very messy one on the south-west corner.

I was correcting Ghengis 6199, who claimed there was no such impact from WTC1.

Somebody mentioned the idea that vertical exterior columns 'guided' the falling debris down the face of WTC7. Seems a very reasonable idea to me.

the explosive disintegrations of the towers didn't look anything like any kind of gravity-driven collapse

Agreed - but we're trying to account for how the straight cut in the south face of WTC7 was caused.

making a point when debunkers say the towers collapsed, the gash was caused by debris. An image not in the nist report shows mild facade damage near the roof level, the gash seems to be a continuation of that damage. Its not the huge scoop, encompassing a huge section of the south side reaching far into the building towards critical structural elements. Instead we see a narrow long gash far from from the trusses and columns which are critical to NIST's collapse hypothesis.