View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
andrewwatson Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 348 Location: Norfolk
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: Mystery of long straight gash on WTC7 |
|
|
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=593 2
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.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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... maybe two FDNY testimonies?
The definition and straightness of the cut edges are remarkable, and I can see how suggestive of a laser-like 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.
_________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 505
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek wrote: | 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... maybe two FDNY testimonies?
The definition and straightness of the cut edges are remarkable, and I can see how suggestive of a laser-like 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. |
Not according to the extensive analysis of this problem at http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am a trifle perplexed by the whole 'beam weapon' stance.
Is it being suggested that one or both of the twin towers were levelled by such a device and WTC7 simply caught some overspill? There is no evidence as far as I have witnessed to suggest either twin tower exhibited a 'gash' prior to collapse.
For WTC7 to show such an exterior wound in its structure, the 'beam' would have had to pass right through other buildings first, or, if it missed its target on the first attempt, why did no-one see the damage occur and why did not an identical gash then appear on the real target/s?
Can someone be specific as to exactly how they are perceiving this 'laser beam/gash' thing being acted out?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tele - the scenario could be that the beam was activated from the air, above the towers, thus 'slicing' downwards. There are photos which would accord with this of the surrounding buildings (WTC6, 5 and possibly the plaza) - I thought they were pretty notorious to those in the know but check Judy Wood's website if you haven't seen them.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MadgeB wrote: | Tele - the scenario could be that the beam was activated from the air, above the towers, thus 'slicing' downwards. There are photos which would accord with this of the surrounding buildings (WTC6, 5 and possibly the plaza) - I thought they were pretty notorious to those in the know but check Judy Wood's website if you haven't seen them. |
It is possible that my question was not phrased in such a way to make it clear what information I lack;
I get the overhead aspect, i.e. the 'weapon' was positioned above the target/s. It is the existence of the gash in what would appear to be the wrong building that I am unable to grasp.
If one or both of the twin towers were levelled by such a beam device and WTC7 simply caught some overspill, then is it suggested that the beam passed right the twin towers and then on into WTC7 for there is no evidence as far as I have witnessed to suggest either twin tower exhibited a 'gash' prior to collapse?
As WTC7 shows this 'gash', the 'beam' would have had to either pass right through other buildings first, or, if it missed its target on the first attempt, why did no-one see the damage occur and why did not an identical gash then appear on the real target/s?
If you consider the width of the gash, then if the same weapon was used on the twin towers, then either the width would have to be considerably wider, or the beam swept back and forth in a 'hoovering' motion to achieve complete destruction.
I am well acquainted with Judy Wood's site/images, but nothing about burnt cars explains the gash in WTC7, its size or its location. Besides which, we don't have a really clear image of it to dismiss falling masonry as the cause.
The beam weapon scenario is really quite lovely as a concept, but in practice, the whole WTC7 gash is just so inconsistent with one being used.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Telecasterisation wrote: I get the overhead aspect, i.e. the 'weapon' was positioned above the target/s....is it suggested that the beam passed right the twin towers and then on into WTC7....the 'beam' would have had to either pass right through other buildings first, or, if it missed its target on the first attempt, why did no-one see the damage occur and why did not an identical gash then appear on the real target/s?"
(sorry, I can't get this 'quote' business to work for me.)
I don't get the problem here - if the source was above WTC7 then any beam would not need to pass through any other building, would it? It could come from above, down onto WTC7, WTC6, WTC5, WTC2, WTC1 and probably a few bits in between. The twins were destroyed completely, the others were made 'write-offs', presumably so good old Larry could get the max profit through clearing the site completely.
Pretty obviously I would think, the smoke and dust from the explosive destruction of the towers, and the clearing of people from the area, all helped to hide the destruction caused to WTC7 before it went down so gracefully.
I referred to Judy Wood's website not for the melted vehicles, fascinating though they are, but for the pictures of the 'holes' in the other, smaller, WTC-prefixed buildings. Thus, it would not seem that the perps only meant to hit the towers and perhaps 'accidentally' hit WTC7. Possibly they found that, as with the twins, the fires they set in bld 7 did not spread enough to justify its collapse, so maybe they gave it a zap for good measure.
All pure speculation of course, but with Judy Wood's discovery that a company involved in directed energy weapon research was used on the NIST report, it looks a bit less outlandish, don't it?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
MadgeB wrote: |
I don't get the problem here - .........., presumably so good old Larry could get the max profit through clearing the site completely.
Pretty obviously I would think, the smoke and dust from the explosive destruction of the towers, and the clearing of people from the area, all helped to hide the destruction caused to WTC7 before it went down so gracefully.
I referred to Judy Wood's website ...........so maybe they gave it a zap for good measure.
All pure speculation of course, but with Judy Wood's discovery that a company involved in directed energy weapon research was used on the NIST report, it looks a bit less outlandish, don't it? |
‘Overhead’ in this context does not literally mean ‘directly above’ – it could be at an angle in relation to the vertical buildings.
Assuming it was a beam weapon, then the fact that the WTC7 gash ran vertically on an exterior wall of the building means ‘it’ wasn’t directly overhead. This to me, points to the gash being accidental and the result of poor marksmanship or overspill. Bear in mind that damaged vehicles/cars were reported as far away as 7 blocks from WTC, hence this points to the ‘beam’ coming in from an angle and not straight down. Who is to say the effects of the beam on the vehicles wouldn't be filmed from a distance as it happened?
What would be the point of deliberately putting a gash in WTC7? It definitely didn’t make the building collapse when it was done – it remained for all the world to see - the operator would have no way of knowing what was visible or being recorded on film at the time. One couldn’t be sure that smoke and dust would mask everything, news crews in helicopters ignoring any directives to leave the area, powerful telephoto lens all negate the value of relying on dust masking everything.
The width of the gash makes no sense either. It wasn’t destructive enough to make the building collapse, in fact had identical gashes been put in either twin tower, then neither would have collapsed either. As I outlined previously, using a weapon with the same ‘width of destruction’ capability would have done very little – the beam would have to have been moved back and forth from the top down much like an eraser rubbing out a drawing to achieve the same effect seen when the twin towers collapsed.
In addition, the ‘zap for good measure’ view is highly flawed – compare the collapse of WTC7 to that of the twins – dramatically different. I cannot perceive the ‘controlled demolition’ demise of WTC7 resembling the way the twins came down in any shape or form.
The more I read about the whole beam weapon scenario, the more it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: Guessing games |
|
|
If indeed beams were involved in the destruction of the WTC then I’m sure multiple angles were used. However, if you look at the holes in WTC5 and 6 from above, you can see that they look like they have been ‘drilled’ directly downwards. A similar thing could have been done to WTC7 - I see no reason for your statement (Telecasterisation) that the gash was not a ‘downwards’ slice. If you imagine seeing this gash from directly above it would probably look like the edges of the other holes.
If this damage was deliberate, the point may have been, as I said, that the fires were not sufficient to justify the eventual collapse of WTC7, so some other mechanical damage was needed for window-dressing. The multi-floor damage was reported by at least one fireman and was in the NIST report, but due to lack of (trustworthy) evidence, the existence of massive damage to WTC7 was dismissed by most truthers (including me) until these latest images.
So I'm suggesting that if there was a ‘zap for good measure’ it would have been to create another excuse for the pre-arranged implosion, not to achieve explosion and total destruction as in the twins (which probably took several methods). Of course, it could have been a mistake, as you say. But whichever way, it was used as an excuse for the collapse of WTC7, yet NIST did not release any images as it looks so unlike the random debris damage it was alleged to be.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Guessing games |
|
|
MadgeB wrote: | A similar thing could have been done to WTC7 - I see no reason for your statement (Telecasterisation) that the gash was not a ‘downwards’ slice. If you imagine seeing this gash from directly above it would probably look like the edges of the other holes. |
Okay, it may be that you have seen an image that I have yet to view, but the reason for my statement regarding the above is very simple;
If you look at the image below, there is nothing to say the gash starts at the top of the building, hence this the reason I see no 'drilling' down from directly above. The white facade of the building along the top line appears intact with no obvious dark area where the gash begins. This is why I say the 'beam' came in from an angle.
If you can supply another image showing the gash starting from the very top of the building then that would indeed point to either directly downward drilling or a large chunk of masonry doing the damage. Until I can get visual conformation that the gash commenced at the very top of WTC7, I am having to assume the 'beam weapon' camp are simply assuming it started at the top.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, now I see why we've got our wires crossed over the gash in WTC7.
Below (hopefully) are two screen captures and a composite made from them, from http://www.911researchers.com/node/362#comment-2745.
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
83.44 KB |
Viewed: |
166 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope, now I'm triple confused. I have read everything I can find on the gash, yet can find no mention of the source of the part of the composite that shows the top of the gash so clearly. The caption states, 'Composite made from large versions of these screen captures of archived live video'. Where is the video that shows the top of the gash??
Are we to believe that the gash that appears as you say from the top downwards (which is actually wider at the top than the gash below), has been taken from a video other than the one at the start of this thread - the one I took the screen capture from?
There is no such detail in the image I captured. Is there supposed to be another video that shows this damage more clearly?
Straight comp of capture from video in the first post in this thread and the more revealing one.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:04 pm Post subject: Top of gash in WTC7 |
|
|
OK guv, I'll seek out the video - it's all grist to the mill.
In the meanwhile, here's another still from it, at http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/
Description: |
|
Filesize: |
40.25 KB |
Viewed: |
185 Time(s) |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: Top of gash in WTC7 |
|
|
Isn't it just the same still on another site?
Does it not strike you that being how incredibly important the video from which the 'clear' view of the damage is supposedly taken is - we only get static 'composites'?
I am at a loss to explain that if the video exists that shows the clear damage - why is it not linked to on every 911 site or available on Google/YouTube? You would think that if the photo of the clear damage was taken from the video - then that video would have far more impact - but it is strangely difficult to locate.
Fishy.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006 Posts: 164
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: Top of WTC7 gash on YouTube |
|
|
I had no problems getting the 24Mb file - it isn't much better than the smaller one.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 348 Location: Norfolk
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007 Posts: 505
|
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This linear collapse reminds me of the collapse of a corner of Ronan Point, a 23-storey tower block in Newham, East London, which suffered a fatal structural collapse due to a natural gas explosion 16 May 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point
Not being a structural engineer, I hesitate to equate the two ostensibly similar situations. I wonder whether the apparent collapse of floors in WTC 7 extending over what appears to be the distance of one office unit directly above one another might have been caused by heavy debris landing on the roof, creating the damage shown in photos and videos, the jolt of which then made office units directly underneath the impact area collapse on top of one another, explaining the neat vertical slash. Instead of looking for laser beams, perhaps we ought to be considering the more down-to-earth possibility of material or structural design faults in WTC 7?
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|