Fri03292024

Last update07:36:08 PM

Back Forum Tatorte World Trade Center Komplex Zwillingstürme Why does NIST hide the long straight gash in WTC7?
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Why does NIST hide the long straight gash in WTC7?

Why does NIST hide the long straight gash in WTC7? 08 Aug 2009 18:17 #228

  • stefanlebkon
  • stefanlebkon's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Platinum Boarder
  • Posts: 762
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 2
A couple of weeks ago I posted some images and footage of what appeared to be a long straight gash in the south face of Building 7. It's visible from the roofline down to about the 20th floor. This footage was discovered in the 9/11 archive that was released by archive.org. The footage can be verified here.

A question that remained was why NIST has not shown any photographs of this gash.

ABC, 11 september, 13:45


High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced)
www.megaupload.com/?d=K4II5J2U
Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced)
www.megaupload.com/?d=WTJZ1C7G

ABC, 11 september 13:54


High quality XviD (640x480, deinterlaced)
www.megaupload.com/?d=BV2YB7GQ
Original MPEG2 (cut from the original, not reencoded, 480x480 interlaced)
www.megaupload.com/?d=ZG8IYMGK

Different theories were proposed to explain how this damage occured and why NIST hadn't reproduced these images in their report. The figure below indicates that they were aware of it. Don't forget that NIST is still withholding thousands of photographs and videos from the public. The footage of the gash is no secret, it was broadcast live on September 11th by ABC News. There's no reason to assume that NIST did not know about the gash.

The only photograph they show of this "roof and upper level debris damage" is this image:

Now why would NIST do that? Why would they not show the total extend of the "roof and upper level debris damage"? Surely they would like to present as much evidence of debris damage as possible. Was it to hide the fact that this gash was created when the controlled demolition failed? Most likely not. As can be seen in the video below, WTC7 was indeed hit by falling debris from the collapse of the North Tower.


The gash is right between two outer columns (as in the NIST figure) and might have simply been caused by falling debris that took out part of the floors between these columns, leading to to a small and localized 'progressive collapse' such as was observed in the Ronan Point apartment building in 1968.

So why did NIST not reproduce any photograph that showed the gash?

Because they needed the testimony of Captain Chris Boyle to exaggerate the claims about the hole in the south face. Or as David Ray Griffin put it in his article "The destruction of the Twin Towers: why the official account can not be true".

According to Fellini’s testimony, there was a four-floor hole between the third and sixth floors. In the telling of Captain Chris Boyle, however, the hole was “20 stories tall” (2002). It would appear that Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, settled on somewhat of a compromise between these two views, telling Popular Mechanics that, “On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out” (Popular Mechanics, March 2005).

In other words; had NIST reproduced photographs of the gash, it would be obvious to anyone that Captain Boyle was referring to this long, straight (and apparently superficial) gash instead of the hole. A "compromise" between the testimonies about the damage with Boyle's description attributed to the gash (and not to the hole), would leave NIST with a substantially smaller hole. This would make the 'fire and damage' theory even less credible then it is now.

I'm very curious if NIST will incorporate images of the gash in their final report, but i'm not counting on it. The testimony of Captain Boyle is just too convenient for them.




www.911blogger.com/node/8382
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
Time to create page: 0.140 seconds