Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum _ WTC 7 _ Analysis Of The Steve Spak Youtube Footage

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 18 2007, 04:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/v/YHdt7wRQtaY

There is really nothing new here, except for the fact that we now have a narrated low res. vid instead of slightly higher res. stills which show the same thing. I want to see the video or stills in the highest res. possible, not some unfocused youtube crap with Steve Spak's imprint on it. I want to be able to make out the post no bills words below WTC 6 in a shot without water from a firehose going up the center of the picture- one that doesn't have the words Steve Spak debunking 9/11 put on it.
This youtube vid crap is just that- crap.

Below are sample stills and video screenshots for comparison purposes- all shots taken by Steve Spak:














vs. links for stills from the video

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak4281.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak4261.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak4251.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3381.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3372.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3371.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3331.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3322.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3321.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3311.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3301.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3181.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3171.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3163.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3162.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3161.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3151.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak3001.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2431.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2421.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2362.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2361.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2351.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2281.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2272.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2271.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2261.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2251.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2241.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2221.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2211.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2202.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2201.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2193.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2192.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2191.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2061.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2051.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2041.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak2021.jpg
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak1531.jpg

Aw, heck, just give me all the footage you shot on 9/11 Steve. I'll sort out what I want and then return it to you. I promise.

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 18 2007, 04:55 AM

More Spak stills-









Well, you get the idea. Lots of 9/11 footage taken by Steve. Not all of the ones at the link below are, but a substantial number of them are 9/11 shots by Spak. For sale. I sent him a note asking about that shot of the damage to the SW corner and south face, but never heard back. Maybe he doesn't sell hi res. complete images to CTers, I dunno.

http://911pictures.com/photos_catalog.phtml?category=wtc

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 18 2007, 05:16 AM

and a few more, not taken in the same area, but still taken on 9/11...






Posted by: waterdancer Feb 19 2007, 08:45 AM

Okay, so we know the youtube vid is low res. crap footage, but is it useful for anything? I think so, poor as it is. Take a look at the following pics, for example:
The first two pics (not from the youtube video) were taken within a fraction of a second of each other based on the positioning of the firemen visible in both, assuming that they might not be from the same negative cropped differently (which in my view is the more likely scenario). The first image is the highest resolution of the two, but we know that it is not the highest possible resolution of that shot, since it lost resolution when it was altered to add the Steve Spak etc. verbiage. So, I'll be combining those two images with a third taken at a different time from a slightly different location to give a fuller picture of the positioning of things in the first two images. It's a bit sloppy and doesn't match up exactly, but it gives a rough idea. The main difficulty in merging them is that the camera seems to have been tilted at a different angle in the video; the verizon building angles differently. The location is probably slightly different as well. Rather than attempting to skew the angles on one or the other, I've just left them slightly unmatched.







Posted by: waterdancer Feb 19 2007, 09:22 AM

What else can we observe from the video?
Well, that clear observable area of WTC 7's south face wasn't just a lucky capture, for one thing. It seems to have been there fairly extensively at various times during the day. Hard to tell exact extent of it (probably varying depending on time and location) due to the poor resolution and multiple cuts in the vid, but smoke free areas on the lower south face (say floors 20 and below) are observeable pretty much throughout the video where it can be seen at all. A few examples below- screenshots and stills... some of these images actually show the south face, some are more implying visibility due to blue sky behind and lack of smoke coming from that area.
For the moment I'm confining this analysis soley to Steve Spak's 9/11 pictures, but will be bringing in other pictures for reference purposes later in the thread. The clear area on the lower south face, for example is independently confirmed by http://amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG










Posted by: waterdancer Feb 19 2007, 09:45 AM

Okay, what else?
Well, we can get a pretty good fix on the floor levels of WTC 7 which we are able to see now, by drawing parallel lines across the lower front of the Verizon building (and a few of the upper ones also, recognising that because of the tiered effect of the Verizon building they will not lie in the same plane as the lower ones) and comparing those lines with lines drawn across the same face in different pictures and seeing how they line up...







Posted by: waterdancer Feb 19 2007, 10:58 AM

The original of the first image will be familiar from an earlier post in this thread, the others are higher resolution originals from different sources with lines drawn on them. In the case of the higher resolution images, I will make it possible to view the orignals by clicking on the pics. As you can see from these pics (there are lots more from different angles available if you are unconvinced) the first level of the Post Office roof is roughly level to and parallel with one floor below the top of first tier on the Verizon building wedding cake (or the top of the ninth story windows). The roof of the Post Office is roughly level with approximately the 19th floor of the Verizon building, or the third inset in the middle's roof. Those lines are at approximately the height of where the 21st floor of the old WTC 7 building was. It gets a bit tricky to judge because of the inset on the WTC 7 building in relationship to the Post Office and Verizon buildings, but the last two pictures seem to illustrate this most clearly to me.
Thusly, we can see that the clear space of blue sky in some of the video frames above most probably show the southeast edge of WTC 7 as a vertical boundary (though this isn't positive, and it could well be another building behind the P.O. creating a vertical edge in some or all of the shots- see http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/399954371_6240f6e73a_o.jpg, http://206.241.31.141/ImageCache/cgov/content/newsroom/photogallery/9_5f11_5fwtc/highresimage/wtc_5f13_2ejpg/v1/wtc_5f13.jpg, http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132105258&size=o&context=set-72057594112589148 or http://206.241.31.142/ImageCache/cgov/content/newsroom/photogallery/9_5f11_5fwtc/highresimage/wtc_5f09_2ejpg/v1/wtc_5f09.jpg from somewhat similar viewing angles for other posible contenders on the vertical edge) and part of the roof of the Post Office in the horizontal direction.


http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=132105258&size=o&context=set-72057594112589148
http://206.241.31.142/ImageCache/cgov/content/newsroom/photogallery/9_5f11_5fwtc/highresimage/wtc_5f16_2ejpg/v1/wtc_5f16.jpg
http://www.webcitation.org/5MlsLMy6R
http://www.webcitation.org/5MlvVVbXu

http://www.webcitation.org/5Mlx0cYDN
http://www.webcitation.org/5Mq4Obbc2

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 19 2007, 12:25 PM

Keeping in mind all of the above and looking at both of the following images in comparison with each other (and noting the number of floors which can be seen on the lower part of the Verizon building in the second one), it seems to me that we can get a pretty good idea of what floors we are seeing in the first picture... the second line from the bottom in the first picture appears to me to correspond to the bottom line in the second picture. The bottom line in the first picture would come through the trees on the promenade.


http://static.flickr.com/137/326040199_93d889aab4_o.jpg

Posted by: johndoeX Feb 19 2007, 01:39 PM

Your work on WTC 7 is impeccable.. nice job WD!

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 20 2007, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (johndoeX @ Feb 19 2007, 05:39 PM)
Your work on WTC 7 is impeccable.. nice job WD!

Thanks Rob. Not sure exactly where it will lead just yet, but I'm plugging away. There's one more picture I want to dig up before I do another post here. That inset makes it fairly problematic to determine the exact floors pictured without more info. Basically, I think we are doing the equivalent of looking up through the parallel lines in the last picture shown, but since the damage picture was taken from considerably further away from WTC 7, I think we can see further up on the building between the lines. Still working on it, though.

cheers.gif

Posted by: qaranta Feb 20 2007, 05:42 AM

There is another pretty good analysis of WTC 7 at the http://www.studyof911.com/ web site. The paper is entitled 'Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations', and can be viewed http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/.

The image below, from the article, is perhaps one of the most revealing. It shows there is damage to the south west corner of the building, as reported, but that it is not as extensive as is being claimed.


Posted by: waterdancer Feb 20 2007, 06:01 AM

QUOTE (qaranta @ Feb 20 2007, 09:42 AM)
There is another pretty good analysis of WTC 7 at the http://www.studyof911.com/ web site. The paper is entitled 'Photographic Analysis of Damage to WTC7 and Critical Errors in NIST's Estimations', and can be viewed http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/.

The image below, from the article, is perhaps one of the most revealing. It shows there is damage to the south west corner of the building, as reported, but that it is not as extensive as is being claimed.


Thx garganta. I helped him fine tune that. I'm looking to take it a step or two further now. I think he has the bottom of the building a bit high. I'm going to try to get a fix on what we can see between the Verizon bldg. and WTC 6's foundation, etc.

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 22 2007, 03:39 AM

Four pics (two are basically identical here, so we'll count it as four, not five) looking west on Vesey under the Pedestrian bridge. Sunlight seems to be reflecting off a partly broken glass panel on the promenade, perhaps being reflected onto it from the pedestrian bridge? Compare it with a pic I recently discovered of the area pre-9/11. In any case, a large portion of the promenade appears to be still standing. It looks as though one can see through to the other side underneath it. Think about that for a minute- it was closer to WTC 1 than WTC 7 was and would have had debris landing directly on top of it (as opposed to falling/flying into it like the vertical face of WTC 7 would have had) yet it was still standing. So, the hole from the ground level up the face of WTC 7 in that area story doesn't seem to hold much water, based on these pics. Third and fourth floor were a glassed in lobby area, as you can see from the still from Working Girl at the bottom of the post. So yeah, that glass probably got broken, I'm guessing. Ahem (cough, cough). Look at the size of those outer columns, folks. Pretty substantial looking...






Posted by: waterdancer Feb 22 2007, 04:07 AM

West side of WTC 7 and SW corner damage pics and http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1548030539 (west side visible for a few seconds only on the vid, near the beginning)




Posted by: waterdancer Feb 22 2007, 04:47 AM

Okay, now let's focus in on a couple of little areas on the WTC 7 SW corner of the Spak image which we only have a debunker's version of- it looks sort of like a window frame, but comparing the size of it to the size of the Verizon windows which are closer, it looks oversized (and at the wrong height) to be a 7th corner window on either the south or west face. What could it be, then? Possibly, just possibly- could we be seeing something like an area framed by the roof of the fourth floor and between two columns? I can't tell for sure (a higher res. image would sure help me guess better, though), but it seems the most likely idea to me. The height seems about right, there don't seem to be any other good possibilities which I can think of to explain it, and it is sort of visible in some frames of the vid., indicating that it may be an actual feature, as opposed to a random pattern... the two images in the third posting are crops of the fourth floor window level in various locations along the south face from two different images. If the horizontal support between the third and fourth floor windows were knocked down, that would leave a two story gap between the columns. Anyway, that's my best guess on that particular item. A few floors above that, we have a visible part of the building which is obviously not floating in midair, so therefore must have some support to hold it up. That means that either smoke or the Verizon building (or both) are concealing a nearby part of the building, not a nearby hole in the building...
So what are we left with? Lots of questions, mostly- how come vids and pics never seem to show a complete picture, even when compared with others? How come we can't see the highest possible resolution pics of those which we have managed to see? How much of the Promenade was actually still standing before WTC 7 fell? How extensive was the actual building damage to the south face of WTC 7, and why don't we have better views of it? I'm afraid the smoke and/or lack of photographers answers won't wash at this point, we've seen too much footage that conveniently manages to hide things without the benefit of smoke. I sure hope NIST comes up with some good answers and then lets us see all their pretty pictures...


Posted by: waterdancer Feb 22 2007, 11:09 AM

More images and galleries taken from a similar (vesey and West St.) vantage point:

many of these from the Lib. of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/ppmsca/02100/02121/
some of these
http://web.archive.org/web/20021205024232/http://www.subwaywebnews.com/wtc.htm
There are lots more, of course, these are just a few...

another image by Willie Cirone- in this one it appears that we may be able to make out some of the hoops on the pedestrian bridge crossing Vesey...

Posted by: waterdancer Feb 24 2007, 11:17 AM

Fairly similar before and after shots of the promenade area near the NE corner of WTC 6. I only wish I could offer you a shot taken from a similar perspective on 9/11 between 10:30 AM and 5:20 PM. Let me know if you have one hanging around in your picture drawer... someone was up on the roof of WTC 5 with a camera but the only shots I have to show that don't show much of interest. Still, I've included some below just for completeness sake. More can be found @ http://www.editing.fr/wtc_reisinger/ http://www.webcitation.org/5MtZoVnzg
http://static.flickr.com/137/326040199_93d889aab4_o.jpg http://www.webcitation.org/5MtWl83cW
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/374728-lg.jpg http://www.webcitation.org/5MtWPZO3m
http://www.spazmataz.net/members/photos/all-photos/wtc-gallery4/m28.sized.jpg http://www.webcitation.org/5MtZI21C7
http://www.editing.fr/wtc_reisinger/images/13-World%20Trade%20Center-32.jpg http://www.webcitation.org/5Mta9cxPs




Posted by: LizzyTish Mar 1 2007, 03:32 PM

Awwww, c'mon waterdancer....just LOOK at that raging inferno! Everyone was so sure it was gonna go down that the newscasters were all trying to be the first to report it! rolleyes.gif Of course I'm being sarcastic. It looks like someone threw a cigarette in a trash barrel in one office. laugh.gif

Nice work on all the above pics, btw. Too bad nobody caught one of "Mr. Pull It" pushing the plunger. nonono.gif

 

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 3 2007, 11:27 PM

Hey, Steve has actually posted a version of the damage pic on his site now, looks almost complete, too. He left off a bit at the bottom and the right side, still. Second pic from the top, currently... the resolution looks to be about the same as with the debunking 9/11 version, but the steve spak imprint is at least in a different place on this one.

www.stevespak.com http://www.webcitation.org/5N4wicTgP

And apparently, if one wanted to shell out some shekels, one might still be able to get better quality video footage than what's on youtube, judging by http://web.archive.org/web/20030730022200/www.angelfire.com/ny5/wtc911video/video.html, though I'm not sure that there will be anything really good on there. Anyone want to take a risk? www.stevespak.com/wtc911.html

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 5 2007, 02:53 AM

So far, the first picture below seems to be the best match in terms of a current shot from Steve Spak's general location, though not quite direction the camera points, higher up and probably a bit further back. It's not perfect, but it allows us to see what is going on behind WTC 7, I think. Compare it with a video snap, I think you'll agree with me that had the camera been pointing a little further to the north instead of eastwards the two shots would match up pretty well in terms of before and after shots. If anyone wants to go there and snap an even closer matchup, I'd be most appreciative. I think I'm now getting a pretty clear picture of what we see in the background of Steve's damage shot... also, if anyone knows the setback on the old WTC 7 (in terms of the south side being further north than the Verizon and PO buildings) vs. the new one, that'd be a help as well. Is it the same or different? It looks to me like the new one is more nearly flush with those buildings now than the old one was...



Posted by: waterdancer Mar 6 2007, 07:14 AM

I think you'll agree that it's fairly ridiculous to need to piece together pieces from three different versions (two of which have been modified by adding words, the third being of a lower resolution than the other two) of a single picture for analysis purposes and still not end up with a complete shot... of, course, if it just so happens that these are actually different sequential video frames rather than the same shot (they would have to have been taken within a fraction of a second of eachother given the placements of the firefighters and the shape of the smoke cloud), well, that's also fairly ridiculous, considering the poor quality of the youtube footage... rolleyes.gif
http://www.webcitation.org/5N9s45bkV seems to be taking a bit of note of my analysis, I think. I wonder if he'll fess up to blowing up, modifying (with the steve spak wording) and cropping a full version of the picture to make the damage seem more extensive? I wouldn't hold my breath. Hey, if I only showed you blown up, modified and cropped images, I'll bet I could prove 9/11 was an inside job, LOL. Somehow I doubt we'll get to see the original image he had to work with, at least not from him. Maybe NIST will come through. Again, don't hold your breath, though.


Posted by: bingo Mar 6 2007, 10:04 PM

undicisettembre.blogspot.com as trouve le monument: Bent Propeller

Vouz le puovez voir ici
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/12/bent-propeller-monumento-wtc7.html

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 7 2007, 12:28 AM

QUOTE (bingo @ Mar 7 2007, 02:04 AM)
undicisettembre.blogspot.com as trouve le monument: Bent Propeller

Vouz le puovez voir ici
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/12/bent-propeller-monumento-wtc7.html

Sorry, but that site you've linked to, while it has some good pictures, is in my view incorrect on the analysis. Plus, I gather it is a debunking site as well. They seem to think that the light reflecting off the promenade glass is coming from the south face of WTC 7. Based on the angle of the sunlight, I'd say it's much more likely to reflected light coming off the pedestrian bridge, as in the second picture, not the way they have it in their analysis (first picture). Joining an English language 9/11 truth board to make a first post in French with a link to an Italian debunking site might get you labelled as a troll in some quarters. But, hey, welcome to the forums, bingo.


Posted by: waterdancer Mar 21 2007, 12:43 AM

Welp, the image is no longer viewable on Steve's site anymore. Good thing I http://www.webcitation.org/5N4wicTgP, huh? I wish I'd archived the http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/myths.html link as well, just for giggles, but unfortunately, no such luck. Aw, and he took down http://www.youtube.com/index?&session=lNmt_8ILnneiIOChBfqhpjQC8qiIk3_YcA0uJd39UjX1VwSv1dUwe7tAQZieqlU8evKrC0NT5Otx5KCDOvqgM7jdw1vdI8ZLNFzEoGSY8bHb9R4c1T_jqxCMcG_wbjNV0ZLfdzxi0o_HElbjh0x4gtUF6O5SbEYi5sR0PHVCnToW-pV8qkEqIgjDXqTuac0Bw-P43ip8xlE=, too. What a shame. I guess even low res. youtube videos can be too revealing to stand scrutiny for long, huh?

Not that it shows much, but there is still one highlight video left up on youtube-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfdN0L0Q19w

Posted by: behind Mar 23 2007, 08:44 AM

WD; What do you think about this. Shadow ? (Some people are suggesting straite line gash)

Showing the South side of WTC7, broadcasted by ABC at 1:45 PM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413


Posted by: waterdancer Mar 23 2007, 10:50 AM

Hadn't seen that before. If it is straight line damage, we can pinpoint the visible floors and columns pretty accurately and compare them to other video sources where there is patchy smoke. I'll have to look at it a bit more. Still doesn't look like it would bring the building down, though, LOL. Possibly that's the NIST upper floor damage. Looks to be in the right position. Like I say, I'll look at it some more soon. Where's it being discussed? Whatever it is, it seems odd that it would look to be pretty precisely a single column wide.

Posted by: behind Mar 23 2007, 11:35 AM

It was posted at Loose Change... and they are talking about it at the govt loyalist site forum.

But if it is some kind of a gash...then it is hard to belive that "falling debris" can made so clean and straite lines. (my opinion)

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 23 2007, 10:30 PM

I tried watching the video on the internet archive at http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109111323-1404, since I can't see google vids due to computer issues, but it is too pixellated to tell much...

Posted by: waterdancer Mar 29 2007, 03:25 AM

Okay, this first image is one I just found last night, second one draws in a few perspective lines for relative floor height comparisons between WTC 7 and Verizon- the dark patch across the middle of the south face of WTC 7 is at the 22nd and 23rd floors, one can use the reflecting windows on the furthest east and west sides of the south face to count down to floor 11, the dark non relfective patch below that would be at the 5th and sixth floors. 3rd image is the best (in terms of most complete, highest res.) single image of the damage I have to work with; Steve Spak hasn't exactly been forthcoming in terms of helping us find out the truth, IMO.
Fourth one is just a collage. Hopefully, the new image resolves beyond a reasonable doubt that the analysis by http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/ shown in fifth image will need to be redone- that patch of blue sky is not where the east edge of WTC 7 is. I've had my doubts about that for awhile. Now, I think we can put those doubts to bed. It looks to me as though it is a feature of the upper eastern levels of the PO building when viewed from that angle intersecting with the roof of the next building to the east- see the 6th image... or possibly the east and west sections of the upper floors of the PO playing with eachother; I'm not ready to commit to either one at this point.
Now, my question is this- how can we make sense of what we see in the Spak image in terms of the damage, given this? I don't know yet, but I'll be interested to find out... looks like a great perspective from which to maximize the perception of the SW corner damage, based on pic #6 to me, LOL.






Posted by: waterdancer Mar 30 2007, 09:28 AM

Thanks to Carl Bank for these- screenshotted from http://www.stevespak.com/spak/slideshows.html




Posted by: waterdancer Mar 31 2007, 05:27 PM

Okay, quick and dirty composite and lines drawn in. By my estimation using pictures from earlier in the thread picture as a reference, I'm going to say with a fair degree of confidence that the middle of the 7th floor line drawn across from the Verizon building lines up (more or less exactly) with the top of the 10th/bottom of the 11th floor of WTC 7. Top floor of the first level of the Verizon building I count as the 10th floor; the lowest floor has large archways rather than the typical window spacing which happens above that. The window tops on that 10th floor Verizon building would line up somewhere in the range of the 14th/15th floor of WTC 7, when looking up from a lower level perspective, due mostly to WTC 7's setback. From 100 or so feet up looking from a more or less level perspective, top first level Verizon lined up at about floor 13... http://studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=5
of course, looking down from a height, the 10th floor Verizon building would appear level with a lower WTC 7 floor
http://studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=14
Makes sense, right? Lines drawn between top and top floor or bottom and bottom floor on Verizon generally correspond to 1 1/2 floors on WTC 7. So there is an alternating stripey pattern on WTC 7 between floor levels drawn on Verizon.
So... what I think we can see on WTC 7 in these pictures which I've done a compilation of is from a 15th floor window line down to a 9th floor window line. That portion of Winston's analysis I agree with. What I think is missing, however, is enough consideration for the foreshortening effect from this angle and perspective and a corrected alignment for the Eastern edge of WTC 7 (which we can't determine solely from this picture). Basically, I think the eastern columns get all smushed together from this viewpoint, with a significantly wider distance between them as they move towards the camera. So, yeah, there was a damaged SW corner of WTC 7, which went eastward for a few columns, but this perspective tends to maximize how big that damage actually looks. For comparison purposes, refer to Aman Zafar's shot from across the river- the foreshortening would be negligible from that distance...
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/FigD_01.jpg
So, on the very lower corner portion of the south face of WTC 7 which we are able to make out between the Verizon building and the foundation level of WTC 6, I think we can see a framed area which corresponds to the 3/4 floor window levels. We can't actually see the SW corner itself, but there are no windows on that below the 7th floor- these four pics in combination show that corner fairly well-
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/7worldtrade.jpg
http://studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=14
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=12
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=9
compare also with the lower SE corner; they appear to be similarly designed (except, of course for no pedestrian bridge going into the third floor on the SW corner).
http://studyof911.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=19






Posted by: waterdancer Mar 31 2007, 05:38 PM

Does anyone still doubt that Steve could have had a better angle on the SW corner than http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak-comp.jpg he chose to (sort of) make available (sort of)? I sure hope NIST gets the negatives.


Posted by: waterdancer Apr 1 2007, 07:00 AM

A little before, during and after 9/11 collage from the west, using mostly Steve Spak footage and images...

Posted by: waterdancer Apr 14 2007, 08:32 AM

So how do you reckon the initial conversation between http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spakfema.jpg went, way back when when FEMA was working on their report on WTC 7?

"Hey Steve, ya got any http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak-comp.jpg damage to WTC 7 that we can show our audience?"
"Sure, how about http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak1.jpg."
"Hey, that's cool! It's really more the SW corner than south face, though it does show a bit of south face, but we'll take it. We'll just put a red box on it okay?"
"Sure."
Hey, Steve, got any http://www.kungfuacademy.de/naudet/Bild-9.jpg or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U showing the south side damage that we could use? We reaally could use a smoking gun here, buddy- our best hypothesis has only a low probability of being correct."
"Sorry guys, I'm saving my best stuff for my http://www.youtube.com/v/YHdt7wRQtaY (which I'm planning to "pull" BTW) and http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5810 and to give to http://www.webcitation.org/getfile?fileid=14e0274c51f2363f82a5059e230bcfafe55ffc02 which can crop and alter the best quality original and misanalyse to their hearts content and then finally http://www.webcitation.org/5J3wv5GIZ since apparently the debunker thinks I couldn't be bothered..."
"Ah, okay then, Steve, no problemo. Just thought we'd ask. It's not like we have anything riding on getting it right on the first go around. We want to keep this thing speculative just as long as we can..."


Posted by: waterdancer Apr 14 2007, 09:22 AM



Posted by: bingo Apr 30 2007, 03:16 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 6 2007, 11:28 PM)
QUOTE (bingo @ Mar 7 2007, 02:04 AM)
undicisettembre.blogspot.com as trouve le monument: Bent Propeller

Vouz le puovez voir ici
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/12/bent-propeller-monumento-wtc7.html

Sorry, but that site you've linked to, while it has some good pictures, is in my view incorrect on the analysis. Plus, I gather it is a debunking site as well. They seem to think that the light reflecting off the promenade glass is coming from the south face of WTC 7. Based on the angle of the sunlight, I'd say it's much more likely to reflected light coming off the pedestrian bridge, as in the second picture, not the way they have it in their analysis (first picture). Joining an English language 9/11 truth board to make a first post in French with a link to an Italian debunking site might get you labelled as a troll in some quarters. But, hey, welcome to the forums, bingo.


yeah...you dont know italian lang.

This is Cirione photo.
http://static.flickr.com/137/326042478_582733e88c_o.jpg
See me the position of Bent Propeller on this image.

When you found the position of debris of this monumet you can understand this post
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2006/12/bent-propeller-monumento-wtc7.html

bye

PS:
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/7wtc-analines.jpg
and
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/spak1-lines.jpg
on steve spak photo the line is not really on the edge of the building


EDIT: See the evolution of damage
squib
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/189/474357471_fdb30f576c_o.gif
damage in the edge of squib
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/474548390_f1b0ac4bc5_o.jpg
and from this img the particular of damaged penthouse:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/475500617_ab997011e9_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/210/474403501_a25da2f421_o.jpg
On this pubblied by NIST you can see http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/474552810_487cc91165_o.jpg
damage in the edge of squib (rotation create dust from the major flexion from down to up...you know the Steve Spak img of sud face-Verizon edge damage)
Here you see http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/474552810_487cc91165_o.jpg
not white damage on penthouse and on wall of penthouse
also the sud-tear is first only a minor damage to parapet and after this
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/228/474548390_f1b0ac4bc5_o.jpg
(you can also see a probable second tear at right of img on the smoke)

Post
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/nuove-considerazioni-sul-wtc7.html
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/wtc7-new-evidence-from-old-photos.html

Posted by: bingo Apr 30 2007, 05:11 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ Feb 22 2007, 02:39 AM)
Four pics (two are basically identical here, so we'll count it as four, not five) looking west on Vesey under the Pedestrian bridge. Sunlight seems to be reflecting off a partly broken glass panel on the promenade, perhaps being reflected onto it from the pedestrian bridge? Compare it with a pic I recently discovered of the area pre-9/11. In any case, a large portion of the promenade appears to be still standing. It looks as though one can see through to the other side underneath it. Think about that for a minute- it was closer to WTC 1 than WTC 7 was and would have had debris landing directly on top of it (as opposed to falling/flying into it like the vertical face of WTC 7 would have had) yet it was still standing. So, the hole from the ground level up the face of WTC 7 in that area story doesn't seem to hold much water, based on these pics. Third and fourth floor were a glassed in lobby area, as you can see from the still from Working Girl at the bottom of the post. So yeah, that glass probably got broken, I'm guessing. Ahem (cough, cough). Look at the size of those outer columns, folks. Pretty substantial looking...






Smoke obscure the sud face of WTC7 when tear appear...but in the Cirione photo dont have some smoke.
Cirione have play this photo when is possible to go at WTC7...at 11.30 this site is evacuated for probable collapse.You can see more testimoniance of Firefighter on oral histories.
Bent Propeller monument is disappear also on this moment.


Here: http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/pedbridge-1.jpg
You cant see pedestrian bridge, but deformed image reflection
and here http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/Images/Fig13_04.jpg
or here
http://static.flickr.com/125/318121988_aa4e54655f_o.jpg
you see also deformed image reflection of pedestrian bridge.

thumbsup.gif

Posted by: waterdancer Jun 1 2007, 12:38 AM

Some great screen caps... (no thanks to Steve Spak). More of them viewable http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/






Posted by: waterdancer Jun 1 2007, 04:16 AM

Comparing a few of those with some before and after shots should clear up a few questions about what is visible in the background, in case there are any doubts.
First, a couple of fairly recent shots from similar positions:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/158/336457115_72cafa334e_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/435868668_69bbdd6a00_o.jpg
There is currently a new structure (I don't know the name of it, sorry) near the Woolworth building which is obstructing the view to the east as it appeared on 9/11 and before. See the http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/woolworth.jpg and http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/211405767_1a39a4feb0_o.jpg shots for a pre obstructing building view:

Comparing those shots with two of the screenshots, (http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/shots/wtc7_south00000.jpg and http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/shots/wtc7_south300002.jpg below) should make it pretty clear what each bump, knob and edge seen in those shots is. I now agree that we are probably indeed seeing the eastern edge of WTC 7 intersecting the Western edge roofline of the Post office in http://debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg below, but I had to look at a lot of pics to eliminate such possibilities as post office building edges and Woolworth building edge from my consideration. Ultimately, it's the most likely possibility simply because it is apparently in front of rather than behind the PO roof in #s five and six. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that we are still looking at the same vertical edge in #7, but the evidence is pointing towards it, I think.







Posted by: bingo Jun 9 2007, 08:01 AM

QUOTE (waterdancer @ May 31 2007, 11:38 PM)
Some great screen caps... (no thanks to Steve Spak). More of them viewable http://911.yweb.sk/download/video/wtc7/






And the problem is?...

I see a new confirmation to video of Steve Spak.


The new Builgind seem also in construction


Posted by: Beached Jun 12 2007, 06:44 PM

I think you guys need to bring me up to speed here.... who is Steve Spak? laugh.gif

No, seriously, who is he? I keep hearing his name.

Posted by: bingo Jun 13 2007, 08:04 AM

It is the secret child of Eddie Murphy laugh.gif
pilotfly.gif

Posted by: CrossDressingNazi Jan 31 2008, 07:56 PM

Could you please re-link the video!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)