WTC7 Damage - 911myths

Fuente:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

Información:

The story...

Located one block from the Twin Towers, WTC7 was barely scratched by the collapse of those structures.
Page 49
Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception

Our take...

It’s often claimed that WTC7 suffered no significant damage from the collapse of the towers. However, some 9/11 photos show debris that appears to be heading for the skyscraper (the light-brown building in the shot below)..



The angle of shot makes it difficult to say where that might hit (see this page for another view), but reports from the scene do suggest significant damage.

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

A NIST photo may expand on that damage “at the edge of the south face”.

Page 17
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

So why wasn’t this damage photographed, ask people like David Ray Griffin (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)? If they were to show you the smoke pouring from every floor of the building, then that may make it obvious... But it could also make you question the “small and limited” fires idea, which is why shots like this aren’t shown so very often.

This is cropped and resized, so be sure to view the original footage on the WTC7 Fire page (at the very bottom, if you’re not interested in anything else).

Other pictures may come still appear, though. Here’s a shot recently located by our friends at Debunking911.com.

Read more, including a statement by the photographer, on their site.

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:

The author of the original post kindly sent us a copy, which you can download here, although beware: it’s a chunky 24MB and adds little further detail. If you’re short on bandwidth then take a look at the slightly smaller YouTube version, instead.

A photo from Aman Zafar offers a larger, though still smokey view:

(We’ve cropped this to remove the surrounding buildings. See the original here.)

A poster on 911blogger.com noticed news footage that gives what seems to be the clearest view:

We haven’t seen the hi-res version of this and so cannot personally authenticate it, however others have this news footage so there seems little point in faking anything. You can view the video clip he posted here (beware, it’s a bulky 16.6 MB XviD AVI) and view the streaming version at Archive.org.