Sunday, July 23, 2006

WTC 7--Is This The Holy Grail?

This picture was posted on Democratic Underground in the past two weeks. It's a stunning photo, possibly the missing piece in the WTC 7 puzzle.



As yet it's unverified but it fits with much that we've already seen.

Compare it to this picture, shot over the Winter Garden:



Both pictures show modest damage to the top several stories of the building at the southwest corner. Note particularly the break in the parapet wall just to the right of the corner in both pictures.

The vidcap needs to be confirmed; it definitely looks like it's from a San Francisco-Bay Area station. But if that can be accomplished?

Case Closed.

49 Comments:

At 23 July, 2006 06:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I think the winter garden picture is the clearer of the two, but it would be nice to see the whole video of the first one. It is two clouded at that moment to call it the holy grail, IMHO.

 
At 23 July, 2006 07:52, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I like this one also, but not sure if it is confirmed.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

 
At 23 July, 2006 09:29, Blogger debunking911 said...

That reminds me, I have to add that photo to my WTC7 page.

The video may have a banner on the bottom from the bay area but it seems to be covering another banner. Possibly from CNN. Not sure...

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:01, Blogger Manny said...

It's always been obvious why there aren't a ton of pictures of that face of the building following the collapse of the towers -- it would be a very difficult shot to get and wouldn't have seemed very interesting in the context of everything else which had happened that day. But it always seemded a little weird that there were no pictures of the south face. So yeah, if this turns out to be a legit pic it is very interesting.

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:05, Blogger Killtown said...

Yes, "fire" brought down this building on its footprint. Keep repeating that.

And keep repeating that Uncle Larry recommended for the Captain to pull it out his men.

lol

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:09, Blogger Zymergist said...

Vesey Street was closed - closed to the press, closed to the public.

Hence, no pictures from the South!

Why? Psst - The building was on fire, and BULGING.

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:17, Blogger Dog Town said...

Foot prints?You sure you wanna claim that?Killerclown has put foot in mouth again.You must love that taste!It covered the streets around it and then some.Ha HA HA!

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:20, Blogger Killtown said...

Can someone please show me a photo of this "bulge"?

Also, can someone please show me one helicopter video of the 7 collapses since the buzz was everybody knew it was "coming down"?

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:22, Blogger James B. said...

Killtown, please explain why the fire department, who lost over 300 people on 9/11, wired the building for explosives. Also which division of the fire department is qualified to carry out demolitions of this size?

Also explain why the decision to "pull it" was based on the fact that there was a severe loss of life. If there wasn't a loss of life would the fire department then have left the building standing?

While you are at it, could you also explain how these demolitions managed to survive a 7 hour fire.

I am really curious.

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:22, Blogger Murdervillage said...

Killtown, how does it feel to get dumber every day?

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:23, Blogger shawn said...

Yes, "fire" brought down this building on its footprint. Keep repeating that.

Yes, Killtown there was "no smoke" pouring out of virtually "every floor" indicating that "a lot" of the floors were "on fire".

Hey, but having a whole corner scooped out wouldn't hinder it from collapsing, right?

Oh, and when buildings fall on their footprint they damage adjacent buildings, too...oh wait.

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:32, Blogger default.xbe said...

The video may have a banner on the bottom from the bay area but it seems to be covering another banner. Possibly from CNN. Not sure...

my guess is the SF affiliate of whatever network this is was rebroadcasting the NY feed, but without knowing what network its tough to track down the video

probably not CNN since they are national

 
At 23 July, 2006 11:45, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Sometimes I wish the CTers would just stop "Pulling" the same tiresome rabbits out of their top hats.

How many times do the same old "nuggets" have to be debunked.

 
At 23 July, 2006 12:15, Blogger James B. said...

Do they ever stop and think how ridiculous these theories sound. I can imagine the conversation.

Silvestein: Hey Chief, I know you are busy, can I have a word with your for a second?

Fire Chief: Yeah, sure Larry what's up.

Silverstein: Hey sorry about losing your entire station house in the collapse. Marvin Bush and I are behind the whole thing actually, but I have a favor to ask you.

Fire Chief: Yeah, sure, what do you need?

Silverstein: Well, you see, the plan is to blow up 3 buildings, not just 2, and I was wondering if you could help me blow up WTC7.

Fire Chief: Why do you want to blow up WTC7?

Silverstein: Well, I wanted to build another building there, and the CIA and SEC have offices there and... It's really complicated. Can you do it or not?

Fire Chief: Sure, no problem.

Silverstein: OK, well here is the the computer that controls the whole thing, but don't do anything until you ask me first.

Fire Chief: Just a couple of restrictions though. I will only blow it up if the fire gets out of control and it looks like we can't fight it, and only if you decide there has been a severe loss of life first.

Silverstein: OK, makes sense. Agreed.

 
At 23 July, 2006 12:20, Blogger undense said...

Killtown,

Keep repeating that the CTs can produce absolutely no physical evidence of a controlled demolition.

lol

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:06, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Killer-clown-shoes seems to have lost his tongue...

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:15, Blogger BoggleHead said...

People, there's plenty of video of WTC 7's south face. A photographer for the fire department was on the scene.

It's from real close up, mostly unobscured by smoke.

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:40, Blogger James B. said...

Link?

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:41, Blogger Killtown said...

1) Nice side-step of my questions.

2) Who said the ENTIRE fire dept was in on it??? Did you ever stop to think that Fire Captain (if it really was one) was part of the "in on it team"? It's not rocket science you know.

CDI: "pull it" means "pull down".

3) No collapse footage from the helicopers??? Hmmm.

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:55, Blogger James B. said...

You didn't ask a question. You avoided answering my questions even though I addressed them specifically to you.

Did you ever stop to think that Fire Captain (if it really was one) was part of the "in on it team"? It's not rocket science you know.


Yeah, those firemen who run into buildings everyday have no problem being involved in the murder of their people. And if it wasn't a fire captain, then why would Silverstein lie about it? He went to all the trouble to lie and make up that part of the story, but wasn't smart enough to omit the fact that he blew up the building!!! Yeah, that makes sense.

 
At 23 July, 2006 13:59, Blogger shawn said...

CDI: "pull it" means "pull down".

Hey, Einstein, when they "pull" a building they literally pull it. They attach cables to it and pull it away from adjacent buildings.

Do you folks understand context. HE WASN'T TALKING TO A FUCKING DEMOLITION EXPERT. He was talking to a firefighter. To a firefighter "pull" means evacuate.

And you wonder why I make fun of you.

 
At 23 July, 2006 14:02, Blogger James B. said...

It cracks me up how whenever you watch a CTer talk about building demolition now, they always use the term "pull", like this is part of their regular everyday vocabulary or something.

 
At 23 July, 2006 14:13, Blogger default.xbe said...

2) Who said the ENTIRE fire dept was in on it??? Did you ever stop to think that Fire Captain (if it really was one) was part of the "in on it team"? It's not rocket science you know.

i often wonder if CTers have ever known a fire fighter

ive known several, and i find it VERY hard to imagine any fire fighter, let alone a Captain would be "in" on any plot that involed the deaths of hundreds of fire fighters

 
At 23 July, 2006 15:16, Blogger undense said...

Did you ever stop to think that Fire Captain (if it really was one) was part of the "in on it team"? It's not rocket science you know.

Why should we believe that? It's more likely that you, if you really even exist and aren't just an AI bot, are a member of a large Democratic team that roams the internet spreading disinformation about 9/11, trying to blame it on Bush to position the Democrats for the next election. You're a Democratic cyber-spook. Yeah, that's it. It's obvious. Ever stop to think that we know your status?

(Woah. Acting like a paranoid CT is not only fun, it's downright cathartic.)

 
At 23 July, 2006 15:27, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

Who said the ENTIRE fire dept was in on it??? Did you ever stop to think that Fire Captain (if it really was one) was part of the "in on it team"? It's not rocket science you know.

This may be the stupidest thing anyone has said on the Internet this week.

 
At 23 July, 2006 16:00, Blogger Alex said...

Right, so the "Fire Captain" placed all 40,000 charges personaly, and then waited untill Sillverstein told him to "pull it". Or, wait, maybe he paid the janitors to plant some charges. It's not like explosives take any skill or effort to place. A fireman and a bunch of mexican illegals could have wired the whole building in an hour, tops!

 
At 23 July, 2006 20:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

This may be the stupidest thing anyone has said on the Internet this week.

LOL..."this week"

 
At 23 July, 2006 20:09, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

Guys, KKKilltown will never believe that WTC7 wasn't deliberatly demolished for the simple fact that a rich jew was involved.

That's all the evidence he will ever need for his own satisfaction that he's right.

So until one of us comes up with a time machine that will allow us to go back abd block the sale so that some other ethno-religious group can own the building, KKKilltown will always be a waste of time and especially oxygen.

 
At 23 July, 2006 23:29, Blogger apathoid said...

CDI: "pull it" means "pull down".

Firehouse.com: "pull it" means pull the firefighting operation out of/awat from the building.

Now which makes more sense in context, since it was a firefighter who said "pull it"?

 
At 23 July, 2006 23:29, Blogger apathoid said...

*awat=away

 
At 24 July, 2006 00:21, Blogger Killtown said...

One more time OCTs, NO ONE IS SAYING THE ENTIRE FIRE DEPT WAS IN ON IT OR PLANTED THE BOMBS!!!

Is that clear enough?

Most likely scenario is that Fire Chief was one of the few from the fire dept who was in on it.

Wouldn't it be logical that if they were going to pull the building that they'd get the final go-ahead from the owner?

You guys need to think outside the box a little. This stuff is not rocket science.

 
At 24 July, 2006 00:25, Blogger default.xbe said...

You guys need to think outside the box a little

i think your way beyond "outside the box" you in a whole other area code

 
At 24 July, 2006 00:30, Blogger apathoid said...

Wouldn't it be logical that if they were going to pull the building that they'd get the final go-ahead from the owner?

Oh.My.God.
speechless.....

 
At 24 July, 2006 00:45, Blogger Killtown said...

Speechless, why? why is that not logical?

 
At 24 July, 2006 01:30, Blogger apathoid said...

It might be logical if Silverstein wasn't talking about this candidly on cable TV.

In essence, what you are saying is this:
The Fire Chief was telling him(Silverstein) that because of the terrible loss of life, he was going to go through with the controlled demolition(that not all, but a few firefighters were a part of).
Not only that, but you are saying that all this came out candidly in a PBS interview and noone caught the slip up except a bunch of internet Sherlocks...

Its infinately more logical that the Fire Chief was using "pull it" as firefighting lingo and not demolitions lingo...

Do you recognize that firefighters also use the term "pull"?

 
At 24 July, 2006 04:01, Blogger Billythekid said...

Here we go again: "Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building."

Case closed....

 
At 24 July, 2006 05:48, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

You guys need to think outside the box a little. This stuff is not rocket science.

No, clownshoe - it's not - it's idiocy of the first order. Do you actually have any PROOF that the firechief was "in on it?"

 
At 24 July, 2006 06:15, Blogger Manny said...

Most likely scenario is that Fire Chief was one of the few from the fire dept who was in on it.

Actually, terrorist scum, The Chief of Department was murdered by your confederates on September 11, 2001. Try again.

 
At 24 July, 2006 08:13, Blogger shawn said...

Speechless, why? why is that not logical?

Since you're not using the quote in context, that's why it's not logical.

 
At 24 July, 2006 10:53, Blogger Killtown said...

Yes, firefighters use the word "pull." It's the PHRASE "pull it" that is in question.

"It" is singular, not plural. They were talking about the WTC 7 (singular) on that PBS doc.

You saying Uncle Larry said a poor choice of words? No one misspeaks that bad.

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:19, Blogger undense said...

"It" is singular, not plural. They were talking about the WTC 7 (singular) on that PBS doc.

"It" was used in the singular sense. "It" refers to the firefighting effort. Pull it = pull the firefighting effort.

Do you have any brain cells left at all that can reason logically and not jump to the most idiotic of conclusions?

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:26, Blogger Killtown said...

"It" refers to the firefighting effort. Pull it = pull the firefighting effort.

So wait, Uncle Larry could not have meant it in demolition terms, because he's not in the demolition business, but he knows supposed firefighting terms even though he is not in the firefighting business???

I love OCT logic!

"Pull the effort".

LOL!!!!

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:39, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

The guy he was talking to was a firefighter, dumbass.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:02, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

So have you bothered to contact the Fire captain in question, Killtown, and accuse him of this. Maybe he'll confess...or maybe he'll sue you...or maybe he'll hunt you down.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:05, Blogger Manny said...

So KKKilltown, which specific member of the New York City Fire Department would you care to slander next, your first choice having been killed by your confederates before he had the chance to complete the demolition of 7 WTC? I'd like to get as many people on possible so I can introduce you to their families if you ever show up in New York.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:42, Blogger undense said...

So wait, Uncle Larry could not have meant it in demolition terms, because he's not in the demolition business, but he knows supposed firefighting terms even though he is not in the firefighting business???

Right. Because Uncle Larry is so stupid he's going to film himself committing insurance fraud and then SHOW IT TO EVERYBODY ON PUBLIC TV.

Do you have any other stupid and highly ignorant suggestions? Oh, wait. Nevermind. I already know the answer to that question.

 
At 24 July, 2006 16:24, Blogger default.xbe said...

I love OCT logic!

dont even try to act liek you have the slightest clue what logic is

why is it more logical that a business man speaking to a fire fighter would use CD terminology?

i suppose the fact that the term would have been used improperly in this case proves it must be true right, since neither of them had any history in CD they cant be expected to use the terminology right.

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

"It" is singular, not plural. They were talking about the WTC 7 (singular) on that PBS doc.

"Pull" evacuate, "it" the area.

Do you need everything spelled out for you, you child?

 
At 24 July, 2006 20:58, Blogger shawn said...

dont even try to act liek you have the slightest clue what logic is

why is it more logical that a business man speaking to a fire fighter would use CD terminology?


It's the same logic that allows "back and to the left" to make perfect sense to people.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home