Website that points out photo anomalies from 911 and also new articles on it

Here is a website with current a list of current news articles on 911. Many of them are as current a 2/1/06.
www.st911.org...

Also for those of you that like to tear apart photographs and look for obvious problems look for the link, Jack White's Photo Studies of 9/11 (got from above link) that is done by a professional photographer. He points everything out. He says that some of these people altering the photo probably don't like what is happening but is not free to talk. So they put in obvious little things to point to the fact that something is amiss. Some of these things it would take a professional to find it, see what you think.I can't make too much out of it but I have not got a good eye for such things. Let me know what you think.



[edit on 2-2-2006 by goose]

Good find some very interesting photographs

www.911studies.com...

[edit on 2/2/2006 by Sauron]

Thanks I had not seen that one, it takes a while to go through all these, so i have not findished it.
He also has ripped apart the moon landing photos, my favorite is the 8x10 glossy's on the lunar landing pad, I found them just based on where he said to look but its after he enlarges it, you can see them clearly. You can tell thats luner thing couldn't make it to the moon, heck my old toothless dog could tear that thing apart.

Nice picture of the pentagon. Where's all the plane debris that was photo'd later on? Pretty damning evidence if real. Nice find.

He is right about one thing, The following picture has been altered.



Too bad for him that it's a known hoax.

He should fix that. - I'll bet he won't though.



[edit on 3-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Care to explain the hoax Howard? I'm rather interested.

It's covered in the link that I posted in my original post.

The picture of the "mystery explosion" was doctored to make it look like both towers were still standing, when in fact it was taken after the collapse of the south tower.

Didn't see the link. I'm looking at it now.

Interesting. Someone should e-mail him and let him know that it might be a fake. I wouldn't go as far as known hoax just because some guy on a web site says. That is until the person who did the hoax comes forward.

Originally posted by Sauron

Careful with this site, it has a couple things incorrect about it. See here for one.

The other one is the "Mystery explosion of WTC 6." The smoke cloud is from the South Tower collapsing. The time is wrong and his arrow pointing to the South Tower is pointing to a dust cloud, not the Tower still standing. See this video that proves this.

I'm not saying this site put up these things as a "hoax," I believe they were just wrong about them.

Some of their points seemed on the money though.

I think this is a great website full of things no one else has found due to this guys expertise and him being so meticulous.

Though I do recall a news person saying there had been an explosion in one of the smaller buildings and it was not WTC7. I wish I could find a transcript of this, since my memory is questionable on it, as I am sure everyones is on that day, it was traumatic just watching such a horrific thing, so I would not trust my memory on it. Anybody know where a transcript of that day is from the CNN?



[edit on 3-2-2006 by goose]

Please could someone (you will be my hero) who is much more computer literate than me bring up the two photos from the Pentagon on the website titled Stealth 5A and Stealth 5B. These two have such obvious anomilies that it's amazing no one else has found them before. TIA

www.911studies.com...

Originally posted by goose
Please could someone (you will be my hero) who is much more computer literate than me bring up the two photos from the Pentagon on the website titled Stealth 5A and Stealth 5B.

here you are

www.911studies.com...

www.911studies.com...

Sheesh. It looks like that so called "Professional Photographer"
has the same problems understanding perspectives, viewpoints,
and foreshortening as Merc_the_Narc

[edit on 4-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sheesh. It looks like that so called "Professional Photographer"
has the same problems understanding perspectives, viewpoints,
and foreshortening as Merc_the_Narc

[edit on 4-2-2006 by HowardRoark]

Oh of course Howard would know everyone.

He is Howard Roark, anonymous member and avid poster at Abovetopsecret.com.

Apparently years on a UFO forum is all the training you need to debunk a professional photographer skilled in photo analysis.

Listen to him, apparently he knows everything. And all he has to do is say it. And it is so.



You are the one with the "problems", friend.

And yet you breezed right over the guardrail anomaly.

Howard seems to have a penchant for picking out SOME details that he can attack while completely ignoring other points.

A particularly egregious example of this is his failed attempt of a rebuttle of your last detailed post on the NO 757 at the pentagon thread.

My bad.

That was defcon5 not Howard.

So I guess now we have examples of each of them using that tactic.

And you have a penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with your assertions.

Do you have anything substantive to add to this thread or are you just trolling

Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you have a penchant for ad hominem attacks on anyone who does not agree with your assertions.

Do you have anything substantive to add to this thread or are you just trolling

There was nothing ad hominem about the "attack".

You gave us a fine example of this tactic within this thread and I merely pointed it out.

But yes I do have something to contribute.

Looks like this photo expert is still working on his site and has left off with building 7. I hope he addresses one of the most egregious examples of altered 9/11 pics there are. This building 7 pic was released late and is the only pic that I have EVER seen of the supposed "extensive damage" to the building.




We had some professional graphic artists analyze it in photoshop and they determined that the pic was most definitely manipulated.

The pixel blending in the damaged areas is what gives it away.

Pretty amazing. I always stared at these two pictures for hours. I knew I wasn't imagining this...