The NIST pricture its obviously fake.
Plus its taken before the other one.
Anyway you can enlarge it a little with photoshop and you will notice its a bad fabricated image.
No Debunkers will touch this issue I already brought it up a while back

thankyou I never knew about that anomoly...so no one would touch it?
no wonder....what purpose could they possibly have in doing that?

It's pretty easy to tell it's fake. Look at the way the floors and windows curve up wards,a nd stretch, to wards the faked damage. That is not natural unless the building was made of rubber or something.

Very poor photoshop job for sure.

great catch.

The image on the left is obviously fake, as there WTC 7 is standing in front of the Sydney Opera House.

WTC 7, 'tis 'twas a remarkable building. Apparently could shape-shift, too.

And anyway, that image is totally implausible--actually the mot juste is "ridiculous."

Does anyone seriously believe that falling debris--unless dropped from the Space Shuttle--is going to both rip off the outer cladding and gouge out the steel corner columns and sheer off about a dozen floor trusses so neatly on that building?

Pure nonsense. Alice in 9/11.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by gottago]

And don't you know, now they're saying 25% of the building's back side was scooped out by debris.

Heard it on Hannity and Colmes, right from Popular Mechanics, so it must be true, right?

Very interesting.

bsb, what is the bottom view of the three pictures you show, which face of WTC 7 is that?, for some reason I can't get my bearings on that one.

The left hand image of the comparison has presumably been skewed from the NIST image to make it line up with the other picture hence the apparent curving and other distortion shown, yes?

Is there any evidence to support piacenza's statement that the NIST picture was taken earlier?

Originally posted by ANOK Look at the way the floors and windows curve up wards,a nd stretch, to wards the faked damage. That is not natural unless the building was made of rubber or something.

This is because the image has been manipulated by the OP (or his source) to 'straighten' it in order to compare it to the image on the right. This 'curve' is not present in the original photograph.

Originally posted by ANOK
It's pretty easy to tell it's fake. Look at the way the floors and windows curve up wards,a nd stretch, to wards the faked damage. That is not natural unless the building was made of rubber or something.

Very poor photoshop job for sure.

Look closer - it's a stretch of the photo below, thus the distortion. It's to compare the same building at different angles and line up features. The jaggedy stuff at the bottom is the other building at lower right.
(ed - oops, seems everyone else caught that too)

This is interesting - the massive damage we've heard weakened the building and caused the symmetrical collapse is there in one and not the other. I would wonder just when each of these was taken, how far apart, what happened between. And that last shot, what the heck? It looks like a night shot? Looks like a damaged building between tower 7 (the tan one running down the middle in the first montage) and that greenhouse-looking building? So did they take that damage, flip it upside down, and use that to fake the photo? Hmmm...

I'm not sure what's up with all that

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

The picture showing more damage was taken earlier.

This is because the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West, so therefore more sunlight should be directly hitting WTC7's western face later in the evening before it goes down, and less would be hitting it before the Sun could move so far West. Building 7 fell around 5:20 PM.


This was taken during the same helicopter round as the NIST photo in question:




By shadows on the roof, the Sun is more behind WTC7. Therefore this picture was taken earlier.




Here you can see that the shadows on the World Financial Center Tower 2, the Merrill Lynch Building, indicate that sunlight is directly hitting its western side, and thus so too for WTC7.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And don't you know, now they're saying 25% of the building's back side was scooped out by debris.

Heard it on Hannity and Colmes, right from Popular Mechanics, so it must be true, right?

It's also what this photo seems to show. And I heard an angry firefighter talk about it once. But anyway, if this is a fake photo, that's obviously interesting and should therefore be investigated thoroughly. I'm too tired tonight.

Oh, and why did it not tilt that way, but fall center first and in on itself? How WOULD this photo and these statements help explain that at all??? If it's obvious I'm missing it but again, I'm tired.

Peace all

ed - thx for the photos and explanation bSray - going over it now

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Yep, count the windows.

This is more rock solid than I thought it was. We're looking at an adultered photograph.


More work by al Qaeda, guys?

Originally posted by coughymachine
This is because the image has been manipulated by the OP...

Ah! I see, thank you for pointing that out. I thought it seemed a bit obvious...lol

This simply makes me furious. The fakery is so blatant.

And the daring to use the idea that falling debris could somehow do that sort and amount of damage to the corner, load-bearing structure of a steel-framed highrise. Simply impossible, beyond any reason.

Yes, in the third picture, you see a terraced appendage with similar damage, but that is an addition to the basic box/load-bearing structure, and therefore does not need to be heavily re-enforced.

The web of steel columns, beams and trusses on that corner of WTC 7 simply could not be damaged in that way--unless you used Judy Wood's ray gun to vaporize it. Simply beyond belief, the gall of it.

And stepping back to another level, how can people accept that a building collapse--straight down--even of the WTC towers--would or properly should cause such damage to buildings so far off-site?

Implausibility on top of implausibility. Lie on top of lie.

Again, simply furious.

BTW, CL: the supposedly damaged corner is that to the southwest. And your link is broken.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by gottago]

Hmmmm, I'm not convinced by the shadows to establish the timing I'm afraid.

Look at bsb's second picture: there is clearly sunlight hitting the south-west face of WTC7 as there are shadows being cast on it, presumably from the smoke. Further, by looking at the shadows on the roofs it looks like the Sun maybe approx due south or thereabouts.

In the picture of the Merrill Lynch Building, (whose "west" face is not actually aligned perfectly north-south but is actually rather more a south-west face like that of WTC7 although not at quite that angle), you can see shadows being cast by the stepped profile sections on that face so the Sun cannot be striking that face directly and is pretty close to the South also.

This is an imprecise science but I would suggest that the position of the Sun was not far off from the same in the two pictures, certainly not enough to make a categoric assertion of time for me.

Wasn't the picture of the Merrill Lynch Building taken by a bloke from his apartment across the river? I can't remember where I've seen that full set but I know he took a lot and there might be a better time clue from that sequence.

you are not finding things that just aren't true .
i see NOTHING to show me that it's a fake .
don't see how you do either

Originally posted by gen.disaray
you are not finding things that just aren't true .

Nice, a double negative so we finally can agree!!!!