WTC7 Faked Image

Originally posted by Caustic LogicIf I'm reading this right, the photo was taken just past halfway between 15:30 and 18:30 sunset, so at about 17:15, or 5:15 pm. Give or take ten minutes, well take, since we could only give five before it collapsed.

I'm not sure I read the shadows in the same way as you. The one going over the Winter Garden arch, for example, suggests to me a much earlier time. In fact, that was the one I originally used to arrive at around 15:00.

I think (hope) part of the problem here is that I've been working with Aman's full picture, rather than a zoomed in segment. In fact it's a different picture, taken from a very slightly different angle, but one that Aman says he took afterwards so it makes little difference. It gives a slightly different 'feel' for the lighting effects on the faces of 3 WFC.



Aman is viewing at 274 degrees from north. Given the 'park' he was in has an uneven surface, I've used the shadows of the nearest object, the bicycle, to estimate the time at 13:55. Unfortunately, the Colgate Clock appears not to have been working that day, otherwise we could have pinpointed the time and our troubles would be over.

Aman's response in full...

Hi,

I have been asked this question by a lot of people and I my guess is about 2. The picture taken right above that was taken about 10 mins before so you should be able to gauge a reasonable time. You can find the park on google earth.

It was a long time ago.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by coughymachine]

I agree this shot with the bike looks like about 2:00, it's the one beaneath it I'm talking about:

Full pic as on his page, way too big format:


I say this is 5:00-5:20 pm but with SW corner damage edited out.

Unless anyone objects I'd say the OP's question is answered.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

actually I'm not so sure it's 2:00, too tired to analyze it, but this is a new picture, not the one we've been looking at. This feels like a dodge. Besides why we are so far off in our time frame for this, there's the missing damage anyway as I've been pointing out. I'll be doing some closer analysis of his corner tomorrow but I need to get to sleep now.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I agree this shot with the bike looks like about 2:00, it's the one beaneath it I'm talking about:

Assuming both images are genuine...

I have the two pictures taken at around the same time. Look at the shadow cast by the building to the right of 1 WFC. It is the same shadow in both images. I think if we can fix a time on one, we have the same time, give or take, for both.

Something's not right here - we're missing something.

Did NIST fake the damage? No, in my opinion. Steve Spak's material appears to prove there was significant south west corner trauma, as does Willie Cirone's. If NIST's is faked (bear in mind it was an NYPD photgraph) then they're all faked.

Is Aman Zafar's image a fake? Again, I don't think so. What would his motivation be? And why leave evidence of the long 'gash' yet edit out the corner damage. If it's faked, what has he achieved? Diversion? I don't see it - he had nothing to gain.

There are, therefore, two possible explanations for the discrepancies between the two photographs.

The first, that Zafar's was taken before NIST's and that the corner damage happened afterwards. But this would also mean that Spak's video and Cirone's shots would also have had to have been taken after Zafar's and yet they appear earlier, if anything.

The other, less popular explanation is a variation on the illusion I suggested oh so many posts ago. I know this won't wash with most but I'll put it out there for discussion anyway.

Before I do, and just to get you 'looking' at this in the right way, take a look at this optical illusion.



For those of you who haven't seen it, the squares marked A and B are the same shade of grey

With that in mind, here is a really basic visual (I'm not so hot with graphics, as you can see) of the illusion we might be looking at. The left image represents the NIST photograph. The trauma, whilst significant, does not expose the corner column. The right image, which represents Zafar's photograph, is from a different perspective, looking almost directly at the south west corner. From this angle, we can see inside the trauma to an exposed column. This column gives the appearance of an intact south west corner.

What I'm trying to say is that Zafar's photograph actually does show the trauma - it just doesn't look like it. Any takers?

Same image but with (amateurish) smoke.

Caustic Logic. Here you go...



This is cropped from the hyooooooge pic you linked to above. Bear in mind the left hand side of this fascade is further away, but not by a huge amount. This angle should give you a time, no?

CL

This is the time window I think we're looking at.



I don't think the sun is striking 3 WFC at 45 degrees (marked 16:55); the south face appears more brightly lit than the west one. However, there is no shadow on the south faces of the west wall protrusions (for want of a better word), which suggests the sun has passed the north-south line (marked 14:00) of the building (I know it's not oriented strictly north-south but you get my meaning). This limits the 'window' from between 14:00 and 16:55.

Pretty much every 'clue' I look at to try and refine the time leads me to a different conclusion. I think the shadow across the Winter Garden arch might be the best one to plot on an aerial shot if we can work out which part of 2 WFC might be casting it. I think it's the second tier, counting up from the base. If so, then I'm back at an estimated time of 15:00.

Originally posted by KarillaThis is cropped from the hyooooooge pic you linked to above. Bear in mind the left hand side of this fascade is further away, but not by a huge amount. This angle should give you a time, no?

The main difficulty with assessing the time from these shadows is that they're cast against a building that's oriented around 195 degrees from the north.

In simple terms, the angles you've highlighted are 52 degrees, which puts the time at 13:40. The problem is, at 13:40, there would be some shadows cast on the south faces of the west wall protrusions on 3 WFC (hope that makes sense!). But there aren't.

One of the things I'm seeing is that this building was producing an awful lot of smoke, but no visible flames.

The smoke is much lighter than what was seen in the tower fires, so I am not convinced that it is diesel fuel, as the official backers claim. I also do not see why smoke was coming out of nearly every floor.

The smoke looks very similar to aluminum oxide smoke, which adds plausibility to the Steven Jones theory about thermite being used.

If there were thermit charges strategically placed on beams and columns, setting them off after the north tower fell would allow the structure to be weakened over time. It had been evacuated immediately after the second tower was hit, and there were reports of fires starting around that time.

The extent of the damage to this building is also telling. It takes a rather large force to smash a structure to the level seen in the pictures, especially when you consider that the steel had to travel more than 100 meters to even reach the building.

From videos of the north tower collapse, a lot of this steel came from floors at or below the 70th level. It is seen to travel the distance in roughly three seconds. When I plug in the various values for height and horizontal differentials, I get speeds of anywhere from 7 to 40 meters per second.

So what kind of collapse will generate forces which produce energy that hurls multi-ton chunks of steel at those velocities? And why do those pieces of steel trail huge plumes of smoke for the entire distance?

I think it's nice to try and analyze the various close-up photos of building seven, but the big picture needs to be looked at to see what was going on.

The nature of the gashes in the building need some explanation. Was this entirely due to the steel hitting the walls, or did the flaming steel set of some of the planted thermite charges in building seven?

It really looks like the towers were demolished from the top down, probably by some kind of custom made, sequentially triggered devices.

These devices would need to have been a composite thermate/C-4-like charge designed to cut and then blow out columns when the thermate was expended. The resulting blasts would hurl steel chunks outwardly from the walls and impale many into neighboring buildings. Would a structural collapse produce the same kind of horizontal collateral damage?

I always thought that a building collapse produced predominantly downward forces due to it being gravity driven.

But then, 9/11 changed everything.

Originally posted by EugeneAxemanI think it's nice to try and analyze the various close-up photos of building seven, but the big picture needs to be looked at to see what was going on.

I understand what you're saying, but this thread was intended to specifically focus on the comparisson of two photographs; there are plenty of others looking at the collapses themselves. To that extent, the direction this one has taken is right and proper and, in any event, it's become a case of 'I've started so I'll finish'.

Have you got any thoughts on the time analyses?

I haven't read all your response carefully yet as I just got up.
I may have read the lines wrong, but I don't thik by much.
Last night this photo was above the bike shot, shoulda screen capped it. Today it's now beneath it, and NOW the statement about the one beneath that being the same time is incorrect (by my calcs).

This is really weird for me. Plus the site's acting weird, keep signing me out which is wierding me out.

Optical illusion? I didn't say anything when you mentioned it before because I think its silly. Windows are missing, a jagged edge. Hw van these reappearing at whatever time be explained by illusion?

Okay I'll read closer and post again.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Optical illusion? I didn't say anything when you mentioned it before because I think its silly. Windows are missing, a jagged edge. Hw van these reappearing at whatever time be explained by illusion?

I accept this sounds improbable but we're close to accusing Zafar of fakery here, and I just don't see it.

As for jagged edges, it really depends what angle they're being viewed from. Take the image below, for example. Your perception of the jagged edge is markedly different depending upon the viewing angle (red lines).



If you draw a straight line down the edge of WTC7 in Zafar's close-up image, the area that should appear gouged does not line up properly. That's why I speculated that maybe we're seeing into the gouge and looking at an internal column that appears to represent an undamaged exterior edge. Have a look at this image.



Now change the perspective and add smoke and it seems possible to me.

Originally posted by Karilla
Caustic Logic. Here you go...

This is cropped from the hyooooooge pic you linked to above. Bear in mind the left hand side of this fascade is further away, but not by a huge amount. This angle should give you a time, no?

Thanks for the input. To a real expert I suspect so, but the method I used is different - I take the edge of a shadow and the edge of the VERTICAL line casting it (we're looking for E-W orientation) and on an overhead view locate those spots and draw a line between them. I'm not even sure how to translate you lines here onto an overhead view, which is where you get your sundial reading.
Here is your method and mine at work:


In orange I highlight edges I would use, but chose spots where the shadow lines don't fall on non-descript building face (hard to locate precisely seen from above). Take the winter garden, that's one I used, in red lines here. I can see how I might've placed the end line a small bit wrong, but this is NOT anywhere near 2:00 pm.

Am I doing this wrong CM? It makes sense to me.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by coughymachine
CL

This is the time window I think we're looking at.

I did't start out trying to how you wrong but I'm respecting you analysis skills less now. A window from 2pm to 4:45? Whatever happened to +/- 10 min?

I don't think the sun is striking 3 WFC at 45 degrees (marked 16:55); the south face appears more brightly lit than the west one.

True enough, just not a big difference which means close to 45. That wasn't a hard locator, just verificatin that I'm in the ballpark.

Pretty much every 'clue' I look at to try and refine the time leads me to a different conclusion. I think the shadow across the Winter Garden arch might be the best one to plot on an aerial shot if we can work out which part of 2 WFC might be casting it. I think it's the second tier, counting up from the base. If so, then I'm back at an estimated time of 15:00.

I thought the shadow line there was pretty clearly visible, which is why I used it. Oddly it told me aout 5:15. I'll need to see something better that a 2.75 hour window that just barely doesn't include my carefully found time. The sun does not lie, there is only one crrect time for that phto and until someone shows me otherwise, I still feel I've got it (roughly).


[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic LogicAm I doing this wrong CM? It makes sense to me.

I think vertical red lines you've chosen to plot the shadow over the Winter Garden arch are the wrong ones. Well, specifically, the one on the right.

There is a small patch of sunlight in the shadow (circled) which suggests the part of the building casting the shadow that goes over the arch is the next tier up.

Originally posted by coughymachine

I accept this sounds improbable but we're close to accusing Zafar of fakery here, and I just don't see it.

I admit it's serious and so I'm backing down but how can you not see it? I superimposed the OP photos carefully and traced the building damage edge onto Zafar's shot.

Please tell me how this is illusion. There are whole windows gone in one and back in the other. We went over this before, as the whole point of the thread. The NIST faked that damage! True you have tried saying from the beginning neither is faked but that's what I can't see. My mission was to figure out which was fake and Zafar's was my suspect as soon as I started seeing other damage shots.


If I'm wrong I am, but let's explain feasably how that's the case.

As for jagged edges, it really depends what angle they're being viewed from. [...] If you draw a straight line down the edge of WTC7 in Zafar's close-up image, the area that should appear gouged does not line up properly. That's why I speculated that maybe we're seeing into the gouge and looking at an internal column that appears to represent an undamaged exterior edge. Have a look at this image.

Now change the perspective and add smoke and it seems possible to me.

Okay I see what you're saying about the column, but that doesn't explain the windows reappearing. Change the prespective from that? Why would we change the perspective since this is the shot we're talking about? You are a good researcher and damn smart, so why all the excuses and dodginess?

add on edit: I see your red lines here exclude small poertions of the facade as if they are missing, but only at the south edge above sindows, where the black is more likely soot stains, not missing wall. As an effort to legitimize the photo it dosen't go far. I need more.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic LogicAm I doing this wrong CM? It makes sense to me.

I think vertical red lines you've chosen to plot the shadow over the Winter Garden arch are the wrong ones. Well, specifically, the one on the right.

There is a small patch of sunlight in the shadow (circled) which suggests the part of the building casting the shadow that goes over the arch is the next tier up.

Good catch, I may've been wrong there, that lower level shadow probably wouldn't go that high. Patch of light then an effect of the railing? If so it looks like this:


Shortly after 3:30. Shadow reading is a bit tricky after all.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicOkay I see what you're saying about the column, but that doesn't explain the windows reappearing.

I'm not wedded to a view, whether mine or anyone elses. I'm not yet persuaded that either photo is faked, so I'm exploring all avenues, however improbable. I still assess the time of Zafar's to be earlier than you do at the moment - I have it around 15:10 (see below). But, even if we do finally establish that Zafar's was taken before NIST's, I don't think this explains the anomaly, since NIST is corroborated by two, presumably independent commentators who would also need to be mapped into this window of opportunity.



As for disappearing and reapearing windows, I tried to offer an explanation with my rather crude diagrams above showing the smoke. There was a lot of smoke around the area that was damaged. Some of this can be seen in the NIST image to have crept around the west side of the building. It seems possible to me that it is obscuring our perception of the windows there. One of the images in IIB's other thread shows the sort of effect I'm on about. Here, the smoke makes it impossible to tell whether there is a gouge there at all, let alone how big it is.



i know this is unsatisfactory, but I don't want to start accusing anyone of fakery unless all alternatives have been thoroughly examined.

Our posts crossed. I think a 20 minute difference is an acceptable margin to agree upon. I didn't want to rest with us two + hours apart. That would have left me feeling we'd wasted out time.