WTC7 Faked Image

Originally posted by coughymachine
every anomaly you pointed out is explained by smoke (outlined crudely in pink).

That's Inannamute's pic - the lines aren't crude, they're elegantly crude, informational yet informal.

You can see the exact same effect in reverse. At the floor marked '1' in Zafar's image, the final window is 'missing' (as is the one above it). Yet there is is, clear as day in NIST's.

I think it really is that simple. Look at the floor marked '5'. Both images are missing a window at this point. In both cases smoke is the cause.

Now I'm starting to think you're being serious again, that almost seems a compelling thought.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Several times you all asked yourself how to pinpoint a time stamp on that video with the guy on the phone boot and then the explosion sound.

Are you serious, or did not one of you notice the huge wristwatch on the guy's arm, the guy with the knotted handkerchief on his head, holding the phone?

This is already covered btw a long time ago, with the time read from the guys watch.

Originally posted by LaBTopAre you serious, or did not one of you notice the huge wristwatch on the guy's arm, the guy with the knotted handkerchief on his head, holding the phone?

I didn't notice it, no. I guess I was too busy looking for identifiable landmarks and shadows to spot the biggest clue.

That said, I found it hard to get a good read. Looks to me like 14:30 or perhaps a few minutes before. Does that match up with previous estimations? I guess if we have a time we can begin to narrow down the location - unless that's already been done too. I didn't miss a street sign as well, did I?

I want to return to the time of Zafar's picture - not to flog a dead horse but to tie up a loose end if possible.

This is why I think we have different times CL.

This is an overhead schematic of the area immediately around the Winter Garden arch. Notice the gap between 2 WFC and the arch.



Now take a look at this - another of my crude little depictions. This is how a shadow behaves when it first travels over level ground before hitting a curved surface. The later times are arrived at by using the curve over the arch as an indicator whereas the earlier times, I believe, are shown by the proposed shadow on the level surface.



ETA: better graphic

[edit on 17-5-2007 by coughymachine]

Please listen to this guy's answer after a damn big explosion went off.
Do you think this is the usual attitude, after you hear a high explosive going off?

He really tries to keep the bystanders occupied with that stupid phone in his hands. Call mom....
Normally, everybody would go investigating the source of that really curious loud noise.

No, he wants them to phone home. Yep. Very normal attitude.

Find that guy. He's definitely in.

Originally posted by LaBTopFind that guy. He's definitely in.

I've recently seen the same guy in another extended clip but I cannot find it again. I'll keep looking. Seems like he was a bit of a commentator on the day.

Anyway, regarding the time, was 14:30 the time you guys found when you went through this last time?

The problem is, the Search feature from this site has been getting worse over time.

I filled in :
INS
Phone boot
explosion
WTC 7 , WTC7 , WTC-7 etc.

and lots of other combinations to get at the thread, covering this same event.

No results.
I'm pissed off.

The thread, where the exact time from the guys watch was read, is not easy to get. I can't find it at all. But I know very well, it's here, in this forum.

In the beginning, when the new, site wide, Search function was implemented, just a few key words were enough to find every post I searched for.
Now, I only get garbage.

Okay, found that other clip of the 'pay phone guy'. For some reason, every time I try and embed, I get it wrong (tips anyone?!?!). So here's the link.

A different video of 'pay phone guy'.

He is being interviewed and there is no clear indication of whether this takes place before or after the 'explosion'.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Are you serious, or did not one of you notice the huge wristwatch on the guy's arm, the guy with the knotted handkerchief on his head, holding the phone?

This is already covered btw a long time ago, with the time read from the guys watch.

I was serious until the end there. Nope, didn't notice the watch, dude. I was having too much fun trying to read shadows. I'm curious what was found about that video, Got a link for me?

ed: Oops, saw second post.
It wasn't a major point for me persnally. Different reasons for explosions (car fires, gas mains, etc).

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic LogicBelieve it or not I finally get it. I think you're right.

I was a little unsure whether your post was tongue-in-cheek until I re-read the first line.

I am absolutely persuaded by this explanation now. It would be good to have a few more views from some of the earlier contributors but I do feel a sense of affirmation given that you are now open to this explanation (I admire your analysis of the Pentagon impact enormously).

This has been a thoroughly rewarding thread and rather goes to show that we should 'maintain vigilance and calm', most especially when we're 'looking' for a problem.

Terribly sorry for the misunderstanding, as My U2U explains, and thanks for the kind words.

Originally posted by coughymachine
I want to return to the time of Zafar's picture - not to flog a dead horse but to tie up a loose end if possible.

This is why I think we have different times CL.

This is an overhead schematic of the area immediately around the Winter Garden arch. Notice the gap between 2 WFC and the arch.

[...] The later times are arrived at by using the curve over the arch as an indicator whereas the earlier times, I believe, are shown by the proposed shadow on the level surface.

I used the shadow at the base of the curve to avoid that effect. I was going to try it again, but Zafar's pic crashed Photoshop, and if I'm wrong why not go ahead and do it yourself and show what's wrong? Otherwise, if the horse is dead...


[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Okay, a few posts back where I was agreeing with Coughy:
That was thick sarcasm for those who did't catch it. I could've sworn he was being sarcastic too and it had taken me a long time to catch on. seems I was wrong.

Coughy: I'm confused now as to what you're arguing. I get that you're arguing both pics are real, and before it's seemed to be:
1) Zafar's pic earlier w/no damage, NIST's later, meaning a PM event. Is this horse dead now?
2) the damage is there in both pics, but by illusion appears intact in Zafar's while gone in NIST's
3) The damage is not there in either, and the appearance of damage in NIST's is from smoke rolling around and making things look gone

So are you arguing the damage is present in both, not present in both, or some combo (ie parts of the wall are there in NIST's and parts are gone in Zafar's)?

Re the smoke effect, I can see how that would make things look different, but here is what I see.


We are looking at smoke in both shots to some extent. In NIST's shot we see smoke THROUGH the missing section. (note continuity with backgroud smoke patterns, light and dark). If it's am illusion, there are two clors of smoke here with 100% opacity covering - what, intact wall?
In Zafar's shot we see black smoke OVER intact yellow wall, as well as intact window frames where in NIST's there are none or diff smoke?). If this is smoke, it's got a yellow tint in spots, black in others, and an uncanny ability to form right angles and straight lines. Well, except for at those curved windows.

I need to guard my time better so that's it for now. I will check back in before work (within 3 hours).

Originally posted by Caustic LogicOkay, a few posts back where I was agreeing with Coughy:
That was thick sarcasm for those who did't catch it. I could've sworn he was being sarcastic too and it had taken me a long time to catch on. seems I was wrong.

My view is this:

• Neither photograph is faked.
  
  
• Zafar's picture is taken earlier than the NYPD (NIST) shot, but this is largely irrelevant.
  
  
• There is damage but it is not as severe as the NIST photo makes it appear.

The smoke you see 'through' the gouge is actually in front of the building. Smoke largely obscures the lower two windows in Zafar's shot. In NIST's, it obscures the lower three windows. Both show exactly the same damage in the fourth window up and from there on, all windows are visible in both shots, although some are partially covered in smoke. In fact, those most affected by smoke, 6 and 7 windows up, are affected in the same way in both images, with Zafar's being more affected.

I didn't set out to prove one theory or another. I arrived where I am by analysis. It will be hard to shake me from my conclusion because the evidence is there and, given the work that's been done in this thread, I see little scope for new perspectives.

I have a strong feeling we're not going to see eye-to-eye here, whatever either of us says. I've said my piece and explained it at length. I'm leaving this one here.

Same here, agree to disagree. I don't suppose too many others care to weigh in. Accusing some guy of fakery is much less fun that accusing a gov. agency, as we seem to have started out, and getting me to alter my (obvious IMO) observations isn't going to happen.

And I really don't know WHY either side would want to fake it, but I know what I see.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicAnd I really don't know WHY either side would want to fake it, but I know what I see.

One final, rhetorical point from me. Look at Zafar's smoke. It's all black execpt in some places, where the sunlight catches it. Where this happens, it appears to turn a lighter grey.

If you're seeing a light grey smoke through the 'gouge' in the NIST image, how is it being illuminated given that it would be behind the black smoke? The answer, I believe, is that it wouldn't - it would be in shade and, therefore, appear black. The only way to account for the lighter shade of grey is if it were around the west side of the building and in front of the west facing windows. As a point of reference, Im talking about the lower three or four floors of the NIST shot.

There. Done. Promise.

Hard to tell... An expert could tell you right away. We must never stop asking questions about 9/11.. The truth must come out and those really responsible for these crimes to be held accountable.

This is what I see happening here. It's not an attempt to reproduce the exact situation but just to show the principle.

NIST on the left; Zafar on the right. Images show damage with and without smoke. I believe the 'appearance' of an edge in the damaged section of Zafar's image is an illusion created by an internal structure, which is not visible through the smoke from the NIST angle.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Excellent graphic! I have to admit this is a vaguely possible explanation. I'm not going to debate you, just for reference here are the original pics again, this time in black and white in case that helps. What does anybody else think? Does that explain this?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I think 14 is one window higher in the NIST image. The perspective in the NIST shot (which is one of the key problems here) is skewing the lower few rows of widows and making them appear to go up at improbable angles. Remember those images where the west face had been straightened out? When you try and draw a straight line across the top edge of the lower few rows of windows, starting on the right of the picture, the edge starts to curve up as you move left. I haven't marked it on the B&W image, but the arrow is pointing at 13. I think 14 is the line above 13 going off at around 45 degrees.

Thus window 14 is partially visible, just not where it should be.

One picture I haven't included that shows the sort of effect I'm proposing (although this time along the south face and further down) is one of Steve Spak's.



By the way, I agree with you on the time of Zafar's shot and he also accepts it's possible it was that late too.

Here is the cluttered graphic I sent him to back up my revised estimation.



I used the image marked 15:20 (not Zafar's) because there are no doubts whatsoever about the time since we can accurately plot the shadow on the south face of 3 WFC. I then used two of Zafar's shots to establish a range between 16:00 and 16:15. The whole thing is overlaid on Zafar's own Google image.

He wasn't in the park for the collapse.

I guess I'm done now - agreeing to differ on your allegation of fakery but concurring at least on the times.

I know I keep saying I'm done, but I had to try this and the result make the illusion effect I'm on about seem pretty clear cut to me.

This is a comparisson of the two images, this time with Zafar's image skewed. All damage appears in both and the two protrusions, circled in purple, also appear in both - the lower one being rather awkward to edit around I would have thought.



And here's the approximate edge damage traced in yellow in both images with the 'missing' 14 floor window highlighted in red. Given the different viewing perspectives, I doubt the light area (which is set back) immediately to the right of the red window in Zafar's image (left) would be visible in the NIST image even if there was no smoke around.



[edit on 19-5-2007 by coughymachine]

So what's the jist of the grand tally?