It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC7 Faked Image

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on May, 19 2007 @ 10:55 PM

It shows intense wind and video panning along the windward and sunward edge of WTC 7. A campfire would be out of control with such winds, and the flames from those windows look very intense.

Silverman said the tower was pulled.

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So what's the jist of the grand tally?

You mean where this issue stands? I say faked, CM says no fakery. No one else so far has jumped in, so the "grand tally" thus far is 1 to 1. Read back for full details. I don't have anything to add right now.

Liz: Great video link. Not sure it has much to do with this, low-res and pans around a lot. But I found the fires on floors 22+23 disturbingly energetic when seen in motion.

Silverstein's psyop grammar is also off-topic, but always interesting.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on May, 19 2007 @ 11:58 PM
I'm just now getting my data back up, but still limited. This donated MB only has one IDE port, and no PCIexpress, so no big video card + 2 monitors, and only 2 HD's at a time. I've been so setback all month. Havent been able to do any image participation or the scores of projects i had going before the MB melted down.

Still hassling with getting it set up, but i can finally delve into my WTC7 archives and see what may shed some light here...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 02:30 PM
This removes any last lingering molecule of doubt for me.

The four purple circles show the major consistencies (there are others). The lower yellow circle shows an apparent missing window but this is smoke obscured in much the same way as the upper window, also circled in yellow is partially obscured. Smoke is actually coming from several windows on the west side and is thus present along the west face rather than being seen 'through' the gouge.

Any further anomalies (and there really aren't many) are caused by the perspectives - one of theses shots being taken by a ground level viewer lined up with the SW corner with the other taken from a helicopter from the NW corner.

posted on May, 22 2007 @ 05:09 PM
Here's another youtube video on the subject

[edit on 22-5-2007 by rich123]

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:42 AM
Why don't I just go ahead and bump this one?

Quick update:
I will accept the possibility that Zafar's photo was taken at 3:30, 3:00, even 2:45 as I earlier dismissed, or close enough to 2:00 that I don't have to accuse him of lying about that. I don't care about time.

This is not illusion. One photo shows damage after the collapse, the other is later and shows no damage. Damage does not disappear. Someone faked a photo.

All else precedes.
Anyone care to comment?

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 03:19 AM
Huh! Funny how people start out all hyped about photo fakery so long as the NIST is implcated. Once "one of our own" is shown the faker, however, people demurr and ignore the issue altogether.

I just posted my opinion on the issue at another forum and was linked to a PDF analysis of the photo controversy. As for the NIST/NYPD shot, it "shares some features with the other photos but it has anomalies that are suggestive of deliberate manipulation." The alleged manipulations include "this is also the only photo that clearly has its perspective, color and brightness/contrast heavily adjusted." "The brightness of the lower part is much higher than the rest of the photo." (which could just be the sun shining dimly through smoke a little brighter there). "the original photo [...] probably is already skewed," and "floors 15-12 are bent upwards" (or possibly bent inwards). And the perspective is no more distorting than the Cirrone and Miller photos, about which the aithor made no such gripes.

I de-skewed and analyzed the NIST shot with window and floor lines traced over, and then traced the damage edge in magenta.

This document explains of Zafar's image:
"An optical illusion gives the false impression of an intact corner (column) on the 12 th floor. The other photos show that indeed the corner was gone at this level." No mention is made of the "illusion" of the edges at floors 14 and 15 also being intact up to the edge. This might give more than illusion to floor 12, and to floor 13 between them seeming to perhaps show window frames.

Closer analysis shows the 12th floor "window" is more likely a forground artifact, but sldo shows more clearly that floor 13 seems to be shown intact. Visible buidling facade as I see it outlined in red:

So there seems a conflict.

The author did a montage analysis excluding the troublesome NIST image, and managed to fit Zafar's image with the others by, it seems, ignoring what is said at floors 14=15 (left). In the corrected version I propose (center), I gave the benefit of the doubt - any unreadable spot I left as damage, with only the clearly intact area re-colored, and a minor bit of edge damage left possible for good measure. With Zafar's image included thusly, it starts to look silly. Then I tried replacing the Zafar image with the NIST one, to see how that contradicts the rest of the damage. Oddly enough, it's closer to what the author first put together, and makes more sense (right).

Between Zafar's and NIST's there IS a contradiction that smoke and mirrors cannot explain. Problem is, NIST's image fits with the others and Zafar's does not. So where does that leave us?

[edit on 2-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 11:16 AM
Some excellent analysis and findings guys

I would just like to add that aside from the damage it has been suggested that some of the windows are duplicates (copy and paste). The image on the left appears to have rows of identical windows, most particularly row 11 and 10 from the top. The image on the right shows variation in all the visible windows. Its hard to tell though, I know how easy it is to do and there are companies that specialize in doctoring photos, I had a bunch of wedding photos done a few years back that had people and backgrounds edited in and out and you would never tell the difference!

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:06 PM
Alright then... Truthers who'd like to exonerrate Zafar - explanations? Illusion separating two photos that show the same thing? Zafar's real while NIST's, Cirrone's, Miller's shots all faked? Or just silence? I'm open to anything except that last one.

posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:08 AM
So we still haven't reached a verdict on this I take it? That's incredible.

Could Zafar be a diversionary disinfo agent? It's been awhile since I looked at this. Wasn't it just Zafar's photo's that caused the discrepency? Didn't "his" come out long after everybody elses?

posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So we still haven't reached a verdict on this I take it? That's incredible.

Could Zafar be a diversionary disinfo agent? It's been awhile since I looked at this. Wasn't it just Zafar's photo's that caused the discrepency? Didn't "his" come out long after everybody elses?

Thanks for asking. It's gotten quiet here.

I generally don't look at WTC issues in great detail, so there's a learning curve. I don't know when Zafar's photos were first published. But his photo was indeed to sole cause of alarm in this corner controversy and I still have a hard time reconciling the photos we were originally supposed to have a hard time reconciling, even after NIST's suspect photo has been borne out by other images and accounts.

Please don't take my word however on this issue before checking into it more. No one at JREF agrees with how I'm seeing it. No one here, at LCF, anywhere. I'm the only one I know of that looks at the original discrepancy and says 'My God, it seems there is a faker here and it's the non-official dude." The original majority version originally was NIST fakery proven by Zafar, and somehow it's now no discrepancy, just illusion, and the NIST's may be slightly altered or something... I've heard several different explanations of the illusion(s) at work, and none seem right to me. So I'm left feeling crazy and have dropped the issue for fear of looking even stupider to most if I keep pushing it.

People will remind you how Zafar stated he is not a Truther and therefore clearly he cannot be biased towards handing them doctored evidence to bolster a case he doesn't care about, only the unvarnished truth. Obviously (?). However, by whatever coincidence, there is also an argument for fires in WTC7 before anything collapsed [link], supported so far by several Zafar photos and nothing else I can see. His photos are also at least one of the sources supporting the disintegrating "spires" of the big tower cores during collapse, something I discovered with a Goregle search.

So if Zafar IS a photo faker, he's likely a serial one, and seemingly is being covered for by an apparent majority of truthers and debunkers alike, and I'm like the only one smart/brave enough to say it like I see it. So in all probability I'm just wrong and illusion is the only thing at work, and the WTC7 really was on fire as well, which is interesting, seemingly started inside on the upper and lower floors. Waiting for more verification of this one...

[edit on 8-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 06:59 AM
I have already contributed enough to this, so will keep my latest thoughts brief.

Neither Zafar's photo nor the NYPD's (NIST's) is fake. They show the same damage (apart from the 12th floor, which in the NYPD's image is simply covered by smoke) at different times, from different orientations and surrounded by different amounts/densities of smoke. It's as simple as that.

There are lots of examples of people not 'getting' optical illusions. They wouldn't be illusions if there was no ambiguity involved. For me, this is a case of suspicious people latching onto an apparent discrepancy and 'wanting' it to be so.

I have also had a lengthy email exchange with Zafar and am satisfied that he is not guilty of faking his images. Interestingly, he has told me that he has agreed to allow NIST to use his images in their WTC-7 study. Whether they make the final report or not, I don't know. That'll be one to watch our for.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in