Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WTC7 Faked Image

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Then I guess this pic is a fake as well?





posted on May, 11 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
One picture with smoke, one without? Mystery solved. This is really, really reaching guys. There was damage to the building, there are eyewitness accounts. It comes down to who and what YOU want to believe. If you look at all the abstract and none of the fact, you can create what ever you want including some of the lasers from space theories.

WTC 7 is a red herring to distract from the downing of Flight 93. It has been almost 6 years. Do we not think that during that time at least ONE person would have come forward with evidence of controlled demo or something as sinister.

Especially with Guiliani running for president. Perfect chance for the people who planted the thermite-micro-nukes-CD. It wasn't Bush or CHeney who would have planted that and it sure as hell would not be one person. Why has no one come forward?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
[removed quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link



Hmm sorry but did I miss something here? The discussion was about the first images posted in the topic, not about smoke. Where did those last two posts come from?

Back on topic - one can clearly see in that first picture the exact similarity at the top and the differences to damage at the bottom (try counting the column of windows on the right), and if the timing is correct as stated by previous posters the damage magically repaired itself as the one on the right was taken later. The only explaination is the photo is a fake. Whats more the similiarities suggest the time frame is pretty close if not the same, the top floors look exactly the same where as the bottom ones do not.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

[edit on 11-5-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
THere are 2 pictures, one with smoke the blocks the damage and one that does not. Also, that is not the SYdney Opera house, it is a walkway on WTC property. Does that explain what I said?

Who has a timeline for when these were taken becasue I did not see it in your initial post. You ask which is fake and post 2 pictures, that is it.

There is no faked image in your post.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Esdad, it's not a question of smoke blocking the damage. The corner columns can clearly be seen in the second picture in and around the smoke blow the level of the damage visible in the first picture.

The question is the timing of the two pictures. No has given a detailed timeline as I doubt it exists but conclusions are being drawn by bsbray from the shadows which, I have to say, I think is pushing it somewhat.

In fairness, bsb is, as usual, at least giving his reasons for what he is suggesting whereas one or two others seem uninterested is justifying their comments unfortunately.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
oops, dbl post

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Insolubrious]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test


The question is the timing of the two pictures.


The time frame would only really matter if one was taken before the collapse and one after, but since they both appear to have smoke and damage it suggests both were taken after the collapse, the damage to the top floors is almost identical too so it suggests the timing difference was very small (e.g if there was an hour or mores difference the smoke damage to the upper floors would of progressed or looked different).

I now wonder did WTC7 take damage from the first collapse or just the second?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I am just puzzled on why NIST had to Photoshop the image: their image actually debunks their whole theory, if that was the weakest point it would have for sure toppled over the weakest part.
So their are showing us an image which actually goes against them.
For me it would be more acceptable if the second picture was photoshoped by a Debunker saying: you see it had even damages that is why it felt in its own footprint.
The Nist picture if real would be the smoking gun for the 911 so lets hope its real.
LOL



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Hmmmm, I'm not convinced by the shadows to establish the timing I'm afraid.


Hmmm, I'm not convinced of your objectivity, I'm afraid.

You know you guys will try your damnedest to find something wrong even when it's obvious that there isn't. You know you will.


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.


The point is that it's further West. It has to have been.

The angles of the shadows in the first image are pointing back to the East of where WTC2 used to stand, and yet the angles in the second image point back towards New Jersey. This is pretty obvious just from looking at the images. Hardly any light at all is hitting WTC7's West side in the first image, which is why it looks so damned dark.


I think you're trying to make yourself see something wrong just so you can find a way to deny this, timeless. That's what happens when you want to deny something, and you know you do.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Then I guess this pic is a fake as well?



They don't even show the same part of the building.

Non-sequitur, totally unrelated to the point at hand.



Originally posted by esdad71
THere are 2 pictures, one with smoke the blocks the damage and one that does not.


Esdad, you must be blind. Please count the windows.

Take it row by row. Those images are lined up perfectly for a reason: comparison. One of them shows damage that the other does not.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
Esdad, it's not a question of smoke blocking the damage. The corner columns can clearly be seen in the second picture in and around the smoke blow the level of the damage visible in the first picture.

The question is the timing of the two pictures. No has given a detailed timeline as I doubt it exists but conclusions are being drawn by bsbray from the shadows which, I have to say, I think is pushing it somewhat.

In fairness, bsb is, as usual, at least giving his reasons for what he is suggesting whereas one or two others seem uninterested is justifying their comments unfortunately.


Timeless test, thanks for being here. Yes, the timeline is key. Damage in one, not in the other. It's officially caused by the larger tower's collapse (I forget, tower one or two?) so the only way these make sense officially is if the one was photographed before 10:00 ish and the damage shot later.

I'm with BSRay on the undamaged shot looking hard afternoon, sun from the west. (we're looking at the SW corner in both). Right there, it was undamaged in the PM, at least in the spot we're looking at... IF this one isn't the fake, that seems to counter the other photo, if not the official story (we'd need to count floors more for that).

The damage shot I'm not so sure. It does have uneven light on its west side and so could wellbe afternoon on a very smoky day, or some libght reflecting off another bldg? Was it part of the same helicopter round as BSray's pic?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Just for Esdad, I've put the contradictory areas in red boxes:




Hopefully now, with little effort, he can see where the problem is, and that it isn't smoke.


I could draw lines to trace back the angles of the sunlight, too, if anyone wants me to do that, to further clarify it. I think we can agree that the Sun is the only major source of light outside during the day.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Image searching:

From another ATS thread:


The original non-damage photo is listed elsewhere as "Aman Zafar's pic"
www.members.shaw.ca...
Apparently an amateur photographer who lived near the WTC, on the Jersey side (I've walked by that vary spot before after missing a bus)
His page is here:
amanzafar.no-ip.com...

This is to help sort out what's what here...



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   


This picture taken in the afternoon shows quite a bit of fire still going after the collapse. Thank you for the diagram bs but it is not necessary. we need to establish when the pitures were taken. When was the walkway damaged, during th3e collaspe of 1 or 2. That will give us the timeline you need.

Also as a side note, if you go to that site with the picutres you can find one that shows the WTC did not fall into it's footprint and that a sizable chunk was still standing and eventually fell. You never see those pics. check it out....



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
we need to establish when the pitures were taken.


Already been done. Try to keep up. Reread my posts on the first page of this thread.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
There are some questions on the NYPD helicopter pic - the faked (?) one. There seems to be sunlight on the west side.

BUT the other one is def. afternoon and again no damage then, well after the collapses.

There is no denying something is going on with this evidence.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I think you guys are approaching the timeline the wrong way.

Note, both images show fire damage coming from windows, correct? Damage that is roughly the same in both images, though in the 'faked' one it appears to be slightly greater.

So, I think we can all agree, both the pictures show buildings which had fires, correct?

One building shows damage, the other one does not.

But regardless of when the pictures were taken, ALL damage, including the fires in WTC7 were started by the collapse of the towers, correct?..

At any point before the collapse of the towers, the building should show no fire damage, one would assume - please, if I'm missing something here let me know..

Fire takes time to spread and cause smoke damage like that seen surrounding the windows on the upper floors, and the collapse of the towers being very close together, you can assume that even if you had debris from tower 1, and tower 2 hitting separately, at best you have a 20 minute window in which it is possible for you to take two pictures of WTC7, and show one with the 'scoop' damage, and one without, but both with fire damage.

Does that make sense?.. That's the BEST scenario for these two pictures to be real in my opinion.. that one was taken in some magical time before the structural damage happened, but after fire damage..

If there is evidence of fire in WTC7 before 1&2 collapsed, obviously my theory is just bunk, but I've never heard of any..



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I read nowhere in your posts where you established a timeline bs. You gave us vague descriptions of where you thought the sun was and that's all.

The 2 pictures in the first entry in the post, which picture was taken first? Simple question that you did not answer. If you need to do some calculations I understand.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
THEY ARE BOTH REAL !!! i just wish you truthers would get over yourselfs and stop thinking your gonna break this thing wide open ! theres nothing to break ! it's just one useless post after another and there all about nothing. holograms , fake cnn footage and on and on and on ...................................................................................................................................................... ........................--------------


sorry about the rant .. im ok now .



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Yes, there's all this fakery, like physics!...

There's no theory being presented here, only questions.. Do we not have a right to question?

Esdad, since you're asking about timelines, please, read my post above with reference to them.. what caused the fires in both pic but only damage in one?





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join