WTC7 Faked Image

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
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.

Is the position of the sun not a good indicator of the time? One with damage is apparently after the collapse, possibly still AM or possibly PM. The other is also PM, seems not long before collapse, AFTER the tower collpases, both of them, and shows no damage in that spot. (tho perhaps below).

Please General Disaray, how can a PM photo show any less damage at the spot than any photo taken at any time, according to the official story? Damage doesn't disappear. One of these is fake.




posted on May, 11 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   


The Striped areas are predominant locations of exterior steel columns. Inner circles indicate radius of exterior columns and other heavy debris. Outer circles indicate approximate radius of aluminum cladding and other light debris. Heavy Xs show where exterior steel columns were found outside the debris areas. They were thrown quite far but seem to have missed WTC 7.

WTC 2 fell first and there was no reported damage at that time to WTC 7. No large debris from the plane hitting WTC 2 hit WTC either, as pieces were found in areas surrounding and past WTC 7 including landing gear. This means there should be no damage until WTC 1 falls, as this is verified as WTC 7 was the emergency HQ for sucj events and had to be evacuated after WTC 2 fell and it was found unsafe due to the damage and fires. Firefighters said this and most have you already know this.

So, If we look at the pictures, could the fires on the upper floors have come from pieces of the plane that hit WTC 2? This would explain why there were fires in the upper areas and shows no damage. It was taken earlier as stated and defined already and the damage would no be there sibce WTC 1 had not yet collapsed? Does this make sense?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Not really - you're saying that pieces of the plane that hit wtc 2 caused fires in wtc 7, correct?

If you look at the diagram, that's a pretty big distance for burning debris to travel, considering it would have to travel past wtc1, and over wtc 6, in under an hour (remember, the fire has to start and spread to show smoke through the windows in the pic showing no damage, before the collapse of wtc 1 causes the scoop damage)

Which direction was the wind travelling?

Would that support or debunk that theory?..



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I am jsut throwing it out there. I never really understood why the lower floors were damaged but there were fires on the upper. I was always on the fence that the collapse caused the fires in the upper floors. If other pieces were found I figured why not put it out there and see what other thought.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Ahem, but just what good is a timeline here, folks?

Innanamute's right--WTC 7 was damaged and caught fire when the north tower fell. That's all you need to know.

What difference does it make where the sun is in either photo? The building suffered no further exterior damage--so one picture is simply not true.

And it's obvious which one, as the damage is impossible as depicted, and other photos do not corroborate it.

That's the only thing that matters here. Timelines are pointless.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
This photographic analysis is of no practical value. You would need pictures taken from the same angle, one showing damage, one not showing damage, to prove that one was fake.

Stretching a picture with photoshop to represent an angle that it was not taken at does not prove anything.

It is sily to expect them to line up perfectly.

Let's look at the originals again.

Notice the angles that they are taken from.

First the NIST photo.



Notice that it is taken from the Northwest and slightly above. It is possible that the damage viewed straight on would not be so readily visible.

The second photo.



It is taken straight on, or slightly below from a Southwest angle.

While the match up attempts to correct for the different angles and the foreshortening it fails to match up correctly making it useless as a comparison.

From the first angle you can't really tell how damaged the corner would look from the other side, and since the windows and damage are extremely foreshortened in the original, you will need more than this to prove the NIST photograph fake.

Both photos are consistent with the eyewitness testimonies, and the second picture is not clear enough to show the extent of the damage on that corner.

The corner in the second picture could very well match up to the damage. If the corner was still mostly intact and then scooped out below, it would be hard to tell by looking at it head on.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by LeftBehind]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Uhh?

I'm confused as to what you're saying Leftbehind,

I mean, if you ignore the controversial area, I found that the damage shapes surrounding the upper windows in both images were very consistent - yes, obviously the angles change things somewhat, but how could damage viewed straight on be somehow LESS clear than damage that is in essence almost rotated away from the camera?..

If you look at the shapes of the smoke damage on the top row of four windows, you'll see there's definitely consistency there..

If the two photos were showing the same building at the same time, with the same damage, then you would expect it to be more visible on the picture taken straight on, than it would be taken at an angle both behind and above the damage..

Todays analogy will be.. hmm..

LEGOS!..

Build yourself a tower of lego or other offbrand construction toy blocks.

Make it say.. hm, 10 blocks wide by 20 blocks high, but on one corner, leave a 1 block wide, 5 block high strip 'absent"..

This represents your tower's damage.

Now, get down to eye level about say, 5 inches away from the tower. Start off perpendicular to it, so you're viewing the tower straight on.. Turn it so that the damaged blocks rotate away from you, and you're viewing from an angle similar to the "scoop damage" image.

in which case is the damage more visible?

Edit, forgot to add..

Eyewitness testimony - notoriously unreliable, see any number of 9/11 topics where eyewitness testimony to say, explosions preceeding tower collapse, etc etc etc is regarded as fake..

If we're going to accept eyewitness testimony, then at the very least we need character references, as well as the ability to discuss eyewitness testimony as being valid with respect to things EITHER side of the discussion supports..

If there was such extensive damage, why aren't there more pictures? The difficult angle?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Inannamute]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Do you people really believe that enormous 110-story buildings can completely collapse without severly damaging other surrounding buildings?

The debri DID in fact cut out a 20 floor gouge in Building 7, causing it to eventually collapse. I don't understand how you people think a building could remain standing when it has had like 25% of it destroyed and knocked out... not to mention the fires...

You guys even have a picture of the damage towards the bottom of building 7 and now you are claiming that it is "photoshopped?"


[edit on 11-5-2007 by Diplomat]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I'm reasonably sure none of us are speaking in such terms, we're merely discussing and analyzing..

In science and rational thought, there really is no place for belief, only for proof.

If you think we're wrong, offer some concrete answers to questions - eg the ones I posed, which asked how you could have fire damage in both pictures but only the structural damage in one, despite the fact that essentially both types of damage would have been caused by the collapse of one or both towers, ie, a very short time period.

I can assure you I'm a reasonable person, and will not respond with ridicule or attacks, and would ask you not to do the same.

Discuss the issues calmly and rationally and far more people will respect your point of view.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
I'm reasonably sure none of us are speaking in such terms, we're merely discussing and analyzing..

In science and rational thought, there really is no place for belief, only for proof.

If you think we're wrong, offer some concrete answers to questions - eg the ones I posed, which asked how you could have fire damage in both pictures but only the structural damage in one, despite the fact that essentially both types of damage would have been caused by the collapse of one or both towers, ie, a very short time period.

I can assure you I'm a reasonable person, and will not respond with ridicule or attacks, and would ask you not to do the same.

Discuss the issues calmly and rationally and far more people will respect your point of view.



Your questions are irrelevent. There is no proof whatsoever that there was any foul play involved in 9/11 other than terrorists flying planes into the buildings. The planes flew into the towers, causing them to collapse, the debri from the collapsing towers damaged the hell out of building 7, causing it to collapse. That is it. End of story... until you people can PROVE otherwise...



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Is the position of the sun not a good indicator of the time?


Not for Esdad?

And look at all the new debunkers popping up with petty rants, and absolutely nothing to post about the topic at hand. One of them even ended with something like, "I feel better now." That's appropriate.


The reason for establishing a time line is so that no one can say further collapses occurred as the fire went on, etc.

And yes, the implication is that the photos were adultered by someone between the time they were taken, and the time they were presented in NIST's preliminary report on WTC7.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?

You guys have been "licking" for so long now, and you STILL haven't gotten to the center of this "conspiracy." Do you know why? Because there is no conspiracy. So keep digging for things that aren't even there, you're obviously going nowhere real fast...



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Since we're all so delusional, why are you wasting your time with us?

If you don't actually have anything to add to the topic, please, take your insults elsewhere.

You so far have yet to say anything beyond "You guys are crazy, the official story is all true, shut up"..

Just because an authority figure tells you something, does not mean it's true. They often have many reasons, both benign and malevolent for doing so.

Or do you still believe in Santa just because mommy told you?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?


These are the kind of worthless rants I'm talking about. Off-topic, and confused.


Very simple question, man: do you see the difference, or don't you?




Do you see that they're not the same in the boxed areas?

I haven't seen you post much around the 9/11 forums so I'm just assuming you don't grasp the significance between NIST and the WTC7 report.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Diplomat
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?


These are the kind of worthless rants I'm talking about. Off-topic, and confused.


Very simple question, man: do you see the difference, or don't you?




Do you see that they're not the same in the boxed areas?

I haven't seen you post much around the 9/11 forums so I'm just assuming you don't grasp the significance between NIST and the WTC7 report.


Can you please show me some sort of source for these pictures? Where exactly did they come from? For all I know one of them might be a completely doctored photoshop picture made by some conspiracy-theorist teenager somewhere...



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
Since we're all so delusional, why are you wasting your time with us?

If you don't actually have anything to add to the topic, please, take your insults elsewhere.

You so far have yet to say anything beyond "You guys are crazy, the official story is all true, shut up"..

Just because an authority figure tells you something, does not mean it's true. They often have many reasons, both benign and malevolent for doing so.

Or do you still believe in Santa just because mommy told you?



Yes, it is obvious that just because an authority figure tells you something doesn't mean it's true. But you people have no solid concrete EVIDENCE or PROOF of this crazy conspiracy you talk about. I have done a lot more research on this subject than the normal person, and I am still not convinced by any of the so-called "evidence" that there was any kind of conspiracy. So keep trying... maybe one day you guys will actually find something...



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
Can you please show me some sort of source for these pictures?


One is from the NIST preliminary report for WTC7, and it's the one that shows more damage.

The other was taken by a guy named Aman Zafar if I'm not mistaken, and he has a site on the net of a bunch of pictures he took on 9/11. Not a conspiracy site, just a bunch of personal photos he took of the event.


So I take it that you're just going to assume that the faked one is the one with less damage, and Mr. Zafar faked it with the intention of someone noticing 6 years later? I don't know why it still surprises me, the crap that people come up with to continue justifying what they already believe.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Diplomat
Can you please show me some sort of source for these pictures?


One is from the NIST preliminary report for WTC7, and it's the one that shows more damage.

The other was taken by a guy named Aman Zafar if I'm not mistaken, and he has a site on the net of a bunch of pictures he took on 9/11. Not a conspiracy site, just a bunch of personal photos he took of the event.


So I take it that you're just going to assume that the faked one is the one with less damage, and Mr. Zafar faked it with the intention of someone noticing 6 years later? I don't know why it still surprises me, the crap that people come up with to continue justifying what they already believe.


Hmm, well first of all I don't believe those sources to be true 100% just because you say so, but I guess I'll take your word for it.

Second of all, I am no photo analyst, but neither photo looks doctored to me. So I am assuming there is an explanation for why these 2 photos look different. Are you 100% sure that both photos are even the same building? Are you 100% sure that both photos are of the same exact part of WTC7?



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Diplomat
Hmm, well first of all I don't believe those sources to be true 100% just because you say so, but I guess I'll take your word for it.


Look it up with Google. I don't have time to do it for everybody. Come back and prove me wrong.


Second of all, I am no photo analyst, but neither photo looks doctored to me.


The photos were probably physically altered before they were uploaded to a computer. This is just my opinion, and it would probably make it a lot harder to tell than to digitally do it with Photoshop or etc. Anybody remotely familiar with the Billy Meiers stuff, or whatever his name was, probably knows some of the tricks you can pull with a photo without needing computers.



Are you 100% sure that both photos are even the same building?


No, they're totally different buildings. One shows the South Tower and the other shows Banker's Trust.



Are you 100% sure that both photos are of the same exact part of WTC7?


Look at the soot marks.

If you're still in doubt, look at the neighboring buildings.

If you're still in doubt, there ARE photos of the other sides of the building.



posted on May, 12 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Um, did you even look at the photos? Look at the top row of smoke damage, the shapes of the shadows on the wall surrounding the windows are very very close to being identical.. Pretty good proof to me, not to mention the fact that the smoke damage going down lines up perfectly, window to window/floor to floor.. the only really major discrepancies in the images are related to the structural damage, not smoke damage.

First of all you tell us that we have no proof, that we're crazy and should stop looking, now you're telling us to "keep trying"..

Which is it?

We're not telling you what you should believe, this is not an off the wall thread, it's merely a reasonably calm discussion wondering WHY there are discrepancies here.. We are asking questions, searching for "PROOF" as you ask..

Again, please, if you have nothing to add to the discussion, stop posting.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join