posted on May, 11 2007 @ 09:53 PM
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..
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]