WTC7 Faked Image

Originally posted by Inannamute

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?

What do you mean which is it? It is both. You guys obviously have no proof, but at the same time you should keep trying because it would be a pretty big revelation to uncover a conspiracy of this magnitude don't you think?

Why does the photo on the right seem to "go into" the photo on the left up at the top-middle? If you were going to show 2 photos side-by-side then wouldn't there be just a straight line from top to botton between the 2? I guess what happened is someone just overlayed the photo on the left side on top of the larger photo, the one on the right. Just an observation because it looks weird...

So do you have copies of the FULL images? I would like to see the photos in their entirety if possible...

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Originally posted by Diplomat
You guys obviously have no proof

How is it obvious?

This very thread shows what I would consider pretty damned solid evidence of someone on the NIST's end of things adultering photographs of WTC7 to make it appear to have been more damaged than it actually was, but instead of following the logic, you barrage it with a million questions that are very easily answered by a 5-minute study of the area, and stop in the mean time to tell us we have nothing.

This is a very, very, VERY simple issue, relatively speaking. The other issues discussed on this forum are generally much more complicated and involve many more variables, but there's no shortage of people willing to look the other way, or settle for complete nonsense, when something doesn't seem to agree with what they already believe.

It seems like whether or not there is evidence for something is a matter of which side of the fence you're sitting on. Someone that is objective is a rare find.

Originally posted by Diplomat
So do you have copies of the FULL images? I would like to see the photos in their entirety if possible...

Go back to the first page of the thread.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Diplomat
You guys obviously have no proof

How is it obvious?


[edit on 12-5-2007 by bsbray11]

How is it obvious? How bout the fact that if there was one shred of real evidence or proof then it would be one of the biggest stories in history and would be on the front page of every magazine and newspaper in the world. Oh wait, I forgot, the U.S. government controls every single media outlet right...

Ok, there are the 2 side-by-side photos, and then there is this photo: www.kolumbus.fi... Did you just happen to miss this one or something? It appears to be a different angle shot of the same damage at the bottom of WTC7. So how do you explain that? Is that photo also fake?

Go back to the first page of the thread and read very carefully.

Meanwhile, I added in a few more lines to bsbray's images, to show a few interesting things.. apologies for the quality, but touchpad image drawing isn't too precise a science..



I drew lines to show the very similar nature of the smoke lines on upper floors, as well as circles around features that appear to match relatively closely..


Hopefully you can also see the numbers I put in - notice on the diagram on the left, damage appears to start around floor #1, but becomes very noticeable at floor #3..

Floor #3 on the right side does appear to have a small amount of damage or something, but the line of the building can clearly be seen going down beneath it undamaged..

Floor #5 on the right isn't very clear, it's possible it could be missing or simply covered with smoke, however the area I circled at floor #6 does appear to still show a window shape intact, as well as the corner of the building again..

In contrast the image on the left, by the time it gets to that area, is totally missing the entire width of a window..

Questions I have, however.. In the right image, it appears that there is smoke emanating from the building, whereas in the image on the left, smoke is apparently gone - though the damage is still there.. This would indicate to me that it's possible the image on the right was earlier, rather than later.. I'd still be questioning the cause of the damage though, since we still have a very narrow window of time in which the building should be seen to be sustaining smoke damage and yet not have received the damage from the collapse of wtc 1 or 2..

Originally posted by Diplomat
So how do you explain that? Is that photo also fake?

Its the exact same photo in the comparison. It was simply wrapped around so that it could be more easily compared to the other. This is explained somewhere on the first page, I'm sure.

Anymore brilliancy?

Well the original poster should have been more careful with his wording then, because he first posts the 2 photos in the side-by-side comparison, then says this about the other photo: "the above image was used here in this one below:" How is the above image in the side-by-side comparison "used here in this one below?" Did he mean to say that the photo used in the side-by-side comparison was "taken from the larger photo below?" I guess I got confused...

It doesn't matter. I'm still not seeing a good reason for those two photos to be contradictory, outside of someone intentionally messing with one to mislead people to the damage done to WTC7.

Originally posted by bsbray11
It doesn't matter. I'm still not seeing a good reason for those two photos to be contradictory, outside of someone intentionally messing with one to mislead people to the damage done to WTC7.

The photo taken by the NIST seems to have been taken later than the photo on the right taken by the photographer. In the photo taken by the photographer the fires seem to still be burning. In the NIST photo the fires seem to be dwindling down, if not out. So my point is, when the photographer took the photo on the right, it is possible that the structural damage shown in the NIST photo had not fully happened yet...

That's why we established relative times. Shadows indicate that the Sun was farther West when the second image, showing less damage, was taken. This was also pointed out on the first page of the thread.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's why we established relative times. Shadows indicate that the Sun was farther West when the second image, showing less damage, was taken. This was also pointed out on the first page of the thread.

In my opinion, the "shadow theories" are not sufficient enough to prove the times that the photos were taken. For now I am sticking with the theory that the picture that shows less damage was taken before the picture that shows more damage... You can tell because of the smoke from the fires...

Originally posted by Diplomat
In my opinion, the "shadow theories" are not sufficient enough to prove the times that the photos were taken.

So what's the "theory"? That the Sun sets in the West, that it moves towards the West throughout the day, that light comes from it... ? I don't understand the problem.

You can tell because of the smoke from the fires...

What makes you think the smoke from any fire remains constant over time? Even if you refer to soot marks or any of that, it's all suspect because there's no way to tell what was adultered and what wasn't.

See if you can find an actual problem with the angles I pointed out.

Well I don't know too much about analyzing photos or shadows, but to me it looks like the photo that shows less damage was taken in the morning or maybe around noon time, and the photo that shows more damage was taken later in the afternoon...possibly right around the time that the building actually collapsed.

I just know from experience that everything seems to be much more "brighter" in the morning, compared to the afternoon when the light from the sun seems a bit of a darker shade, or a more "orange" shade. So it's just my opinion, but the two photos look like they were taken at different times with a pretty large time-gap between them. Like I said, my guess is that the photo with less damage was taken much earlier than the photo that shows more damage...

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Interesting.

So I guess George Miller with the NY Transit Authority is compliant with this disinfo conspiracy too then?
"Lost" photos show ground level WTC7 damage and FEMA disinfo coverup




Why are the windows curved at #4+5 on the right side??

Why are the windows curved at #4+5 on the right side??

Originally posted by Diplomat
I just know from experience that everything seems to be much more "brighter" in the morning, compared to the afternoon

Building 7 fell at 5:20 PM in September. It doesn't get that dark that fast.

The reason that side of the building is so dark is because sunlight isn't directly hitting it. There are neighboring buildings in the way and the Sun isn't in the right position. Instead, sunlight was directly hitting its South side at that point in time.

The image showing less damage shows a brighter West side of the building because the sunlight is hitting it directly, because the Sun has moved farther to the West, is closer to setting, and it's later in the day.

Does it make sense yet? Or is there still a problem?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Why are the windows curved at #4+5 on the right side??

Because that isn't the original angle of the photo.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Diplomat
I just know from experience that everything seems to be much more "brighter" in the morning, compared to the afternoon

Building 7 fell at 5:20 PM in September. It doesn't get that dark that fast.

The reason that side of the building is so dark is because sunlight isn't directly hitting it. There are neighboring buildings in the way and the Sun isn't in the right position. Instead, sunlight was directly hitting its South side at that point in time.

The image showing less damage shows a brighter West side of the building because the sunlight is hitting it directly, because the Sun has moved farther to the West, is closer to setting, and it's later in the day.


[edit on 12-5-2007 by bsbray11]

I still don't agree. The photo which shows less damage still looks like it was taken very early in the day to me, not later in the day...

Also, the main NIST photo says it is showing the "southwest corner" right? Well that means that the sun is setting in the west, therefore making the buildings seem a little more "darker" than they would in the morning, so I think the picture that shows more damage was taken later in the afternoon...

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Diplomat]

Originally posted by Diplomat
Well I don't know too much about analyzing photos or shadows, but to me it looks like the photo that shows less damage was taken in the morning or maybe around noon time, and the photo that shows more damage was taken later in the afternoon...possibly right around the time that the building actually collapsed.
[edit on 12-5-2007 by Diplomat]

All damage was officially caused by the WTC towers' collapse, at 10:00 and 10:30 am. We're looking at the SW corner. Sun shines from the west in the afternoon. So why is there NOT the damage in the shot that is clearly afternoon? If the damage happened later, what was it from? Have you read the thread yet? Personally I don't know what it proves, but something is fishy here and has not been explained...

Inanna - great breakdown. That's exactly it. I don't think they're too far off in time, I think the left shot is actually somewhat earlier - look at window shadows, mostly from south, I think about 1pm. The one at right seems later afternoon with sun at hard west, fires worsening (did this happen or did they die down?) - note slightly more soot around the windows on the right. I think.

If the left pic is earlier, damage is disappearing. If the one at left is later, then the damage came from something other than WTC debris. Parhaps bombs, or photoshop. Or the Aman pic is faked to remove the damage... We need to authenticate the photos, and find all correllary pictures/info to get to the bottom of this. Pretending there is no discrepancy is just disingenuous.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicSo why is there NOT the damage in the shot that is clearly afternoon?

Because the photos were taken at different angled and then modified by someone, they are essentially useless as evidence. The attempt at matching scale is a failure as iib pointed out, you can see where the image was stretched to match.

Without better evidence than a purposely altered photo, this proves nothing either way.

Okay then, go back and compare the photos non-stretched as presented on page 1 beneath that. Find any spot that matches and count down __ rows of windows and tell me what camera angle can explain raggedy-ass edges like that compared to the solid lines seen late in the day? Don't be defensive, just look close. I'm aware of no photo artifacting that can seemingly repair buildings like that.

Disingenuous. Sorry.