WTC7 Faked Image

Maybe this will help clear this up.



The segment on the right is from the damage to a different building that BsBray posted. All I did was flip it vertically. If this same damage was shot from closer to and looking UP, it would be easy to get the matching angle. I think the damage has been photoshopped in.

Here's another:



In my view its the same damage, and its alot more understandable being on the TOP corner of the building than the bottom, as the debris fell DOWN on it. How can debris falling from that height possibly scoop out anything?

Good job, although it may not need to be flipped vertically though to work (think i was wrong about that in my initial post). Have you tried the comparison without the vertical flip? (you may need a horizontal flip to match up, not sure)

Originally posted by bsbray11

The more I look at this the more I think the 'damage' in the first picture is an optical illusion formed by the combination of a different perspective and, more importantly, the fact that the smoke has crept around the side of the building, obscuring the corner and giving he appearance of a gouge.

If you look to the lower left corner of the left picture, the smoke is blurring the detail towards the base of WTC7. Move further right and that smoke becomes thicker and blacker in places creating the illusion.

I think I've spotted some dodgy photoshop work too:

The whole 911 conspiracy topic has finally gone beyond ridiculous. The pic on the right was taken earlier. My proof? It was before a big part of the building went missing.



Come on guys, you can all see the fires have dwindled down and at least some time has passed. Comparing the light in the photo's is pointless because the entire city was shrouded in billowing smoke and the light would have been changing from moment to moment, plus the photo's were taken from very different angles and probably with very different cameras. For heaven's sake the color's not even close to being the same.

You guys go ahead though, add another 5 pages of reasons why the government photoshopped the pics and draw lines and whatever you need to convince yourselves. I'm just a paid disinfo agent...

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The Images

This image comparison in IIB's ''Lost' Images' thread shows the sort of smoke illusion effect I believe may be responsible for the appearance of a gouge.

If you follow the edge of the building up in the left image, it disappears, creating a 'hole'. yet the right image appears to show the building intact at the same point, although this might be due to perspective.

Well if they say its an optical illusion than it must be....
Come on please

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
The whole 911 conspiracy topic has finally gone beyond ridiculous. The pic on the right was taken earlier. My proof? It was before a big part of the building went missing.

I also agree that the picture that shows less damage was taken earlier. However, I am starting to wonder about something. The picture which shows less damage also does show "some" damage. You can clearly see fires burning, windows broken, etc etc. So my question is, if the entire tower that effected WTC7 collapsed all at the same time, then wouldn't the "gouge" in the bottom floors of WTC7 be there basically at the same exact time that the rest of the debri hit, causing those fires?

Originally posted by Karilla
Here's another:

Thos edon't work because you have to stretch it horizontally to make the windows the same size, but then the hole stretches out too.

Originally posted by DiplomatI also agree that the picture that shows less damage was taken earlier. However, I am starting to wonder about something. The picture which shows less damage also does show "some" damage. You can clearly see fires burning, windows broken, etc etc. So my question is, if the entire tower that effected WTC7 collapsed all at the same time, then wouldn't the "gouge" in the bottom floors of WTC7 be there basically at the same exact time that the rest of the debri hit, causing those fires?

My first though on this, earlier in the thread, was that the loud blast that was captured on camera near WTC7 while the guy was speaking on a payphone, may have been responsible for causing the gouge. I'm less sure now; I think it could be an illusion.

In any event, I doubt very much this has been faked.

I do not agree with the conclusion that the 'undamaged' photograph was taken after the 'damaged' one. The claim was made earlier on by comparing another photograph, said to have been taken on the same helicopter round as the 'damaged' photograph. This that image was not captured on the same round, in my view.

Does anyone have any more analysis on the possible times these pictures were taken?

HI all - new to ATS.

Am I following this discussion correctly,

WTC7_RS (right-side comparison photo reoccuring within the thread) seems to have been taken after both towers had fallen. That is - if you believe the photo sequence from amanzafar.com, which I will until shown otherwise.

S/W corner of WTC7_RS is supported by the Helicopter photo (page1?) - both photos showing some scorching yet with the viewable structure seemingly in fit shape.

---------------------------------------

WTC7-LS (The left-side 'Photoshop' stretch comparison / NIST(?) photo with Verison tower in forground) are being questioned for possibly 'more' damage due to image clarity, smoke, later explosions, or photo tampering.

--------------------------------------
A fair tally?

If one assumes a smoke/angle illusion of more damage in WTC7_LS then all photos can be about the same time - yet after both towers have collapsed.

Aside from evidence that NIST findings are becoming as flexible as steel at Ground Zero, isnt the resulting image of a structurally stable WTC7 - post towers collapse - the real issue?

If WTC7_LS is showing more damage - it will have had to occur later than the RS photo and would require something other than 2towers to cause the damage.

My first thought on this, assuming there is additional damage, was that the loud blast heard in the video with the guy speaking on the payphone could have caused it.

At around floor 5, there were a number of fuel tanks tucked neatly into the south west corner of WTC7. Perhaps the fires ignited them, blowing out the gouge after the original damage had been caused. Alternatively, of course, it may have been caused by explosives.

I was going to post this last night, but reading and figuring out this post took about 4 hours.. Here's my analysis of all possible events on the day of 9/11 relating to WTC7 and possible causes of damage..

What caused intense fires well before the image on the right, but did NOT cause major damage?

Remember, the damage was supposedly caused by falling debris from either WTC 1 or 2's collapse, which happened very early in the day.. So the photo that doesn't show the damage MUST therefore have been taken before the collapse of the second tower, at the latest.

Which again, doesn't make sense, because the building in front (is that wtc 5/6?- sorry not familiar with which building is which from this angle) shows IT has damage from impacts of falling debris..

So, for the second image not to have been edited, we now have the following timeline..

(All data is taken from the "Complete day of 9/11 timeline" at www.cooperativeresearch.org.../11=dayOf911 - which seems to be a fairly well documented resource, including references for all points they make on their timeline)

9/11 WTC7 Timeline

8.46AM - Flight 11 hits WTC1 at floors 93-99, on the north side of the building
8.57AM - Jet fuel in WTC1 mostly burned up
9.03AM - Flight 175 hits WTC2 at floors 78-84
9.03AM - WTC7 evacuated "due to reports of a third plane", indicating two have already crashed by the time the building is evacuated
9.04AM - WTC7 alarms activate, warning of no water pressure and that the emergency power generator is active.
9.13AM - Jet fuel in south tower is mostly burned up
9.21AM - 9.59AM WTC2 walls may bow outwards
9.30AM - OEM command center in WTC7 also evacuated at this time, on the threat of a third plane alleged inbound for NY.
9.49AM - Police helicopter reports ' Large pieces falling from south tower '
9.59AM - WTC2 collapses
(After 9.59AM) - At some point after the collapse of one or both buildings, reports of WTC7 having a 'bulge' in the SW corner between floors 10 and 13. On the Vesey street side, ' 20 stories fall', first reports of fires on several floors.
10.23am - Exterior walls of WTC1 may blow outwards or inwards before collapse (South side)
10.28am - WTC1 Collapses - tilting south first.
(After 10.28AM, fire companies are seen trying to extinguish fires seen in WTC7)
11.30AM - Fire chief ordered to put out fires in WTC7 but does not do so. Fires on 6-8, 17, 21 and 30
(After 12.00) Silverstein and fire chief have their infamous conversation
12.10-12.15 Noon - Firefighters rescue three people trapped in WTC7. Two of these had gone to the 23rd floor before 10AM, but been trapped around the sixth floor by smoke and debris caused by WTC1 collapse at 10.28AM.
2.30PM - Firefighters decide to completely abandon WTC7 and final evacuation order is given.
4.10PM - CNN reports WTC7 on fire
4.30PM - area around WTC7 is evacuated
4.54-5.10PM - BBC reports WTC7 collapse prematurely
5.20pm WTC7 Collapses.

Now, things to note from the above timeline, which again is accurate as far as the above linked site is, as always contradicting evidence is welcomed by me..

1 - Due to the locations of the two towers relative to wtc7, I think it's most likely that all damage to WTC7 was caused by debris falling from tower 1 - the first to hit, but second to collapse.

2 - The earliest POSSIBLE time for there to be fires in WTC7 - and therefore smoke damage would be 8.46 AM - this is assuming that the plane which hit on the north side of the building (feasible, since this is relatively close to WTC7) sent burning debris to WTC7 which started fires. The likelyhood of this actually happening however, I judge is relatively low - the smoke damage is seen on multiple disparate floors in the above images, and there are no reports of evacuation due to fire, or fire alarms, only the water pressure and generator alarms, and the evacuations due to a "third plane"

3 - Note, the OEM command center is not evacuated until 9.30, well after both planes have been hit - unlikely that this would have been the case if there were fires in the building on many floors.

4 - Next possible fire starting time is 9.49, when the police helicopter reports falling debris, but this is from the south tower, not the north..

5 - 9.59AM is the earliest credible time for there to be fires started in WTC7, in my opinion - the collapse of the south tower, admittedly I would say has a lower probability of causing damage to WTC7, which is the third building away, but the large amount of debris from the collapse of the tower does make this at least a somewhat believable fire starting time.

6- There are no reports of fires in WTC7 until sometime after 9.59

7 - WTC1 collapses at 10.28am. This is the last possible time for falling debris to cause impact damage to WTC7.

8 - For both these photos to be genuine, therefore, the window of credulity is small - the first picture has to have been taken between at the EARLIEST 8.43AM, but before 10.28AM. Realistically, with no reports of the building being evacuated due to fire, rather than the threat of incoming planes before the collapse of the towers, I'd say the actual best window of opportunity for this picture is the half hour time period between the collapse of WTC2 and the collapse of WTC1 - that's assuming that fires were caused by building 2, but impact damage by building 1.

9 - The two people rescued had entered the building - heading for the OEM office on the 23rd floor some time before 10am, and finding it empty, since it had been evacuated at 9.30, returned down. They become trapped around the sixth floor.. If you assume at least say a 10 minute climb up stairs - I'd guess that since the generator power was being used at this stage, it's unlikely elevators were running - with a few minutes waiting around to discuss "ok, where are these people we're looking for, etc" and then another 5 minutes to return down, if they didn't simply decide to wait.. I'm assuming anything hitting the building would have been noticeable, note, they got stuck relatively close to the ground floors.. I'd therefore assume the earliest there would be fires on multiple floors, and smoke coming out of the windows would be possibly 10.15 - I also doubt these gentlemen would have entered a building that was already on fire on their way up. (cont next post)

The window for both pictures to be real, therefore puts the "smoke but no physical damage on that corner" pic being taken at some time between 9.59 and 10.30 - but with a necessary window for fires to reach all the windows damage is seen from.. So, more likely, 10.15-10.30.

The further narrowing, btw, is the fact that the building in front does show impact damage, most likely caused by the collapse of a tower, meaning the picture is unlikely to have happened before the collapse of WTC2 - further corroboration.

Make of this what you will. I prefer to approach all evidence from the idea that the official hypothesis is true, rather than looking for evidence to support my own ideas. To me, it seems very unlikely that there were fires but no physical damage clearly visible in such a short time period - fires take time to spread.. It's improbable, but not completely impossible.

Final thought. Why do all the pics that show damage to that corner come from such an oblique position? I'd think if you were documenting an event like this, you'd be photographing the damaged bit straight on, to show the extent of damage, a more 'heart rending' image..

Most professional photographers (which those pics seem to have been taken by) learn composition just a little better than that, one would assume..

Originally posted by coughymachine
The more I look at this the more I think the 'damage' in the first picture is an optical illusion

How does an optical illusion take out windows?

Count down the southern-most column of windows. It's no illusion. It's a totally different number, because there is extra damage in the NIST photo.

Originally posted by bsbray11
How does an optical illusion take out windows?

Bsbray11 - you could be right about NIST's wish/error - making their image fit a story. They seem fairly adamant that their pdf presentation shows S/W corner 'Damage' ; quote (page 15) "...floors 8-18."

wtc.nist.gov...

Here is amanzafar's WTC7-RS

Here is NIST pdf WTC-LS

I may be off +/- a floor but when you start from the top (47th) and work down its pretty clear that NIST either is fooling themselves or actively trying to pass off extra S/W Damage?

-Scrap

Question, do people even read the posts I make like the one above? It always seems to me that the ones I put the most work into get the least response.. that one took about 5 hours of research...

Originally posted by Inannamute
Question, do people even read the posts I make like the one above?

Inannamute

I went back and watched some wtc2 plane strikes thinking maybe flaming jet debris was a culprit for pre-tower collapse fire start in WTC7.
-Unfortunately, don’t have enough time to dig it out conclusively.

I did see some commentary at the Google INVISION power board by johndoeX, which adds to this thread I think.

This is GroundZero with potential damage zones

thewebfairy.com...

Ground-Zero from the air


Now looking North/East


With the Verizon building standing where it was in relation to the fall zone, its clean corner up to a +-10th floor makes WTC7 Southwest corner damage more dubious. Damage shown in the NIST photo to me starts to look more and more improbable – and most likely smoke/ misrepresentation.