It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

911 photo mistakes. Operational Suitability

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I started searching on the internet for some proof that what I saw in a photo of the Pentagon on 9/11 and somehting stood out about the pic. The grass was greener on the other side (no pun intended but...) of the photo then it was on the other. I attributed it to a bad photo and moved on. After seeing this photo on another website it looked totally different so I thought somehting isn't right here. And it ain't!

Check out this website below and grab a cold one (of whatever) and check out the photo I saw. its the one where the people are giving first aid to victims. You'll know it when you see it because it states exactly what I saw in the photo!!

A lesson in photo fakery and 911 operational contingencys

Fixed link & corrected spelling error

[edit on 9-1-2010 by mikelee]




posted on Jan, 9 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikelee
Check out this website below


I do not know what he is smoking, but he has no clue at all!
Look at www.911studies.com... he comments that a guardrail is supposed to be missing, problem the photos show a different area entirely.... so why should there be a guardrail there!



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The website mentioned has so many mistaken assumptions the person responsible for it should not be allowed out in public without adult supervision. I'm not even sure where to begin, like a slight angle difference in a pic can be huge difference a 100' out. Burn a car for a hour and see it lose its color, as well burn off the plastic and fiberglass and the bumper will look different. The 300zx has a gap between the motor and radiator that is full of rubber and plastic parts that easily could cause the hood to melt at that spot and of course it melted and dripped downward.

Someone else can add to the easily spotted flaws in this persons assumptions, the website, not the OP.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
edited*

never mind, i'm not even going to get into it . . .

delete my post if you wish.

[edit on 1/10/2010 by JPhish]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Just said it was interesting, thats all



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
I went through forty pages and realized (much earlier actually) the person has a very poor sense of spatial relationships and no eye for spotting which details in a picture are actually the same objects. Very often he thinks things are in the same perspective when a quick glance at angles shows very different vantange points. Then there's all the junk about the cars and other things. It would take too long to explain. The world must look terribly confusing.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
Look at www.911studies.com... he comments that a guardrail is supposed to be missing, problem the photos show a different area entirely.... so why should there be a guardrail there!


As far as I can tell, what is "left" in the large photo of the triage area is "right" in the aerial photo of the same area. It would seem that the photos are of the same area but just oriented on the page differently.

It is impossible for me to tell if these are photos of the same area as Mr. White says, without looking at other supplementary photos, which he does include on this site in regard to other allegations he makes about photo manipulation. His presentation of 9/11 photos is quite lengthly.

I'm not saying that Jack White can't make a mistake, but I am inclined to take him a lot more seriously than you do.

He is a well known photo expert who has done good work on photos associated with the JFK assassination. He is highly regarded by people who know that field.

Having said that, removing the guard rail from a photo, to insert a different backround could be done for a number of reasons in the context of publicity photos. Not all of these reasons need be sinister.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ipsedixit]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   


Having said that, removing the guard rail from a photo, to insert a different backround could be done for a number of reasons in the context of publicity photos. Not all of these reasons need be sinister.


I agree with you. After spending more time looking at the website I can see where some of the photos look as if they are just different angles as already mentioned but I can also see where some of the photos have been manipulated by simply looking at them from other websites. I have to pull into question under the "publicity" aspect is why a photo depicting a violent act would warrant being manipulated at all? Now I could understand it if the photo depicted a neighborhood and they cropped out an unsightly dumpster or other object like that for the sake of promoting to home buyers. But given the nature of the day on 911, photo manipulation by anyone would automatically place it under the scope of scruitny.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 

I agree with your general point about manipulation in this case. The only reason I can suggest for manipulating the backround in the case of the photo in question is that the view of the Pentagon in the backround may have been obscured by parked vehicles (as it appears to be in the aerial photo) and someone wanting to use the photo may have photoshopped in the contextual backround for the casual viewer.

I'm not defending the ethics of this, simply suggesting a rationale.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I understand, not trying to argue or anything like that at all. Just commenting. Have a good one



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
After spending several hours, i mean like 5 straight hours lastt night till early morning looking through every page on there im not even done yet i think i went through about 60 pages so far that was just pentagon photos. in the beginning i was like you all and thinking this guy is crazy thats just different angles and the guardrail and sidewalk are obscured by the one in the foreground. but that aside i was looking at his pictures for other discrepancies and red flags. the firetruck and the burning cars are real important even though it looks like a crazy guy mistaking different angles. in the first shot where the car is starting to burn it looks like a 350z and not a 300zx. look at the distance between the front wheel and the front bumper on a not burning 350z and 300zx you will see that theres no way the car thats burning at first (white car) is the same as the one thats burned at the end (300zx). then theres the way the background is manipulated, one second the burnt jeep is sitting in the parking lot next to he building, then its under rubble, then its under more rubble and moved further right. then it moves some more, then its got a girder throgh the windshield and over what used to be the roof, then in another shot its at a totally different angle and draped over the hood of the car. lots of discrepancies and differences in the scene from picture to picture. then theres the first shot when the fire trucks first arrived which i witnessed live on tv along with a reporter saying "it doesnt look like a plane crashed anywhere near here" theres no debris on the lawn and theres no dead bodies, or people running for their lives or anything. just a small fire and firetrucks putting it out. and i saw that they put it all out on tv. then later on theres more fire and the walls collapsed and theres wreckage everywhere and people carrying things covered in blue tarps. if you go through each page and scrutinize the pictures yourself in your own opinion and keep his in mind too you will see that the things that he says wash with your own thoughts on the fakery of the 9/11 event. im gonna go back and finish reading through all the pages, hopefully it doesnt take me another 6 hours, but if it does i dont care. this is the type of evidence ive been looking for even though ive found a lot and no one seems to care if the'yve already decided to believe the official story. but people who are suspicious should be pointed to this site theres just too much photoshopping going on for the official story to be true.

my favorite pictures of the series are the propaganda ones. with the washington monument in the background of the pentagon, then they replace the washington monument with capital hill. then capital hill again but this time larger, then a larger wash monument. people will say its because of the angle of the shots, but if you look at the aerial pics showing the scale of the washington monument and capitol hill in the background of the pentagon theres no way they could look that large as if they are DIRECTLY behind the pentagon unless you photoshop. just the fact that they are photoshopping subliminal patriotic elemtns into the pics is enough to raise all eyebrows. the absolute fave for me though is the firemen putting out the fire in the hole that this 747 went into without hitting the cars parked right next to the hole with the planes wings or leaving debris near the hole. in this shot theres firement like 3 or 4 putting out fire with hoses and theres AN AMERICAN FLAG RIGHT WHERE THEY ARE. i mean really? there was an american flag on a pole right where the plane went in? did the firemen bring the flag with them? or was the flag photoshopped into the picture. and why? for patriotic effect obviously.

im not saying you should just take it all at face value, in fact i though it was a disinfo campaign at first, but if you get past the first 10-20 pages you will see the rabbit hole getting deeper. you owe it to yourself to look through.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Oh come on, these are a bad joke.

www.911studies.com...

How can anyone suggest with a straight face that these two photos depict the same sign? They're clearly from completely different areas. The huge wall of fire in the background, the extra grass. It's ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
well like i said before if you went more than 3 pages into the site and saw all the photoshopping going on in the rest of the pictures it would be easy to believe thats the same sign being depicted.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by abcddcba]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by abcddcba
well like i said before if you went more than 3 pages into the site and saw all the photoshopping going on in the rest of the pictures it would be easy to believe thats the same sign being depicted.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by abcddcba]


It's absolutely clear from the photos that it's not.

Stop wasting people's time with nonsense.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
www.911studies.com...

wheres the debris? explosions are 360 degrees. when this "plane" hit the building and cause that huge explosion and fireball shown in those 4 frames of video captured from those 80+ confiscated videos happened there should have been debris thrown in at least the 180 degrees outside the pentagon do you not agree? the plane was going 300+ knots i know from all the reports, but an explosion has more force than 300 knots doesnt it? im asking because i dont know, but im thinking an explosion big enough to cause that huge fireball should also have had enough force to throw wreckage backwards out of the hole and onto the lawn and possibly even further out. so where is it?

not in that picture up there, none is this picture either.

www.911studies.com...

i think there might be one piece of something on the grass to the right of the gentleman in the foreground and behind those firemen.
www.911studies.com...

this is also curious. you could say its a matter of perspective, but no matter what angle you took either of the pictures on this page it cant account for the differences. look at the size of the cars vs the size of the wall in the backgrounds.
www.911studies.com...

hey look theres debris all over tha lawn now... how... odd.
www.911studies.com...

look a subliminal message. now do you think the firemen brought that flag with them when they came to put out the fire? or maybe it came out of the plane when it hit the pentagon and planted itself in the scene?
www.911studies.com...

too many discrepancies for the official story to work.
www.911studies.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by abcddcba
 


There are descrepencies in many of the official photos and after finding this site and looking at the first few pages, I thought "what the heck" and then went back to the site and did looking in depth.

Some things do not add up. But we already knew that.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Oh come on, these are a bad joke.

www.911studies.com...

How can anyone suggest with a straight face that these two photos depict the same sign? They're clearly from completely different areas. The huge wall of fire in the background, the extra grass. It's ridiculous.


Truthers can easily claim that, although the photo's are obviously totally different.

The "analyst" clearly has no idea of the foreshortening effect of telephoto lenses, or that a few feet difference from where the photo is shot can make a large distance hundreds of metres away!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
It shows how little "research" the kook at the website has done, as expected he tells the story of a blue tarp being used to hide a object....
www.911studies.com...

When in reality it is just a tent being carried into the site!

Again, the "analyst" has no idea of telephoto lenses, claiming that they are about to step on this aircraft part, when in reality they are several feet away from it www.911studies.com...

Oops, the "analyst doesnt even notice that the top firetruck has trees on both sides of it, but the lower firetruck has a tree only on one side, so it is obvious that they are 2 totally different locations....
www.911studies.com...

again the "analyst" shows his ignorance, in this picture he claims that a compressor fan is the same as a exhaust turbine.... he thinks they are the same part!
www.911studies.com...

So we just have another typical conspiracy theory site, devoid of facts, just making up stories, but the truthers think this shows a conspiracy!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join