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.

 

If One Photograph Is Faked From 9/11, Why Not All?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
I was browsing through this article concerning the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

I clicked on 'earlier article about the spire' detailing the strange disintegration of the spire and some things seemed strange to me regarding these two photographs.





First off, it is obvious, by the degree of dust dispersal, that the photographs have been taken in very close succession (1 or 2 seconds apart maybe) and by the same photographer. Furthermore, the second shot seems to have been taken from the same spot as the first, just zoomed out a little.

Observe, in the 1st photo, the yellow 'trashcan' to the left of the lamp-post, on front of the man with the white shirt.
Draw an imaginary line from the photographer, through the man in the white shirt, throught the yellow trashcan towards the building almost engulfed in smoke. Let this be the principle line of sight for the shot.
Observe the distance between the yellow trashcan and the lamp-post on its right.
Observe the car between the photographer and the man in the white shirt.
Observe the black man with the white shirt adjacent to the car.
Observe the colour of the smoke about to encompass the building is a very dark grey..

Now lets move on to the second, slightly later photograph.
Our principle line of sight is again taken as an imaginary line from the photographer, through the yellow trashcan and onto the building now almost completely engulfed in smoke, pretty close (but not quite) to our principle line of sight for the 1st picture.
Observe now that the yellow trashcan is directly behind the lamp-post.
Observe that the blackman in the white shirt, adjacent to the car in the 1st picture, has vanished from the shot.
Observe that the car seen in the 1st photo has vanished also, and been mysteriously replaced by a police SUV.
Observe that the man in the white shirt, seen on front of the yellow trashcan in the 1st picture, has suddenly, improbably, jumped position but seems to be in the exact same stance.
Observe the colour of the smoke has changed from being a dark grey to a light grey in a very short space of time.

As it is clear that these shots cannot, judging by the dust dispersal difference between the two pictures, have been taken more than a few seconds apart, we have to conclude that there is something very suspicious going on. The photograph perspectives seem to be at odds with one another.

I contend that these photographs have been faked. At a higher zoom level, all the figures and buildings in the pictures are pixilated around the edges, indicating that these graphics have been photo-shopped. The man in the white shirt is identical in stance in both photographs and has been cut and pasted in. More-over, if you zoom in to about 500%, to this man in the white shirt in the 1st photo, you will clearly see that a large chunk of the left side of the back of his head is missing. You will also notice that his right hand is in an impossible position, by the back of his head, with his mutant thumb distorted above his fingers.

I conclude that it is therfore meaningless to investigate, via the photographic evidence available, the exact causes and mechanisms of collapse of the twin towers as it is reasonable to suggest that if one photograph has been faked, then so very well may the rest of them. The confusion in analysing the collapse of the twin towers over the past 10 years then simply amounts to confusion arising from the analysis of faked imagery, which does not of course have to act according to any accepted laws of physics, just within the programming parameters of the designed demolition software.

Similar anomalies and impossibilities can be discovered on most photographic and video evidence relating to that day in september 2001.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Looks to me like 2 different photographers in 2 different places. But there is something a little odd about these



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Because some photos have more credibility then others....



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Here's my comment from the thread you initially posted in:

To be quite honest, the color content and vantage points are such that it seems obvious that those were two separate photographers. The guy would have had to have jogged to the left to get where the picture is taken on the later photo, and the quality difference is huge, so I can't see how you can claim both were by the same guy.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The photographs do not look suspicious to me. The photographer just moved about 10 - 20 meters to his left, probably thought the emergency car in the foreground made a symbolic composition. As long as he still has the originals there is software available that can tell if an image has been faked. It is based on the sensor noise pattern of each CCD and acts like a fingerprint, the government has it. ieeexplore.ieee.org...



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
just noticed off topic that in the bigger blown-up version of the picture thers a dark disc shape in the top left hand corner at the top of the furthest building
anyone else see it ???



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
No, those photos are clearly taken in two differing locations, albeit not far from each other.
The first was shot more to the right and the second was taken to the left.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I concur...most likely two photographers. Although the position of the white-shirted guy with the raised hand and his change in alignment from the lamppost between the two frames was initially interesting.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I changed my mind...
edit on 2/14/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Isn't that yellow thing a boat on the water??? For the life of me, I can't see a yellow trash can!

Edited to add that Anok beat me to it!!
edit on 14-2-2011 by Weeeden because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
i would suggest the photographer was taking pictures from a car in motion



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Weeeden
 


I thought it was a boat but looking at it again I think it's just the angle of the pics. Photographs are not exact reproductions of reality and things can seem to be closer than they are.

Or as mentioned could be two different photographers.
edit on 2/14/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanterZ
 


While that is true, I do believe these were taken at most SECONDS apart. Look at the man in the tan shorts with his right hand on his head. he appears in both photos. The spire look much taller in the first photo. It does also seem that one photographer is up much closer to the river than the other. The distance and angle COULD have played a role in "hiding" part of the spire in one of the photos.

Power & Praise

EDIT: You know what screw it, one of those photos is just completely bullcrapped. lol

edit on 14-2-2011 by My.mind.is.mine because: Realized the photos were faked.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Here's an animated GIF I made to help with the comparison for people who do not have easy access to image editors:



This helps with guessing the time difference as well as pointing out the differences in vantage point.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

LOL I still think it looks like a boat, it even looks like there's someone on top of it ( like a tour boat or something ).. BUT ... heck, it might not be! I've been wrong once before!





posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


the first picture embedded at twice the size of the second one, for some reason. check the link 'Earlier article about the spire' to see both pictures of equal dimensions. examine it closely to see that it doesn't add up, remembering the principle line of sight. These pictures were taken by the same camera, by the same individual with a one or two second gap between snaps, judging by the dust propogation.


edit on 14-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The Yellow Boat on the Hudson River appears to be the New York Water Taxi

www.yelp.com...

I think photographs and video were not the only pieces of evidence which were faked on 9/11.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:04 PM
link   
If that vessel in the Hudson is the New York Water Taxi, that would be quite odd since the first one was launched on September 25, 2002, one year and two weeks AFTER 9/11.

Oh, oh, someone has some splaining to do.

wapedia.mobi...



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Just a note to add here in relation to a part of the claim made in the OP... The spire didn't mysteriously disintegrate. It fell after the base buckled. In videos you can see it, where the dark center falls and the dust that had settled on the spire falls slower than the spire itself, making the appearance of disintegration, but actually just masking the falling metal.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
You can see that the steel is straight in the big one and bent in the small one indicating the photos were taken at different times. You can also see the water taxi(not a trash can) is closer in the smaller pic, the lighting and shadows are different the smaller picture was taken at some point after the large one. These are 2 different pictures from 2 different perspectives from different times, note the positioning of the man in shorts his hips are to the side in one pic and straight inline with his body in the other.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join