WTC 7 photos. Debunk.

These following photos have been classified as faked by many other websites. It is now time to have some ATS photoshop experts come to a conclusion. Where to start? How about having zero smoke coming out of the side of the building in those few broken windows, yet having the entire south face engulfed with smoke, even though there is only 4-6 fires reported in wtc7. How about having a imaginary force field preventing the smoke to pass the edge of the building. How about the pixel size differences in some of the pictures. Some smoke in one picture is more detailed than the rest, even when the detailed smoke is further away. It looks like high definition photos were mixed with low definition photos..

please... debunk these.. they scream photoshopped to me, and a few others...

...discuss









I think these photos were photoshopped or air brushed by the government to hide WTC7's south face. Maybe to hide the exact positions of the fires, because it would give away the fact that all the major financial bank floors are on fire. Or just to hide the lack of damage to WTC 7.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Also the first and second photos look to be taken from the same camera, from the same angle, within the same time period, yet there is major differences in the color of the smoke, and the detail of the smoke, and even the amount of smoke...

..sniff sniff... smells fishy to me..

upon looking closer, i see evidence of a "soften" tool used on the second photo, on the top of the smoke...

even evidence of the "soften" or "blur" tool, used on the edge, where the smoke magicaly doesnt pass.

I would really like to find the source of the smoke, because it looks like it was cut from a real fire's smoke. So I will be checking other photos and comparing detial.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

I do not think those are photoshopped.

They are consistent with the firemen's testimony.

Also theres this video.

www.youtube.com...

You can clearly see smoke billowing out of nearly every floor.

Why do you think that the firemen are liars?

www.911myths.com...

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini
graphics8.nytimes.com...


3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking
over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti
/paqux

4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango
graphics8.nytimes.com...

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. – FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy graphics8.nytimes.com...

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

...

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."– Capt. Chris Boyle /e7bzp

Perhaps I am just a layman... but the WHITE building in the foreground with the structural damage... why is the LEFT SIDE of said structural damage perfectly straight and blackened? This makes no sense to me.

Sorry, I'm referring to the third picture down, the white building above the glass arch-shaped building top.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheColdDragon]

Never mind, it occurs to me that it very well might be a shadow from another building.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by TheColdDragon]

Another video showing WTC 7 burning.

/f3tvd

Also you hear the firemen use the term "pull".

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Also theres this video.

www.youtube.com...

Thanks, that video proves that all of the smoke was not comming from the WTC7 but is smoke comming from WTC1 and 2. So these pictures can no longer be used as a foundation for any claims that WTC 7 sustained any large amount of damage from WTC 1 and 2.

Also, please show me proof that those quote's are from those fireman, you don't have any proof. Thanks..

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

You must be kidding.

Watch the second part of that video, that smoke is definetly coming out of WTC 7.

Here is another link to a slightly better version.

/zg4un


See those links underneath the quotes. Those are called sources.

Those are real quotes, and WTC 7 was indeed damaged and burning uncontrolled.

I don't know why you can't accept that fact.

In this video :

www.youtube.com...

The view is from behind WTC 1 and WTC 6. Both of them were on fire. The smoke is not from WTC 7.

Also, quotes dont mean crap, unless I see a video of the person saying them.


I can make a website right now, and make fake quotes, and link to them.. but you dont have proof of them saying it. I can play the proof game just like you....

Prove those fires are comming from WTC 7, and not WTC 1 and 2, and 6.

b.t.w test your links, or learn to link.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

And one time only...

Civility will reign in this thread, or my poo stained fingers will get to clicking.

Mod Note: Courtesy Is Mandatory – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: If You Have Been Post Banned – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: How Not To Be Banned From ATS – Please Review This Link.

Now you are being ridiculous.

I did not make up firehouse.com or the NY Times.

Here is weblink to the .pdf

www.nytimes.com...

Learn to link? Which ones don't work? Can you not read .pdf files?

I have already proven that with multiple pictures and videos. If that's not good enough for you, I guess nothing can ever convince you.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Now you are being ridiculous.

I did not make up firehouse.com or the NY Times.

Here is weblink to the .pdf

www.nytimes.com...

Learn to link? Which ones don't work? Can you not read .pdf files?

I have already proven that with multiple pictures and videos. If that's not good enough for you, well have fun living in a delusional fantasy world where the New York Times is simply made up.

Man you sure do know how to nit pick, or not read, one or the other...

I never said you created or own firehouse.com. So don't put words into my mouth.

Also, I can read pdf's, but none of your tinyurl.com links work.

You have not proven crap, you are showing smoke comming from WTC 1 and 2 and 6 getting blown onto WTC 7 by wind, and claiming the smoke is from WTC 7, thats pretty rediculous IMO.

Like I said in the other thread:

Are you now claiming that WTC 7 came down do to fire??

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Everyone needs to watch the video Screw Loose Change. Yes, it's three hours long due to all the useless angry rambling the narrator puts in, but it is still the best debunking video i have ever seen. For example, they show a building being torn down using controled demolition and then compare it to the falling of the towers. they look TOTALLY different. They also give us the very nice information that the tallest building ever brought down by CD (until 911 of course) was only 33 stories high, and took FOUR months to prepare, and thats without bomb sniffing dogs and all the employees. If you don't want to watch the three hour film you can also read The Guide To Loose Change. It links all it's sources as well, incase you're worried about that.


Screw Loose Change

Dude, I'm sorry that the video and picture evidence is not good enough for you.

Here is a page with the tinyurl videos.

www.911myths.com...

And yes, WTC 7 fell from severe structural damage and massive fires.

Again, why do you think the firemen are lying? Do you seriously think that the firemen are in on it?






[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Another video showing WTC 7 burning.

/f3tvd

Also you hear the firemen use the term "pull".

Since when do fireman have the power to blow up buildings? The term pull means to get everyone out of the building. Never has it been used as demolition lingo. For a long time has it been used as fireman lingo though.

That was my point Lizzie, to show the firemen using pull as term to pull out or pull back.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That was my point Lizzie, to show the firemen using pull as term to pull out or pull back.

Oh! Sorry. I'm just sick of people misinterpreting that statement, i get over-defensive.

EDIT: I found the page on the Screw Loose Change blog that deals with WTC7 screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

[edit on 27-1-2007 by lizziex3]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
That was my point Lizzie, to show the firemen using pull as term to pull out or pull back.

LMAO you people make me laugh so much!!!

There were no firefighters inside of WTC 7 when Silverstien used the word pull it.

Also, watch this video...



Watch how the use the word pull, when they are CDing WTC 6 because it was still standing until December, after WTC 1 fell completly on top of it.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]

Actually, they really did pull down building six with cables.

Hence the term pull.

However you just showed us that pull does not mean use bombs. I guess we can all agree sometimes.

We have never once heard the term 'pull it' being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers etc) to 'pull' the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six story remains of WTC6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway.

In the weeks following 9/11, several Protec building inspectors and staff photographers, including this author, were contracted by demolition teams to document the deconstruction and debris removal processes at Ground Zero. These processes included the mechanical pull-down of the remains of the U.S. Customs Building (WTC 6) and various other activities occurring simultaneously throughout the site. /z6zyc

On-topic.

Those pictures are real. The damage to Seven was real.

Do you have anything to support your accusations?

Maybe proof that all those firemen are lying?

Do you have anything?

[edit on 27-1-2007 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind


Do you have anything?

I can play your game too LEftBehind... here it goes..

Do you have any REAL evidence? At all? I dont see anything... heck..I took you off ignore because I though you might have some real evidence... but you still dont.... back on ignore you go...

G.W.Bush

I will have fun watching you follow the other sheep. I will laugh when the sheep dogs lead you all off of a cliff..

Prove he didn't say that quote.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by 1150111]