WTC7 Faked Image

Why is there so much smoke but not much flames like in the Madrid fire. In WTCs, the smoke was black... so the fire WASN'T hot. Also, much smoke = lack of oxygen = little fire = not hot = impossible to melt or weaken fireproof-construction quality steel.

Am I right?

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

Hmmm. OK, I can try an alternative method and see whether the result agrees or disagrees.

On the above image, if the time it was taken were noon, there would be no shadow at all, as the sun would be directly overhead. Sunset in NYC on September the 11th is 6:11PM, which would be a horizontal shadow, assuming a fictional unobstructed view of the horizon. The important part is that between vertical and horizontal is a time of 6 hours and 11mins.

Roughly measuring the angle shows that it is approximately 2:45pm.

Hope this helps.

Right... in trying to defend why I might have been so dumb as to consider an illusion, I'm getting wedded to a theory I really had no intention of getting wedded to.

Here's a comparison of the two OP shots in their original forms without being skew-adjusted.

The yellow lines show that both have the same number of floors. The red lines point to where smoke may be obscuring the building as opposed to being seen through the gouge. The red circles show where thin smoke appears to have crept around the building. The green lines follows the south west edge, showing that the gouge appears exagerrated by perspective - it's only 1 window deep at most, an amount that could very easily be obscured by smoke. The blue circle simply shows the jagged edge that's visible in both images.



This is the effect I'm trying to convey.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Caustic LogicOkay I see what you're saying about the column, but that doesn't explain the windows reappearing.

I'm not wedded to a view, whether mine or anyone elses. I'm not yet persuaded that either photo is faked, so I'm exploring all avenues, however improbable. I still assess the time of Zafar's to be earlier than you do at the moment - I have it around 15:10 (see below).

I try to never let any time be a total waste. I'ts an investment. I still see later sun, 3:30 at the earliest, and still maybe all the way up to 5:00 or so. My 'latest" line, atop the tower there in pink, is clearly off a bit, and so may be my winter garden placements, either of them. But I see this as the approximate window and without better clues, I'd guess somewhere near the middle of that span, not at the earlier or later edge. So let me revise my 5:15 time to about 4:15. This is actually about what I was guessing to begin with.

But this is secondary: the thread started as about photo fakery.

As for disappearing and reapearing windows, I tried to offer an explanation with my rather crude diagrams above showing the smoke. There was a lot of smoke around the area that was damaged. Some of this can be seen in the NIST image to have crept around the west side of the building. It seems possible to me that it is obscuring our perception of the windows there. One of the images in IIB's other thread shows the sort of effect I'm on about. Here, the smoke makes it impossible to tell whether there is a gouge there at all, let alone how big it is.

i know this is unsatisfactory, but I don't want to start accusing anyone of fakery unless all alternatives have been thoroughly examined.

Re that point: Yes, unsatisfactory IMO but good try. It's smart to run through options. It's smoke plus sun glare hiding damage as I see it, light wrap-around. This type of illusion can replace visible damage with smoke or glare, but not with windows and walls. Time analysis aside, there is good reason to accuse Zafar of fakery as I see it. I will continue to call this photo apparently doctored until I see a good enough reason to either lower or raise my certainty. I don't see it going downeasily.



[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by KarillaOn the above image, if the time it was taken were noon,

At noon, the sun would be at around 52 degrees.

Here is the data for 9/11/01, listed by time, then altitude then azimuth. Add an hour to all the times since they're quoted in EST and EDT was in effect on the day. Does this make a difference to your estimations?

Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

MANHATTAN, NEW YORK
o , o ,
W 73 58, N40 45

Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard Time

04:40 -10.6 74.6
04:50 -8.8 76.3
05:00 -6.9 78.0
05:10 -5.1 79.7
05:20 -3.2 81.3
05:30 -1.3 83.0
05:40 1.0 84.6
05:50 2.7 86.2
06:00 4.5 87.9
06:10 6.3 89.5
06:20 8.2 91.1
06:30 10.1 92.8
06:40 12.0 94.4
06:50 13.8 96.1
07:00 15.7 97.8
07:10 17.6 99.5
07:20 19.4 101.3
07:30 21.3 103.0
07:40 23.1 104.9
07:50 24.9 106.7
08:00 26.7 108.6
08:10 28.5 110.6
08:20 30.3 112.6
08:30 32.0 114.7
08:40 33.7 116.9
08:50 35.4 119.1
09:00 37.0 121.5
09:10 38.6 123.9
09:20 40.1 126.4
09:30 41.6 129.1
09:40 43.1 131.8
09:50 44.4 134.7
10:00 45.7 137.7
10:10 47.0 140.8
10:20 48.1 144.1
10:30 49.2 147.5
10:40 50.2 151.1
10:50 51.0 154.8
11:00 51.8 158.6
11:10 52.4 162.5
11:20 52.9 166.5
11:30 53.3 170.6
11:40 53.5 174.8
11:50 53.6 179.0
12:00 53.6 183.2
12:10 53.4 187.4
12:20 53.1 191.5
12:30 52.6 195.6
12:40 52.1 199.5
12:50 51.4 203.4
13:00 50.5 207.1
13:10 49.6 210.8
13:20 48.6 214.2
13:30 47.5 217.6
13:40 46.3 220.8
13:50 45.0 223.8
14:00 43.7 226.8
14:10 42.3 229.6
14:20 40.8 232.3
14:30 39.3 234.8
14:40 37.7 237.3
14:50 36.1 239.7
15:00 34.4 242.0
15:10 32.7 244.2
15:20 31.0 246.3
15:30 29.3 248.3
15:40 27.5 250.3
15:50 25.7 252.3
16:00 23.9 254.1
16:10 22.1 256.0
16:20 20.2 257.8
16:30 18.4 259.5
16:40 16.5 261.3
16:50 14.6 263.0
17:00 12.7 264.7
17:10 10.9 266.3
17:20 9.0 268.0
17:30 7.1 269.6
17:40 5.3 271.2
17:50 3.4 272.9
18:00 1.7 274.5
18:10 0.0 276.1
18:20 -2.5 277.7
18:30 -4.3 279.4
18:40 -6.2 281.1
18:50 -8.1 282.7
19:00 -9.9 284.4
19:10 -11.7 286.2

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Why is there so much smoke but not much flames like in the Madrid fire. In WTCs, the smoke was black... so the fire WASN'T hot. Also, much smoke = lack of oxygen = little fire = not hot = impossible to melt or weaken fireproof-construction quality steel.

Am I right?

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

You may be right, but off-topic. The whle building smoke thing is interesting, something I hadn't really thought of before, but I have no good thoughts on it now. What do you think of the corner damage? Anything to add to the discussion?

Originally posted by Karilla
Hmmm. OK, I can try an alternative method and see whether the result agrees or disagrees.

On the above image, if the time it was taken were noon, there would be no shadow at all, as the sun would be directly overhead.

Actually wrong, the shadow would be due north at noon, as it's the northern hemisphere. The difference is in the east-west-orientation of the shadows. To see this you need to do the 2-step process. Map out object lines with shadows for that object and draw a line on an overhead view.

Roughly measuring the angle shows that it is approximately 2:45pm.

Hope this helps.

Perhaps my method is wrong? I did just invent it with my own brain, but CM hasn't contested it, just line placement has been questioned, which is of course valid.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I didn't realize how many others have gone over this elehere.

Loose Change Forum

"Somebody definitely faked a photo... gotta find out who did it."

If we're looking for A fake, it's Zafar's, since there are multiple shots of the NIST damage. That thread ended by the end of April with no one reaching any conclusion. Just fun mystery metrial and a springboard for more arguing over the collapse. Lots of hot rhetoric tho.

Democratic Underground
He's been saying 2:00 since at least April 4. I can't see it any earlier than 3:30.Why the discrepancy I can't say. Also can't speak to any reason for his possible fakery, since he's clearly said he is not trying to prove any conspiracy theories and has no opinion and didn't alter a thing.

Hmm, it is a dilemma.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicHmm, it is a dilemma.

The time discrepancy is the main dilemma for me. I am rapidly firming up my view that neither is faked.

He said 2:00pm to me as well. I analysed a different set of shadows, much closer to where he was standing when he took the pictures, and found that 2:00 to 2:30 seemed about right (even though my analysis of the more distant shadows points towards 3:15pm ish). I know we've largely been analysing one of his shots, but the other one I posted earlier (re-posted below) is taken at the same time, as evinced by the shadows cast by the buildings south of 2 WFC. What do you make of the shadows on the bike?

The exact centre of this shot is the extreme left edge of 1 WFC. I have used this as a line-of-sight. This places him at 274 degrees from north.

Originally posted by coughymachine
The time discrepancy is the main dilemma for me. I am rapidly firming up my view that neither is faked.

Well firm away. I'll let that gel set for a while but I don't see how you'll do that. I've felt consistently from page one that one was faked.

He said 2:00pm to me as well. I analysed a different set of shadows, much closer to where he was standing when he took the pictures

Stop right there. He was taking pictures all day, and from different spots. He says they're in order but I saw the order on his page change between early this morning when I was posting this and later when I got back up (this one was at about 2:00 both times tho, above and then below the bike shot). The way to tell time IN THE PICTURE WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT is to measure the shadows, which I did. You got me to nudge that time back and loose my certainty, but that shot taken nowhere near 2:00, no earlier than 3:30 and probably later than 4pm. I don't care what shot's next to what.

And at whatever time, it's faked.

And what are you loking for here anyway? This is probably debris damage from the collpase and was there since 10:30 am. IF this photo is real AND from after that we got something. It's way after 10:30 and we have no damage, which means (??) - or fakery.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Why is there so much smoke but not much flames like in the Madrid fire. In WTCs, the smoke was black... so the fire WASN'T hot. Also, much smoke = lack of oxygen = little fire = not hot = impossible to melt or weaken fireproof-construction quality steel.

Am I right?

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Vitchilo]

I tought about it quite a bit and the smoke looks impressive compared to the small fires seen at first on WTC7.
Unfortunally we miss some evidence between the small fires events and the huge amount of smokes.
I think this topic actually deserves its own thread you should open one. Sorry OP for going OOT.

Originally posted by Caustic LogicAnd at whatever time, it's faked.

I disgree with you here mate - but that's okay.

I am made up on the illusion explanation. It's actually clearer than I thought.



Both images contain all windows and damage in the right places with the exception of one window (circled in red), which has clearly been obscured by smoke in the left image. The lowest visible window in the right image is partially below the Verizon roof in the left so is not available for comparison. The one above that is obscured by smoke in both images.

There is some thinner smoke further up that is distorting the appearance of the windows in that region but they are not missing.

Oops. I should have said possibly or apparently faked.Sorry if I've been too harsh on you, and I'm not sure why the 2:00 claims triggered this certainty, but I had the hunch all along. Multiple shots with damage vs. one without. Seems obvious.

Re that last anaysis: Looks to me like one of your red circles is on the outermost edge, the other one window in, and I'm not so sure there's no wall beneath that in Zafar's pic. It looks intact to me right down the line, tho harder to read due to smoke.

I appreciate going thru alternatives, but the less plausible they get the less time they're worth, and I never meant to get this sidetracked anyway. But with my point made and no one else commenting on it, I'll let it be for now and get some other work done. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and will take the credibilty blows that come from that.

Peace.

I think most who have looked at or contributed to this thread have done so asking, "which picture is faked?". I tried to start by asking, "is one of these pictures a fake and, if so, which one?" There is now no question in my mind - neither is a fake from both an analytical perspective and a logical one.

I know this won't persuade everyone, but unless it the following can be rebutted, I'm calling this a nailed-on case of optical illusion.

Take a look at what I hope will be my final comparison of the two images.

• The green lines represent the south west edge of the building
  
  
• The yellow lines represent the horizontal alignment of the top edge of the windows
  
  
• The blue lines represent the vertical edges of the windows
  
  
• The red lines represent the portion of the NIST photograph that is obscured by the north east edge of the Verizon Building
  
  
  
  
  
  ANALYTICAL REASONING
  
  There is only one potential anomaly but this is easily explained. There appears, at first glance, to be a missing window in Zafar's image (right) between yellow lines two and three, counting up from the bottom. However, this is an area that is partially obscured by smoke and, if you look at the right edge of this window in Zafar's image, you can see it's been severed by the trauma. This explains why the window appears dark virtually all the way to the edge of the building, rather like the two damaged windows above it. Look further up and the window edges are much further from the edge of the building.
  
  Those who don't accept that smoke has crept around the west face of WTC7 in NIST's image, will notice that it has in places in Zafar's and that it has obscured our vision. The same effect is in play with the NIST image.
  
  This leaves us looking for half a window in an area partially covered by smoke, which leads us into the...
  
  LOGICAL REASONING
  
  To argue fakery, we have to firstly somehow prove that smoke is not the cause of this half a window anomaly and then assess that Zafar chose only to manipulate this one area. He has left all the other evidence of trauma in his image, including what might be the straight 'gash', seen in ABC's news coverage to be extending down an indeterminable number of floors from the roof (represented by the purple circle). In fact, I would hazard a guess that NIST will use Zafar's images in its report to 'prove' the gash was more severe than the TV footage suggested.
  
  We would then have to ask why he would want to do that. If he was affiliated with NIST, what's the purpose of fakery? What does either stand to gain. Are we really so paranoid that we want to believe that NIST conspired with Zafar to get us crying fould over a couple of pixels?
  
  So, the alternative is that he is acting against NIST - a CT looking to put the spanner in the works perhaps. Surely someone looking so to do would produce something that was more obviously different from NIST's image.
  
  I don't buy either explanation. One bit.

Originally posted by coughymachine
I think most who have looked at or contributed to this thread have done so asking, "which picture is faked?". I tried to start by asking, "is one of these pictures a fake and, if so, which one?" There is now no question in my mind - neither is a fake from both an analytical perspective and a logical one.

I know this won't persuade everyone, but unless it the following can be rebutted, I'm calling this a nailed-on case of optical illusion.

You know I have to rebut.
I'm still digeting and thinking, post coming. I appreciate the thoroughness of your explanations and will make sure I get it so we can call it done and agree to whatever.

This has been an odd episode thus far.

And where did bsbray11 go anyway? I guess he conceded that earlier point?


[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Okay and one more thing, a quick re-post of an earlier observation that's looking possibly more relevant now and another illusion for you to explain:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

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

Firstly, skewing the image to allow for comparisson is misleading. It's distorting the NIST image horribly - see the green lines along the top edge of the windows. As we get near the base, these straight edges start curving. This plays havoc with our ability to analyse this image properly, which is why I reverted to the original.

That said, every anomaly you pointed out is explained by smoke (outlined crudely in pink). You can see the exact same effect in reverse. At the floor marked '1' in Zafar's image, the final window is 'missing' (as is the one above it). Yet there is is, clear as day in NIST's.

I think it really is that simple. Look at the floor marked '5'. Both images are missing a window at this point. In both cases smoke is the cause.

Believe it or not I finally get it. I think you're right.

Originally posted by coughymachine
ANALYTICAL REASONING

There is only one potential anomaly but this is easily explained. There appears, at first glance, to be a missing window in Zafar's image (right) between yellow lines two and three, counting up from the bottom.

Yes, yellow line 1, line 2, and there indeed it seems there's no window! (upper red box on right):

However, this is an area that is partially obscured by smoke and, if you look at the right edge of this window in Zafar's image, you can see it's been severed by the trauma.

There! I can see the column next to this illusory window is indeed gone as in the NIST shot (left), minus the smoke-induced window mirage.

This explains why the window appears dark virtually all the way to the edge of the building, rather like the two damaged windows above it. Look further up and the window edges are much further from the edge of the building.

aha! The "windows" are farther out there, a sure clue of complex smoke induced illusions that could make an uncautious investigator see fakery, when it's really just a trick of the light.

Those who don't accept that smoke has crept around the west face of WTC7 in NIST's image, will notice that it has in places in Zafar's and that it has obscured our vision. The same effect is in play with the NIST image.

Yes, I can also see the smoke. What at first looks like damage is actually smoke covering the intact building, whereas in Zafar's we have apparent building covering the smoking wound. I had it all backwards.

This leaves us looking for half a window in an area partially covered by smoke, which leads us into the...

Next post.


[edit on 17-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic LogicBelieve it or not I finally get it. I think you're right.

I was a little unsure whether your post was tongue-in-cheek until I re-read the first line.

I am absolutely persuaded by this explanation now. It would be good to have a few more views from some of the earlier contributors but I do feel a sense of affirmation given that you are now open to this explanation (I admire your analysis of the Pentagon impact enormously).

This has been a thoroughly rewarding thread and rather goes to show that we should 'maintain vigilance and calm', most especially when we're 'looking' for a problem.

Originally posted by coughymachine

LOGICAL REASONING

To argue fakery, we have to firstly somehow prove that smoke is not the cause of this half a window anomaly

Yes, smoke is what made half a window appear to be there when there was really none.

and then assess that Zafar chose only to manipulate this one area. He has left all the other evidence of trauma in his image, including what might be the straight 'gash', seen in ABC's news coverage to be extending down an indeterminable number of floors from the roof (represented by the purple circle). In fact, I would hazard a guess that NIST will use Zafar's images in its report to 'prove' the gash was more severe than the TV footage suggested.

Indeed I've used it for that. I assess that if that gouge is there originally (I think it's visible both above and below that point so I guess so) then he left it in. Not that he edited it at all, I'm agreeing with you here. All the anomalies are illusory.

We would then have to ask why he would want to do that. If he was affiliated with NIST, what's the purpose of fakery? What does either stand to gain. Are we really so paranoid that we want to believe that NIST conspired with Zafar to get us crying fould over a couple of pixels?

So, the alternative is that he is acting against NIST - a CT looking to put the spanner in the works perhaps. Surely someone looking so to do would produce something that was more obviously different from NIST's image.

I don't buy either explanation. One bit.

Right. I feel awful for ever acusing Mr. Zafar. I never could see quite why he might've chosen to alter stuff. I mean it made no sense and would have no audience or attention or anything. Not to mention that sowing false info among the Truth movement would ultimately prove harmful, not helpful, to his erstwhile allies. So clearly the damage is there in both, or at least in Zafar's (not so sure about the NIST's now that I see smoke there). All is well, no cause for paranoia after all. I guess it's just these tense times got me on edge.

Thanks much Coughymachine, it's been a well-caffeinated journey of enlghtenment.