WTC7 Faked Image

Anyone have a map showing the wind direction that morning? Or can put one on top of one of those overlays?

I'm leaning towards all WTC7 damage being caused by tower 1 - but it's still sorta feasible that fires could have been started by stuff thrown by the wind when tower 2 collapsed..

Originally posted by Inannamute
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...

I know whatcha mean. It's very late now, and so no time tll tomorrow or later to get back into this and address points. I've actually been frustrated with the variety of opinions here. That might sound fascist, but what I'd like to see if facts come together so we can get to the bottom of this. I need to go back and re-examine my take, a tad confused I think. I'm sure we're onto SOMETHING interesting here. Somehow I'm guessing not a smoking 9/11 gun, but something worth figuring out.

First: can we agree that the sun shines from the east in the AM, from above at noon, and the west in the PM up till sundown? Does anybody disagree with this or see it as irrelevant?



[edit on 13-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I think I may have something, but my post on this will have to wait - will probably require a new topic and a fair bit more time.

Originally posted by bsbray11How 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.

My point is that maybe the perspective and smoke give the appearance of damage that isn't actually there. I do accept this seems less likely but it was just a thought. That said, the images IIB posted in the other 'Lost Pictures' thread seem to show a straight line down the edge of WTC7 in one and a gouge in the other - an effect cause by smoke and/or perspective.

The bottom line is I do not believe NIST has doctored a photograph (this is a NYPD photograph we're talking about isn't it?). This leaves one of three options.

[1] The damaged photograph was taken later, which leaves us looking for another 'event'. I've already suggested the loud blast that was captured on video whilst the guy was talking on the payphone might have been the cause; there was a cluster of fuel tanks on the fifth floor of WTC7 that could have blown, causing this damage.

[2] The undamaged photograph has been doctored. Unlikely, but possible.

[3] It's an illusion.

If we are left arguing that NIST's photograph is doctored, then we also have to argue that Steve Spak's video is probably doctored too, which, whilst possible I guess, goes too far in my opinion.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
First: can we agree that the sun shines from the east in the AM, from above at noon, and the west in the PM up till sundown? Does anybody disagree with this or see it as irrelevant?

I see this as irrelevant.

The original time estimations were based not upon comparing the shadows in the two OP photos, but by comparing one of them with a third police photograph, which was said to have been shot in the same helicopter swoop as the one in the OP. It was not, in my opinion. I think an analysis of the shadows in the photos in the OP shows that the both were taken in the afternoon and that the 'damaged' one was taken later.

That said, I'm no expert on image analysis.

Does anybody agree that the NIST photo doesn’t actually have to be digitally edited to qualify as propaganda? Their act of selecting and releasing a specific image in a public document representing their best case can be considered a purposeful act of deception.

This seems to me a reasonable way to see these photos; also to support this thought, did anybody see this?

“On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11: “

“2. Immediate release of 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage held by NIST, largely from private photographers, regarding the collapses of WTC buildings on 9/11/2001 (NIST, 2005, p. 81). In particular, all footage relating to the collapse of WTC 7 (including shots before, during and after the collapse) must be released immediately, without waiting for the NIST report on WTC 7, which is long overdue and may be prolonged indefinitely.”
www.thepetitionsite.com...


-Scrap

What you're referring to can be best explained as a "Confirmation Bias" (a cognitive bias, much different than the usual concept such as "political bias").

www.google.com...

Not very scientific. Be sure to also check out the others like "Disconfirmation Bias" and so on.


EDIT: You should start a new thread with that petition! And twist the "Skeptics" arms into signing it.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by coughymachine
My point is that maybe the perspective and smoke give the appearance of damage that isn't actually there.

But how can that be true when you can count windows and see that one image shows more and another shows less, not because of perspective, but because of actual damage that's only in one image?

I understand it was just a thought, but I'm not seeing it.

I am closing down on this one for now – that is, until more information is presented.

IgnoranceIsntBlisss - I believe I am inline. The NIST photos represent to me less reinforced misconception than active selection bias. In the former Big Boss says, paint me a believable picture why this building collapsed and her researchers select a photo supporting why. That’s I believe a correctly situationed conformational bias.

While pure researcher incompetence or a desire to pay the mortgage, I think many may agree that Big Boss has additional motives. Choosing a questionable photo to add to already subtle data is troubling and might only be justified when it supports a larger body of qualified evidence - not the case as of yet for 911. IMO

Lastly, I know this thread was about picts from WTC7 but did read a formal petition awhile back asking the government for verification of data on NIST’s testing methodology for WTC 1 and 2. While I have not studied the NIST report itself in detail, from the petition there are some fairly tough accusations. (e.g. NIST seems not to have been able to even get close to adequate floor truss deflection for failure in their physical prototypes without extreme control variations in experimentation.)

Buildings, planes, fires, etc., all offer that measurable quality which can evaporate BS.

-best Scrapple

Originally posted by coughymachine
It is possible that they're both genuine. The one on the left could have been taken later and after the loud blast that was caught in this video. This blast might have been responsible for the damage.

This video is the best I've seen. Direct quotes from Rudy and Larry.. fantastic.
I'll be passing this one around, thank you.

Originally posted by bsbray11But how can that be true when you can count windows and see that one image shows more and another shows less, not because of perspective, but because of actual damage that's only in one image?

My thinking was that the smoke had crept around the west side and obscured some of the windows.

Anyway, I've had a go at trying to determine the times both OP photos were taken. It's a little unscientific and I'd appreciate it if some of you would take the time to look and comment.

To begin with, here is the sun altitude and azimuth data from September 11th 2001, beginning at 11:30 and running through to 17:30. You can double check these for yourself here. Data listed by time, altitude and azimuth.

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

Now, a couple of approximations. The first, from the 'damaged' image. Ignore the times for now. The 13:32 line runs perpendicular to the building (the tower that is, not the base, which is broadly aligned with WTC7). The 14:31 line shows the angle of the sun in relation to the perpendicular, based upon one of the more measurable shadows. I estimate this to be around 20 degrees.



Next, the 'undamaged' building. The 13:56 line shows my estimate for the angle of the sun and an indication of the part of 2 WFC that I think is casting the shadow on the top of the Winter Garden arch. You can see the angle corresponds closely with the shadows cast by 2 WFC's raised facade to the lower right.



Now the full overhead with all times overlaid.



The picture, rather conveniently is oriented north-south. Thus the time at due south is 11:52.

Since both OP photos showed the sun striking the west face of WTC7, the time had to be after 12:21, given that the west face is angled around 192 degress from north. Further, for the sun to strike the west face of the upper tower of the Verizon building (as the 'damaged' photo does), it must have been after 13:32.

As you can see, I've rather crudely drawn the 2 WFC in 3-D in order to establish the area of the building, near its base, for the start of the line marked 13:56, which represents the shadow cast on the Winter Garden Arch by 2 WFC.

Given the angle, I have estimated that the 'undamaged' picture was taken shortly before 14:00. And, from the Verizon image above, which shows a shadow that deviates around 20 degrees from the perpendicular, the damaged picture was taken at around 14:30.

If these times are right, we are looking for an 'event' that caused the 'damage', which occurred between 14:00 and 14:30.

Originally posted by coughymachine
The bottom line is I do not believe NIST has doctored a photograph (this is a NYPD photograph we're talking about isn't it?).

NYPD photo obtained by NIST and included in their report last year, so vouched for by both and by IIB's photos (which show damage - barely - from two angles).

This leaves one of three options.

[1] The damaged photograph was taken later, which leaves us looking for another 'event'. I've already suggested the loud blast that was captured on video whilst the guy was talking on the payphone might have been the cause; there was a cluster of fuel tanks on the fifth floor of WTC7 that could have blown, causing this damage.

[2] The undamaged photograph has been doctored. Unlikely, but possible.

[3] It's an illusion.

3 is out IMO, 2 is possible, but 1 is most likely. Sorry didn't watch your video but I get the gist of an afternoon explosion. I wouldn't be surprised, but why the story change that the damage was inflictted at 10 am?

If we are left arguing that NIST's photograph is doctored, then we also have to argue that Steve Spak's video is probably doctored too, which, whilst possible I guess, goes too far in my opinion.

Que??

The original time estimations were based not upon comparing the shadows in the two OP photos, but by comparing one of them with a third police photograph, which was said to have been shot in the same helicopter swoop as the one in the OP. It was not, in my opinion. I think an analysis of the shadows in the photos in the OP shows that the both were taken in the afternoon and that the 'damaged' one was taken later.

Agreed - I misread the window soot, the fires had died down. They were close in time, both PM, IMO.

Regarding the timeline post - you’ve gone and shot past me on time analysis, with azimuths… I hope I can get all that. I wasn’t worried about times or even doctored images but the separate issue that the Spak photo is afternoon, if we can agree, and shows no damage in the spots where damage is in the other shot, meaning the hole was caused in the afternoon, and NOT from the twin towers’ collapse… I didn’t check the whole thing, but about 2:00-2:30 seems about right, and we have an afternoon event – if both photos are real – that did this damage attributed to the earlier collapses, which means a cover-up… .

And that is why we're onto something.

Also, is it just me, or are we kind of stuck on this southwest corner? Looking at the NIST's slide of WTC7 damage, what appears remarkable to me is the giant gouge in the middle of the south side that actually took out columns.



Why haven't we been analyzing photos of that? Why haven't I seen any anywhere?


[edit on 13-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic LogicWhy haven't we been analyzing photos of that? Why haven't I seen any anywhere?

Aside from the lower south west corner, the only damage we have photographic evidence of is this recent 'find' of a straight gash starting at the top and extending down an unknown number of floors.



There is no evidence yet to support the very large, deep gouge in the middle of the south face that appears in NIST's diagram that I know of.

That's a gouge? If I didn't know better I'd insist that's part of the building, way too perfect for a wound. Fact is I don't know better. I need to find pre-9/11 pictures. All of those on 9/11 seem to be oscured by that building high curtain of smoke. When it dies down, we only get to see the corner and this one passing shot? Thanks for the pic CM.

It seems the wind kept blowing south, helping us NOT see this gaping hole. How convenient... I need to run to the store for a few but will be back...

It's definitely not a 'feature'. Here's an unobscured view of the south face of WTC7.



More generally, here is a useful image library.

Taa-daa! That about does it. I'm scanning the official reports now to see what they have said regarding this damage. Peace.

For those not yet that familiar with the collapse of WTC7, here is a summary, including videos and commentary from eyewitnesses. It was not meant to be an exhaustive study, but it might be a useful resource those looking for an introduction.

Based on NIST citation of corner damage starting at 18th floor.
(Source: wtc.nist.gov...&CollapseAnalysi sPrint.pdf)
wtc.nist.gov...&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf
As far as I can see the NIST has not cited the vertical extent of this gouge, but cites the collapse as beginning with the columns damaged at the lower floors (below 13), so it seems to have run clean to the ground. Sliiiiice. I don't believe it was evacuated at the time.

Do people know about this?

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

From the NIST preliminary report, 2004 (my bad, thot it was newer - final report due out any day? Ben hearing that a while)
I may have found another shot of the gouge: Where's that jagged yellow glow between the bridgae and promenade coming from?