WTC7 Faked Image

Originally posted by bsbray11What did I circle? Are they shadows or not?

Two of the features within the areas you circled have sunlight catching their west faces. The west face of the middle feature goes off shot so you can't tell, but presumably it would too.

Coupled with the three feature I circled, which also show the sunlight catching their west faces, I'm confident this picture was taken well after 14:10.

Originally posted by coughymachine
Two of the features within the areas you circled have sunlight catching their west faces.

So what? The shadows don't indicate a light source from the direction you indicate. Do you realize this? Do you know what diffused light is?

Light which bounces off a rough surface or which is scattered by a translucent medium and which is thus reflected or scattered in different directions. Diffuse light causes soft shadows rather than hard-edged ones because of all the different directions in which the lighting is travelling.

photonotes.org...


Now tell me why my shadows aren't heading more East if the Sun was really where you put it.

The truth is that those images don't show shadows far enough off to not be accounted for by the different angles from which they were taken. The truth is that they were taken from the same helicopter pass, and the times would reflect this if you picked the right angles to analyze.

You sure cling hard to your case for someone who admits to being new to this kind of analyses.


Again:




Those shadows are going North, NOT East! Can you acknowlege this fact?

I want you to do so in your reply so that I know you're following along and not hand-waving this information away. I want you to rebutt this information if it is wrong, and accept it if you cannot rebutt it.

Also notice that there are NOT shadows as dark as mine going East. Acknowledge this fact as well in your reply, or rebutt it, or you'll else we'll be running in circles and I'll know just how solid your argument really is. You can't hand-wave this stuff away, coughy.

I have also pointed out the FACT that these shadows run perpendicular to that white structure, THEREFORE:



This is WAY off from the angles you assign from diffused light and etc.


Again, these are from the same helicopter pass!, as should be evident enough from the photographs themselves. Nonetheless, I want you to acknowledge reading and comprehending what I have suggested above, and rebutt it if you can. If what you're suggesting is actually correct, then you should have absolutely no problem whatsoever proving me wrong. Light angles are not an esoteric science. Tell me what is wrong with the items I have detailed above.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you know what diffused light is?

It's light at the same overall angle but scattered. It doesn't change the angle of shadows, just their sharpness.
I'm not arguing over the angle of light on that tangled-ass Verizon building roof. WTC7 on the north-south axis, light angle matching about 15:30 by CM's and my calcs.
So what do you think of the shadows ON WTC7? Are these too diffuse to read accurately?


If not, what do they say? I'm not saying it doesn't match CM's analysis - again, he's a novice and I'm no expert either and far lazier, but I think it makes more sense than your objections.

If this is incorrect and on the same pass, how far apart in time?If it was a five hour pass then I'm right there with you. Why no sunlight breaking on the west wall in one shot and light shining into the windows in the other? What the heck are you arguing here?

(edit to actually add picture - oops)

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

For comparison, the other helicopter shot, which you injected into the thread early on. It has its value as evidence of course, and fits into the pattern we're seeing - CM finds the sun angle at - whatever he said, about 1:00 pm, and that looks about right to me, early afternoon anyway and before 1:30 I'd say.

I'm curious what timeframe you suspect (1:00, 3:30, other?), what spread within that frame, and what is the relevance that so animates you? I'm sure you've already explained it but I could use a reminder...

Cheers

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by coughymachine
Two of the features within the areas you circled have sunlight catching their west faces.

Do you know what diffused light is?

Drop the attitude - I'm not a fool.

Originally posted by bsbray11 The truth is that they were taken from the same helicopter pass, and the times would reflect this if you picked the right angles to analyze.

I disagree

Originally posted by bsbray11You sure cling hard to your case for someone who admits to being new to this kind of analyses.

What are your credentials in this area?

Originally posted by bsbray11Again:

Those shadows are going North, NOT East! Can you acknowlege this fact?

You are looking at 3-D structures and somehow convincing yourself that the darkness of their rear face actually represents a cast shadow. It doesn't. It's simply the rear-end of the sructure in shade. The base of the uppermost circled object is obscured so you cannot see that true angle of the shadow it casts. The other two objects you've circled are too close to the edge to accurately assess properly.

Now, look below your third circled object at the angled shadow which clearly shows the sun was oriented to the west. This is not diffuse light.

Originally posted by bsbray11I want you to do so in your reply so that I know you're following along and not hand-waving this information away. I want you to rebutt this information if it is wrong, and accept it if you cannot rebutt it.

Rebutted.

Originally posted by bsbray11Also notice that there are NOT shadows as dark as mine going East.

That's becasue you're not looking at cast shadows.

Originally posted by bsbray11Again, these are from the same helicopter pass!, as should be evident enough from the photographs themselves.

I disagree completely.

Originally posted by bsbray11Nonetheless, I want you to acknowledge reading and comprehending what I have suggested above, and rebutt it if you can.

Acknowledged, rebutted and moving on.


ETA: Close-up analysis showing this photo was taken at around 3:30pm.



[edit on 15-5-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by coughymachine]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by coughymachine]

Coughy:
I'm no expert, but when I was looking for shadows to locate the sun, I scanned the whole picture. When my eyes passed overBSRay's three, and pretty much the whoe Verizo roof, I thought these are the wrong kind of shadows. He circles only these three, darkened a bit to be even harder to read, and pretends all others are irrelevant because of "diffusion." ALL READABLE ANGLES CAST BY VERTICAL LINES indicate the time you have mapped out. The only way to see ANY different is to look at confusing lines on a building oriented differently and ignore the clear lines.

I am through with this debate and moving on tomorrow to responding whatever MAKES SENSE. It's up to BSRay whether I'll respond to him. If there's anything else to see here I'd like to see it. Did we get a time on that expolision I'd actually call an explosion?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic Did we get a time on that expolision I'd actually call an explosion?

No. I've searched youtube and google video for different versions of that video and cannot find one that either pinpoints the payphone's location or else offers a timestamp.

Any New Yorkers here who can identify where this video was shot?

Here are a couple of things to add in to the mix.

From NIST NCSTAR1-8, page 112:

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn.

And this, from the testimony of firefighter Richard Banaciski:

...we actually searched the Verizon building, because there was reports of fires in there. Basically our whole house searched that building.

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Now, Banaciski is in the Verizon Building at 2:30pm, when the decision was made to evacuate the area. It's impossible to say how long that order would have taken to reach him, but we can assume, I believe, that it wouldn't have been too long. In the worst case scenario, maybe half an hour, forty-five minutes.....? But it could also have been pretty instantaneous.

Anyway, whilst he's on top of the Verizon Building, he sees the bottom corner of WTC7 missing. He seems to suggest that the order to evacuate came through whilst they were on the upper floors looking at the damage. This means the gouge must have been there between 2:30pm and 3:15pm (????).

If the gouge was there before 3:00pm, then we either have a problem with the time the 'undamaged' photograph was taken (my estimate was 2:56pm), or else we have a problem with the photograph. This assumes, of course, that the multiply-corroborated FDNY accounts are broadly accurate.

But even if my timing is wrong, it is not wildly so. In which case, I reckon the person who took that 'undamaged' photograph must have done so at a time that was pretty close to the time the gouge appeared. I wonder if there's more to come from this person - perhaps a 'damaged' photograph from the same angle taken a short while later.

Here is an amended aerial shot that includes my estimation of the photographer's perspective - the person who took the 'undamaged' picture, that is. It is the white line. The green line, marked 14:56, is my estimation of the line of the shadow in this picture, which was used to estimate the time it was taken.



Anyone disagree?

I pretty sure I have the time of this photo wrong. By some way. Ignore the blue line for now.



I estimated this to be shortly before 15:00 EDT but I reckon it's actually somewhere between 13:30 and 14:30. I'll post the detail later (once I've checked it) but has anyone else had a got a figuring this one out?

It doesn't change much - there was no tampering to begin with in my view - but it does widen the window we're looking at in terms of trying to determine what caused the gouge and when.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
It's light at the same overall angle but scattered. It doesn't change the angle of shadows, just their sharpness.

Exactly, and coughy is apparently arguing since there is some light on the West faces of some of the Verizon Building's rooftop structures, then the sunlight was coming from the West. The logic does not follow.

So what do you think of the shadows ON WTC7?

I don't see shadows. I see windows that are open, and it looks dark inside of them. I would say that's because there's no light on in the rooms and what little light is coming in through the window isn't enough to light them.

Originally posted by coughymachine
You are looking at 3-D structures and somehow convincing yourself that the darkness of their rear face actually represents a cast shadow.

No, I'm not. I circled three objects that have NO shadows going East, only NORTH. These are the only decently clear shadows I can spot on the roof of that building.

Now, look below your third circled object at the angled shadow which clearly shows the sun was oriented to the west. This is not diffuse light.

No, that's definitely not diffused, but I'm seeing a shadow come more from the South hitting an object that isn't on the screen.


Where is this light coming from?




Which of the two below are we seeing?

This?:



Or this?:


Which direction looks more fitting to you objectively?


You guys can cling to saying it was coming from the West, but that's not at all what I'm seeing.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
He circles only these three, darkened a bit to be even harder to read, and pretends all others are irrelevant because of "diffusion."

I don't SEE any other clear shadows.

If your shadow is barely visible, then I have a good idea that it's not caused by sunlight being directly obstructed by something.

It's up to BSRay whether I'll respond to him.

You're horrible at making observations anyway. My username is bsbray, not "BSRay". There's an extra "B" in it and you've not noticed it this whole time you've been responding to me.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by bsbray11]

This is my last response to you about this. I am satisfied I have called this right. If you disagree, then that's our agreed position. In my view, you will be wedded to the wrong conclusion.

Originally posted by bsbray11No, that's definitely not diffused, but I'm seeing a shadow come more from the South hitting an object that isn't on the screen.


Where is this light coming from?

It is coming from the structure marked in red. There is nothing behind it casting a shadow, as you speculated, since this is right near the western edge of the roof. It is being cast at an angle because the sun is neither coming from the South, as you assert, nor from the West, as you seem to believe I am asserting, but from the South West.



I gave you another example of this in my edit to the post you replied to, which you've made no reference to. It clearly shows light striking the west face (though again, not from due West).

The bottom line, in my opinion, is this: the two photographs in the OP were taken at different times. The NIST (NYPD) photograph was taken after Aman Zafar's and a long time after the other helicopter shot.

I do not agree that we are looking at image manipulation by NIST.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by coughymachine]

I have a feeling I see where the confusion is.

The 'base' of the Verizon Building is oriented at around 192 degrees from North (i.e. 12 degrees past due South). However, the 'tower' on the building is oriented around 210 degrees from North. Thus, these arrows are pointing in almost a South Westerly direction.

Originally posted by bsbray11Or this?:

Originally posted by bsbray11
Where is this light coming from?

This?:[north]

Or this?:[due west]

Which direction looks more fitting to you objectively?Which direction looks more fitting to you objectively?

On those carefully selected items it looks more north, ultimately tho it's between the two. The north sides of things are always in shadow, but the angle I see is between the two, closer t CM's. As for light on the west faces up there, you seem to have reflection confused with diffusion. Are there tons of mirrors up there bouncing the light over to the west, or is CM hallucinating this light? And if you cannot see and read the shadows on the window sills across the way then I'm not sure what's wrong here. I am still moved on, pretty sure your case is wrong and ireelevnt. Thanks for the long sidetrack.

Coughy: Pay phone locale - looks like a store or something, cheap siding, etc so not at the core. By sun there all I can say is they seem to be east of the complex on a north south street, presuming the boom is from there and they turn and look west. The building with the tree in front in the screen I capped a ways back is probably the best locator. Here it is again:


Good finds from the reportage there too.

You're horrible at making observations anyway. My username is bsbray, not "BSRay". There's an extra "B" in it and you've not noticed it this whole time you've been responding to me.

Fair enough, I feel like an idiot. Perhaps subconscious reflection, but you know who I'm talking to and I don't think I"m wrong here.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

And just to clarify why I'm moving on, let's step back and compare BSB's misleading northwest sun he says we're seeing vs. his not too-farr off direction from the differently-oriented and hard to read roof next door vs. shadows he can't see and Coughymachine's light angle for 15:31 AGAIN (not at the right perspective tho, angle as seen from above but here above and from the west-northwest, so the acyual angle at that time this shot woud be somewhat more oblique like my red widow lines and basically like BSB's lines)



BSBRay: (yes I move too fast and make many mistakes but not here)
All of these are pretty close, despite your efforts to make it appear otherwise we're all seeing about the same angle, you're just not looking in the best spot. They say somewhere around 3:30 while the EARLIER shot is from around 1:00. Can it be from the same helicopter flight but 2.5 hours apart? I don't see why not, and I'd love to grant you this point so long as you don't keep trying to defy the sun. Best to find a graceful way to concede the point.

This was so much fun in fact I'm done with WTC7 until I see something else cool in this or another thread.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I've had an email response from the guy who took the 'undamaged photograph in the OP and he estimates the picture was taken at around 2:00pm, which ties-in well with the more recent estimates I've made. I'll post my new stuff when I have it set out.

Interesting.. so he took a pic around 2pm that has no damage to that corner, and yet that corner collapses? later on?..

The very guy whose name I forget? He'll vouch for that? Let me be clear that we mean the same shot that I just finished analyzing sun angles for:




I'm putting together a post that contradicts that by a lot. My own guesses were way off from that. You had it a bit early too I think but noow the photographer says it's even earlier. Hmm...

Post coming.

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

Originally posted by coughymachine
I've had an email response from the guy who took the 'undamaged photograph in the OP and he estimates the picture was taken at around 2:00pm, which ties-in well with the more recent estimates I've made. I'll post my new stuff when I have it set out.

Earlier you had estimated it at about 3:00 pm. (I think this was the blue line at 14:56)

We've established fairly well that the sun in NIST's corner damage helicopter shot is about 3:30, so maybe this is a pre-damage picture. Sounds interesting. Here's the problem:


I used the light falloff around the circular top of 2 WFC (dropped in as a bar), shadows on the top thing there and on the Winter Garden, and they all lined up pretty well. I also noted no shadow or light difference on diff faces of 3WFC, which I take as light from a 45 degree angle there. Again, this matched up. If not perfect, close enough to superimpose on your time dial (orange).



I took the liberty of copying your colored lines to the center so it's more readable, and otherwise took your orientation and times. I took the three most different of my light direction lines and placed them.

If I'm reading this right, the photo was taken just past halfway between 15:30 and 18:30 sunset, so at about 17:15, or 5:15 pm. Give or take ten minutes, well take, since we could only give five before it collapsed.

Weird how this all lined up, and I need to have my work doube-checked but if I'm right, and I was careful:
Clearly no corner damage at about 5:15 pm in this shot.
Numerous shots of damage in that spot from earlier in the day.
Back to the OP photo comparison and talk of a faked image, it's looking like this one.
Light angles on a whole photo like this cannot be faked easily. But adding a little building back in with Photoshop is not too hard.
And now this guy has contacted you to say it was about 2pm? How likely is it he confused 2 pm with five minutes before it fell? And he seems a photo faker to boot?
I'm not naming names here 'cause I forgot his name, but save that e-mail, Coughymachine.



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

No response yet? Either I need to be shown wrong or else we're onto something. I guess it's a tomorrow thing as everyone just signed off as I was posting this.

The original non-damage photo is attributed to "Aman Zafar"
URL:
www.members.shaw.ca...
Apparently an amateur photographer who lived near the WTC. His page is here:
amanzafar.no-ip.com...

It says in part:

Recently, people have been writing to me with political views on what they believed happened. I personally do NOT have political views which involve any kind of government conspiracy and would NOT like to engage in such a debate.

The purpose of this site and the pictures is purely to share my experiences and those of thousands of other people on that day.

Please also note all these pictures are taken on 35mm film and are copyright of Aman Zafar (i.e. ME!!!!).

ALL PICS ARE SCANNED AS IS. NO SPECIAL EFFECTS HAVE BEEN USED. I DID NOT EVEN SHARPEN THEM.

***NOTE - A number of people have asked me if I still have the negatives. I do not have them. They were not in individual sleeves and when I took them out after several years, they got melted together in the heat (apparently it does not have to be in an over room temperature if they are in the same sleeve for 5 years), I had to throw them out ages ago. Clicking on the picture will give you the best resolution that I have.***

Well that's about that then. I guess I was wrong, and it's safe to use these to prove the NYPD/NIST faked that corner damage pics after all.

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

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

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