The 9/11 Forum

NIST most probably will use the following photo in it's upcoming report.




This photo has been discussed at JREF. That forum is "noisy" and hard to read so I will extract the best arguments claiming it is faked.

The JREF discussion involving Christopher7 is linked below.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost2996595

Quite a lot of information around the link above.


It is compared with a photo by Aman Zafar below




The link to the Zafar photo is below. It is the last one before the night shots at the bottom of the page:

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm


Among the arguments trying to explain the obvious difference in photos were:

Optical illusion (refraction)
The Zafar photo shows the same damage but the angle fools us
The NIST photo was taken after the Zafar photo

I feel it is easy to debunk the first 2 explanations and Christopher7 makes some cleaver arguments involving shadows regarding the third.

I hope we can put forward the best arguments for forgery and against in this thread without the noise to which JREF is subject.

I'll be doing the "for forgery" portion.


And let's keep in mind that if this photo is faked, being taken by helecopter and having an NYPD stamp on it, evidence for high level manipulation of 9-11 evidence is rather damning.

Hi, Major Tom.

1) Optical illusion (refraction)
2) The Zafar photo shows the same damage but the angle fools us
3) The NIST photo was taken after the Zafar photo

I see no evidence whatever for #1, there is very little distortion in the photo at all.

#2 -- maybe, if by 'fooling' it is meant the apparent depth of the gouge in the NYPD photo cannot be seen in the head-on view of the Zafar photo.

And #3 makes no sense... what, a local collapse in the corner?

There is a patch of smoke right there. While, at first glance, it looks like it is within or even behind a cavity in the corner, upon closer inspection it appears the cavity is just imaginary and the smoke is really in front, obscuring the corner. That, of course, would mean there really isn't as much damage in the corner as the picture suggests.

Zoomed version with guide lines in the photo below, courtesy of Chris Sarns.




I agree that a local collapse of the corner makes no logical sense.

The local time in which the 2 photos were taken can be estimated by observing the sun's shadow in each photo. I'll follow with this info.

Christopher7 does a very decent shadow analysis at JREF at the following link

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost3010837

Posts before and after this link fill in the details.

Notice the customary verbal abuse to which he is subject during his analysis.

Leaked NIST WTC7 documents available at InfoWars:

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2867

http://www.infowars.net/WTC7Report/

Interesting...

Major_Tom:

OK, it's #2 or forgery. After looking at what you posted I put very little stock in my comment about the smoke. However, forgery on any level is a pretty serious charge (duh, I know that's what you're getting at). It sure looks like the photos do not depict the same level of damage but, personally, I would want more than two photos to compare in order to draw any conclusons.

Stills are a bitch that way, I really look horrible in some and acceptable in others. You could compare two candid photos taken on the same day and guess my weight to be +30% in one and -30% in another. I'm sure you see what I mean. Even a third picture that includes any of the bottom corner will help shed light on this.

I actually had already read much of the thread you linked to quite some time back. I'm aware of the controversy over this apparent discrepancy and have no answers. I lean towards explanation #2 for lack of anything better. To cross the threshold into assuming forgery will require some mighty solid evidence.

What I find interesting is, if the damage is as extensive as the NYPD photo makes it appear to be (and thus it has been assumed to be so extensive in the narrative), then Deputy Chief Peter Hayden's remark about putting a transit on a bulge in the SW corner at floors 10-13 becomes discrepant. I don't think you can have it both ways. Some may counter that the transit may have been trained on a position on the south face at floors 10-13 near the corner, but I believe the narrative claims a tremendous amount of smoke on the face. Not saying you couldn't sight a transit on an occasionally clear area, but he did say corner and, unless he's inclined to refer to a face as a corner, I'd take corner to mean corner. If there is no corner, then there are some questions to answer.

Moreover, I would expect to see a considerable portion of the upcoming NIST report on WTC7 devoted to examination of the nature and progress of the bulge, and how it related to eventual failure. There should be a timeline and narrative based on interviews with the firefighters observing the bulge and at least a qualitative assessment of the results of the transit observations throughout the day. I would be... let's say flabbergasted, if there were no mention of it at all. Clearly, it's highly relevant and, in fact, is one of the lynchpins of the notion that collapse was expected by some on the scene that day. Thus far, I've heard nothing on the subject in what NIST has said to date (I'd welcome references to the contrary). If their cutting edge modeling does not account for a bulge then I would say either the analysis or Chief Hayden's remarks must be discarded, a non-trivial result in either case.

PS 'customary verbal abuse' - no offense to the few JREFers who are registered here and may or may not check in anymore and read this but I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than post over there.

The following is a link to the Aman Zafar photo. It is 15MB but I didn't want to lose any data.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old ... tc-110.jpg

This allows anyone who wishes to zoom in as much as they please.

My own zoomed and cropped image of the photo is below.



You can clearly see the edge of the building down to where it is blocked by the Winter Garden.

Forgery is a serious charge.

I understand mistakes do happen, but considering the photo is taken by helecopter and has an NYPD stamp on it, if the photo is manipulated, and it sure looks like it was, it clearly suggests intentional invention of evidence to exaggerate WTC 7 damage at an official level.

This photo manipulation alone should be enough to make any thinking person wonder what the hell is going on here.

OneWhiteEye wrote:Moreover, I would expect to see a considerable portion of the upcoming NIST report on WTC7 devoted to examination of the nature and progress of the bulge, and how it related to eventual failure. There should be a timeline and narrative based on interviews with the firefighters observing the bulge and at least a qualitative assessment of the results of the transit observations throughout the day. I would be... let's say flabbergasted, if there were no mention of it at all.

Flabbergasted, yes. Surprised? Not at all. Came just short of calling it in advance; should have. But I really hate to be wrong.

Clearly, it's highly relevant...

Obviously not!!!

...and, in fact, is one of the lynchpins of the notion that collapse was expected by some on the scene that day.

Really?

...either the analysis or Chief Hayden's remarks must be discarded, a non-trivial result in either case.

Wrong again, dumbass.

Hahaha

The transit is mentioned on p 345 of NCSTAR 1-9 Vol1. The same quote oft repeated, no elaboration.