WTC 7 photoshopped images?

[CGowen]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7419#comment



Obviously someone took the




and used a transform tool to get it into a different perspective

I tried it here

[MervinFerd]

1. I don't see any damage to that building. They could've move back in, if...

Silverstein had not told the Firemen to "Pull it".

Heck, the carpet was probably not even wet.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth01]

2. Yes, it does look like the NIST image is photoshopped...

Here is full series from Aman Zafar
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm

Burdon of proof is now on NIST to prove that they did not make up false evidence.

They would have to release the originals of this and other pictures.

Why would they make up evidence?

The truth will set us free.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Incredible photos at this link. Anyone else notice, at least on the side of the photographer's

perspective, there are no flames coming out of the south tower (just black smoke), and just a little more than a row of flames on one floor of the north tower?

[greyl]

36. What NIST image? nt

[KJF]

3. I'm not sure it's photoshopped

Maybe the smoke is just covering the building in that place, giving the impression there is a hole in the building.

[MervinFerd]

25. "You can't see the damage for the smoke coming from the gaping hole."

Jeebus Alex Jones on a Fire Truck shooting pictures with a disposable camera!

The place was an f'ing inferno, smoke was coming out of all orifices. The Firemen abandoned the place because it was making weird noises and tilting suspiciously. And, some Numb-Nut is trying to claim there wasn't any damage because he can't find an f'ing picture that isn't obscured by the f'ing smoke!

Jeebus H. Mohammed and Judy Wood in the cockpit of a Klingon War Bird, shooting dustification beams at PlaneT EartH! Would that these "geniuses" would confine their efforts to perfecting Cold Fusion.

[KJF]

29. There is no hole

The Zafar photo proves there was no hole in the SW corner made by debris from the North Tower.

[MervinFerd]

31. "You can't see the damage for the smoke coming from the gaping hole."

Right. A single photo "proves" the NYFD and the engineers of the NIST study are telling preposterous lies.

Do you have even the smokiest notion what a stupid assertion this is?

[KJF]

34. Gaping hole?

Here's Aman Zafar's picture of the SW corner:

?pic

There is no gaping hole in the SW corner. NIST found a picture where smoke covered a portion of the tower and claimed the smoke was a hole. The Zafar picture shows the SW corner was intact in the place NIST claims it was not. Abusing me isn't going to bring the hole back.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Gaping hole.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

The Steve Spak picture is the best view of the hole. It can be found at the above link by scrolling down.

[KJF]

38. That's a different alleged hole

There's no hole in the SW corner. NIST claims there was and it was wrong.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. So the hole in the SW corner in the Steve Spak picture isn't the hole in the SW corner.

:eyes:

[KJF]

51. You think the Spak picture shows a hole in the SW corner?

Where do you think this hole is in the picture?

[greyl]

37. Read post 20 and 33. They add clarity.

KJF: "The Zafar picture shows the SW corner was intact in the place NIST claims it was not."

NIST claims that the southwest corner had damage. The Zafar photo shows damage. The photos were taken at different times. This photo was also taken after the Zafar photo:

After WTC 1 collapsed:

• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
promenade structure at the third floor level
• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels
between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the
extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:

− middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
the ground
− large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
− debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the
atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
− from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars
were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the
visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side
possibly indicating damage extending to the west.

At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:

• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed.

Photographs support some of these reports and show additional damage at the upper portions of the
building. Figure L–21 is an aerial view of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1. There is no visible debris
on the roof; some minor damage is seen on the south side at the parapet wall. Figures L–22a and L–22b
show the reported damage between Floors 8 to 18 at the southwest corner.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

[KJF]

39. You're making it up

NIST claims there was a big chunk missing from the SW corner and at least 2 of the perimeter columns were severed there.

Study of this photograph indicates that at least two exterior columns were severed. p. L-18
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

The Zafar photo shows they aren't severed - NIST exaggerated the damage, based on a photo where smoke obscured the building.

[Bryan Sacks]

41. When was the Zafar photo taken? n/t

[MervinFerd]

42. Structurally, it doesn't matter. Using Deep Politics, and Common Sense,

I can determine that the evidence of severe damage to that building is overwhelming. And that there is absolutely no reason to doubt that there was damage.

This is an utterly absurd controversy.

[KJF]

52. About 2:00 p.m.

At least that's what the guy said on the thread at blogger. Given the windows burned by fire, you can see it must be some time after the North Tower fell.

[CGowen]

44. Hm

?pic


In this picture we can see maybe a hole from 7 to 12 on the south side, but there is no picture showing a hole from 8-18 on the W or SW side besides the pink NYPD/NIST one

[SidDithers]

45. Open a friggin' photobucket account...

and stop hotlinking images! I don't want to have to visit every 9/11 woo site out there to figure out what you're trying to illustrate.

Stop hotlinking and stealing bandwidth.

Sid

[CGowen]

47. Now the image has become bigger, here the smaller thumbnail

[greyl]

48. I'm surprised at you, Kevin. What exactly are you saying I'm making up?

Please use a direct quote in your answer.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that you're accusing me of making something up, because you're effectively accusing many people of making things up, despite the photographic, video, and logically concluded evidence that WTC 7 was severely damaged.

I know it can be very difficult to eradicate deeply held yet false beliefs, but c'mon. Do you believe this photo does not show evidence of damage to the southwest corner of WTC 7? :



Any ideas about what the object is circled in green?

[KJF]

53. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that...

... that photo shows the SW corner of Building 7 obscured by smoke. The claim that the SW corner suffered structural damage and at least 2 columns were severed is a figment of your imagination. The Zafar photo shows that no columns were severed and that the other two photos NIST used are just smoke in front of the building.

[mhatrw]

54. Hilarious! Keep showing this "damage"! It really helps your case!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[MervinFerd]

43. "You can't see the damage for the smoke from the gaping hole."

Jeebus! Mohammed! Vishnu! Mother Mary and all the Saints! Dylan Avery! Alex "Jim" Jones!---standing on a corner and taking pictures with a video cell phone!

Is there -any- reason, under Heaven or upon God's Green Earth, that there should be even a twinge of doubt that this building could have been and -was- damaged by debris from the collapse of nearby 110 story skyscrapers?

Any doubt at all?

What, indeed, is the reason that anyone would continue to beat this dead horse into the ground.

Jeebus! This gets creepy.

[CJCRANE]

4. In the 2nd photo

the damage may look worse than it actually is due to the way the human eye/brain deals with perspective.

[seatnineb]

5. Well....there was that huge fire on the northern side..........

Testimony from unidentified emt worker

"There was a huge fuckin explosion on the northern face towards the base.....and we just thought fuck.....we gotta get outta here before this fucker comes down!"

NIST draft report
Page 621

[CGowen]

11. Reminds me a bit of the movie "Deep Impact" or "Armageddon"

[eomer]

6. Either way...

...whether the NIST photo was

1. a photoshop intended to deceive, or
   
2. a purely accidental Rorschach test,

I can see clearly now that I was totally misled by it.

I previously took it as evidence that the whole corner was massively missing from 18 down. Now I see that the corner is definitely intact for at least 6 floors down from 18 (where I'm taking their word that 18 is the floor indicated by the arrow).

Either smoke obscuring the corner tricks the eye into thinking the corner is missing or else a photoshop job tricks the eye by editing out the corner. It looks to me like the former now that the possibility has been pointed out. But, either way, the corner is not really missing. There is only superficial damage all along that area of the building at and near the corner as can be seen clearly in Aman Zafar's photo.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. I'm sorry, I don't understand the claim

It appears that you're suggesting that the right half of the first image (the side with the Winter Garden in the foreground) is a Photoshop image using the SW Damage photo and transforming it as in the left half of the image.

Then you yourself transformed the SW Damage photo and the results are the third image, in which you've straightened out the windows to right angles, but you haven't compressed the image horizontally to reproduce the exact shape of the windows.

What you have demonstrated is that a Photoshop transformation properly corrected for perspective will look remarkably similar to a photograph taken from that perspective. Other than the philosophical questions raised, I don't see how you've proved anything.

[CGowen]

8. I did the photoshop thing for myself to find out if the picture was from the NIST image

The first image is not mine, it's from 911blogger. I just used my url.



the first picture is a mix of

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106. JPG (right)

and the SW damage transformed (left)

[Bolo Boffin]

9. So I am understanding you right.

Yes, that's what I said. You did the last one yourself, and I realize that it was just an experiment.

The link you provide in this last post doesn't work too well. It appears there's a hotlink block on it. Maybe this one will work better.

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

To get to the picture, you have to scroll down all the way to the bottom, past all of the other pictures taken by this person, to arrive at the one you and others are claiming to be photoshopped.

Are you saying that all the pictures on that page are photoshopped?

[CGowen]

10. well

I did not post the full link because it would post the image with the dimensions (2048px x 1483px) I thought this would be a bit too huge.

So I inserted a space into the link to divide it from the jpg


I'm saying the damage in the left picture is not the same as in the right. And maybe the corner wasn't damaged up to the 18th floor.

[Make7]

12. Off topic ---- How to post links to images

Thank you for not putting such a large picture directly in your post - it tends to screw up the margins requiring people to scroll left to right to read the accompanying text.

To post a working link to an image without it appearing in your post, you can usually just add a qustion mark at the end with a few letters. For instance, to post a link to a picture with the following web address:

     http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG

You could just add "?pic" to the end to get:

     http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc106.JPG?pic

When posted that should appear as the following link:

     ?pic

- Make7

[CGowen]

13. thanks

I noticed you know a lot of stuff about html, anchors for pdf pages etc.

Can you explain to me how to put background colors into blockquote or use different colors for text?

[Make7]

15. You're welcome.

I find that most inline CSS (cascading style sheets) code usually works with the DCscripts/DU software. One of the better web resources about CSS is W3Schools. (For those that want more information.)

DU has thoughtfully provided a link to their HTML lookup table on each 'Post a message' page.

Under the heading Blockquotes you will find their standard excerpt code:

    [div class="excerpt"]Text[/div]

Which will look like this:

Text

You can use inline CSS code to change the attributes of the excerpt element. For example, to change the background color:

    [div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #33ff33"]Text[/div]

Which will change it to:

Text

You can also change the text color and border color:

    [div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #33ff33; color: red; border-color: blue"]Text[/div]

Which will result in this:

Text

My normal blockquote is:

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color: #e6e6e6; border: solid 1px #000099"][div style="font-size: 77%; color: #000099"][b]username wrote:[/b][/div]text[/div]

To give me:

username wrote:

text

I usually use the hexadecimal RGB color values (e.g #33ff33) but there are defined color values for standard colors - like red and blue used in one of the examples above. For more information about choosing and using colors I refer you to W3Schools' CSS Colors page.

You can also use CSS to define colors in normal text using the html span tag. For instance to highlight text you can use the following:

    [span style="background-color: yellow"]Text[/span]

Gives you this:

    Text

The span tag can be put almost anywhere in your post - like in the middle of a paragraph:

Some years ago, when most computers only supported 256 different colors, a list of 216 Web Safe Colors was suggested as a Web standard. The reason for this was that the Microsoft and Mac operating system used 40 different "reserved" fixed system colors (about 20 each).

You can use the span tag to do many things within your post - e.g. change the font, change the text color, change the font size, etc.

    [span style="font-family: courier, serif; color: #008800; font-size: 18px"]Text[/span]

Text

Many of these simple things can be done with the html tags in DU's HTML lookup table, but there is so much more that can be done with CSS that I tend to use it instead of html even for simple things. The text color, size, and font type are probably easier to do with html.

    [font color="#008800" size="4" face="courier"]Text[/font]

Text

You can just use whichever attributes you require in the font tag:

    [font color="blue"]Text[/font]
    [font size="5"]Text[/font]
    [font face="courier"]Text[/font]

CSS and HTML are both subjects that are relatively easy to learn, with plenty of websites that explain it very well. The main thing when using it here at DU is to always preview your posts to make sure that things are showing up how you want them to. Forgetting a quotation mark or closing tag can do very strange things to your post.

If you have (or anyone else has) any questions, feel free to PM me any time.

BTW - All of the code examples above should work when directly copy and pasted into your posts - modify where necessary. And for the love of God please do not use the colors I chose in the blockquote examples - those were just selected to make things obvious.

- Make7

[CGowen]

17. Thank you very much.

And I'm not going to use any colors that will hurt anybodies eyes.

maybe I will have to experiment..........

[SidDithers]

46. Bookmarking THAT post...

thanks, Make7. Great info.

:toast:

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

18. So I'm NOT understanding you right

You're saying that the SW Damage photo from the police department is photoshopped (the one on the left), not the one on the right.

(PS: I was unclear about the link to the picture. Even adding the .jpg onto the end, the picture didn't come up. But I got to it anyway, and I haven't tried Make7's link yet.)

Okay. Now I know what you're saying.

What I would suggest here is that these are pictures taken at different times. The SW damage picture may have been taken after the corner collapsed. There is this idea prevalent in alternate theories that the building was the same from the collapse of WTC 1 until it collapsed itself. That isn't necessarily so. What we'd need to find out is the timing of these pictures.

[CGowen]

19. There is a poster on 911blogger, who claims the Zafar picture was taken at 2 pm

http://www.911blogger.com/node/7419#comment-129891

[Bolo Boffin]

20. I'd accept that.

So now we need to know when the police department picture was taken. I will point out that that gives a 2:20 hour window in which the corner could have collapsed and the picture then taken.

[Laurier]

21. Did you mean to type 3:20 hour window?

If the photo was taken at 1400, and collapse was at 1720, the difference is 3 hours 20 minutes.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Yeah. :) n/t

[eomer]

33. For clarity

As I understand it, the question is whether the photo on the left has been photoshopped twice. It has admittedly been photoshopped once recently to change the perspective to make it easier to compare with the photo on the right. But was the photo on the left photoshopped another previous time -- sometime before it was used by NIST -- to fake the missing corner?

And the other question is whether the apparent missing corner in the photo on the left is even really a missing corner. It looks to me (now that my eye sees the Rorschach based on the hint provided by KJF) that smoke obscuring the corner creates an illusion that the corner is missing.

There are now three possibilities for the corner that have been suggested in the thread:

1. The corner was never missing and the illusion of it was created intentionally by someone photoshopping the photo used by NIST.
   
2. The corner was never missing and the illusion of it was created accidentally by the way smoke obscured the corner.
   
3. The photo on the left was taken later than the photo on the right and the corner went missing sometime between those two photos being taken.

[quicknthedead]

22. The question/claim of this topic is a good one.

Either someone tampered with the photo NIST produced so it ended up showing extensive damage to the SW-corner portion in question, or else the damage is real due to a tremendous explosion (or something similar) that must have happened to WTC7 subsequent to WTC1's fall (and after the earlier-taken photo from amanzafar.com).

The earlier-taken photo...
?pic
...clearly shows this damage was not there when it was shot.

This site has good information in this topic's area:
http://www.studyof911.com/articles/winstonwtc701/

Can anyone provide an eyewitness account or other data to help substantiate evidence of an explosion?

[MervinFerd]

24. ROFLMAO!

ROFLMAO!

You thought I was going to rebut this crap, didn't you?

No, it's not worth the trouble.

Run along now.

[quicknthedead]

Do you ever respond with reason (much less a real rebuttal)? n/t

[HughMoran]

26. Who gives a flying fuck

The building collapsed and nobody died in it. Who cares.

[quicknthedead]

27. Why do you give such a moronic response? ~3,000 died on 9/11. n/t

[HughMoran]

28. NOT ONE in WTC7 - so what is your point anyway?

Didn't think so...

[greyl]

30. Some will tell you that one Craig Miller died when WTC 7 collapsed, but

the vague accounts I've read don't support that view.

Secret Service Special Officer Craig Miller was killed while assisting in the evacuation of one of the towers. Later that day, the USSS New York Field Office was lost as World Trade Center #7 collapsed.
http://pccw.alumni.cornell.edu/news/newsletters/spring06/riggs.html

And, shock!, there are contradictions on the House Floor:

Otter:Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed.

Master Special Officer Miller was at the Marriott Hotel that morning when the hotel was evacuated. Master Special Officer Miller had a military background and extensive emergency medical training. It is believed that he went back into the towers to help the wounded.

...........

Hoyer: Tragically, as the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) has said, the Secret Service lost an employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller. Officer Miller was on a temporary assignment in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and was nearby at the Marriott Hotel when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Although the hotel was evacuated, it appears that Officer Miller stayed behind to help.

Because of his military background and extensive emergency medical training, those who knew Officer Miller believe his life was taken while trying to assist the wounded. In fact, some of the medical equipment was later found in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel that that particular officer had in his possession.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:H51497

[dailykoff]

50. WTC 7 is part of the crime.

Establish who demolished WTC7 and you've got your suspects, like we don't already know they are.

[MervinFerd]

32. You ask a very good question. What -is- the point of all this?

Read all the "researchers'" theories, all the 'evidence'. You will never figure out what the Hell this is about.

Best guess is Insurance Fraud. The building's owner is accused of profiting from the collapse.

Doesn't make a bit of sense, but that's the best guess.

[dailykoff]

49. The survivors of those 3,000 murder victims, to start with.

Also the residents of NY/NJ whose property was destroyed, the US rate- and taxpayers getting stuck with the bills, etc.