• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry Chris, but as a layman, I must categorically reject your image analysis (at least for now) because I suspect you aren't qualified to perform image analysis at all.

So, I will need a second opinion. Find an expert.
 
I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:

img168.imageshack.us/img168/7416/directionofsunlightmj1.jpg

If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.
 
Here you go phunk

phunk said:
I can't post images/urls yet I guess, but regarding christopher's image here:

directionofsunlightmj1.jpg


If you're going to use shadows to tell time, you might want to start by getting your compass pointing in the right direction. Vessey street does not run east to west, it's northwest to southeast.
Click to expand...

Added the image for you.
 
Christopher7 said:
More or less

The photo has been stretched out to make the damage look bigger.
How can the windows furthest away, top to bottom, get stretched to twice their normal size?
The photo did not come out of the camera that way.
Things further away from the camera appear smaller.

Classic denial IMHO.

The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.
So what?
The damage on 14 and 15 is clearly different in the two photos.
Click to expand...


The corner cannot be seen, but the fascia between the corner and the windows can be seen, and the windows on 14 and 15 still have their rectangular shape in the Zafar photo but not in the NIST photo.
In the NIST photo, the wall is pushed in. No sign of this in the Zafar photo.
Click to expand...

Ah, but here you are guessing what we see is exterior wall material, it could be anything, even crushed wall, interior wall, anything, you take a superficial resemblance and assume much, particularly since we KNOW that corner has been damaged. You have no more than a barely tenable hypothesis here. Calling fake is pure speculation.

That there is a distortion which may exaggerate the damage in favor of the OS, oh so slightly, is a more rersonable suggestion. Now find out why it is distorted detective Chris.
 
Chris look closely at your supposed rectangular windows on 14 and 15, in the lower angled shot, the window ends at the corner are broken off - there is clearly an indentation - what appears to maybe be the window edge is not an edge at all. This is easy to miss with the straight on angle. But imagine moving the camera around to the side ever so slightly and suddenly those areas indented and deeper in will at a point vanish, and leave what we see in the NIST photo.
 
Christopher7 said:
Effects of light refraction? Grasp at straws much?
There are distortions but the corner windows on 14 and 15 and the fascia around them is clearly missing or severely damaged in the NIST photo and clearly there in the other photo.

copyofmmcompairlc1.png


No. There is stuff hanging from a raged edge and the windows on 14 and 15 are just not there in the NIST photo.
Click to expand...

No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report and the original Aman Zafar photo and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.
 
Norseman said:
No, the corner windows on 14 and 15 are present in the NYPD photo. But they are heavily miss aligned optically by light refraction since this happens to be the area with most smoke, therefore also very likely the area with the highest air temperature on the West face of the building.

Just follow the space between the windows from the floors above, then it will be easier to make out the corner windows on floor 14 and 15 in the NYPD photo. Also notice that the piece of debris hanging from the corner window on floor 15 is present in both the NYPD picture and the Aman Zafar picture. The corner area below floor 14 in the NYPD photo is hidden by smoke.

This will be even easier to see if you go to the NYPD photo in the NIST interim report and the original Aman Zafar photo and blow them up side by side in their own windows.

Also when you look at the large original of the Aman Zafar photo, take a look at the corner on the fourth floor from the top. Notice the missing corner plates there. If you then look at the corner on floor 14 and 15 it should be evident that the corner plates are gone there to.

The effect of light refraction is also noticeable in the same area in the Aman Zafar photo to. But the effect is not as severe as in the NYPD photo, because the light went through less hot air/smoke close to the building face compared with the NYPD photo that was taken from above.
Click to expand...
Refraction, my elbow.
In the NIST photo, the west side is pushed in. The corner is gone and what's left of the window on 14 is heavily damaged.

Here's another comparison:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Kinda makesya think thats the way it was in the first place.
Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.

cornercomposituz7.png
 
Christopher7 said:
The NIST photo has been rotated [using software] to where we are looking straight at it, and waddya know, the windows are the right size now.
Click to expand...

What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...


Christopher7 said:
Note that the whole corner is gone.
In the Zafar photo There's something there.
Click to expand...

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all. Thanks for clearing that up - I might bookmark your post and use it for debunking next time someone claims that the two photos disagree.

Dave
 
If you have software that could take away the smoke and the dust etc, this would be a good time to use it otherwise your analysis is useless

Why would they fake a photo saying the fires had gone out earlier than they needed to when they would have been better faking them to show more fires that lasted longer. It would have supported the official theory better.

There is no point in faking the photo to make the damage look worse, why not just focus on the huge gouge and use that?

explosive type please C7? stop running away
 
Where does the rotational software aquire the data to create parts of the image that the lens could not see? You want fake, there's your fake right there. That simply does not work.
 
Dave Rogers said:
...the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole. In fact, the way you've presented these two pictures now makes it look much less like there's any discrepancy between them at all....
Click to expand...


My exact thoughts when I saw the new photos. The straight on shot shows stuff that is in the background, not at the corner.
 
Dave Rogers said:
What's noticeable about your rotated photo is that the window lines wander quite a long way from the straight lines you've drawn in as guides. Is that refraction, distortion of the photo or distortion of the building? I suspect not the third, as a building that badly distorted would probably be about to collapse. Oh, hang on...
Click to expand...
Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.

Why does the 'curve distortion' occur only in that area?
The only distortion in the original NIST photo is the stretched windows.
Rotating corrects this distortion.

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. A progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame, which could span across a sizeable
opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame."

Note that the NIST photo is taken from a very different angle, obscuring anything to the west of the corner that might be visible through the hole, and that the Zafar photo shows structure in the corner that appears to be either something internal to the building, or the broken edge of the south facade, that is to the west of the corner and visible through the hole.
Click to expand...
That's the wall next to the window, not something internal.
 
Christopher7 said:
Refraction occurs when looking thru a water surface or across a desert.
Show me another building fire photo that exhibits this characteristic.
Click to expand...

I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.

The loss of a couple corner columns would not cause the whole building to collapse.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the point that the two photographs, after your modifications to the NIST one, clearly do not disagree as to the damage to the corner. Your claim that at least one of the photographs is fake is rejected.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I simply cannot believe you are being this idiotic.
Click to expand...

Sorry, Chris, that was rather a knee-jerk reaction. You need to understand that your appreciation of refraction is desperately inadequate if you recognise that refraction would be observed looking across a desert, yet you fail to understand that refraction would be observed when looking downwards at a building fire for exactly the same reason. I would explain this, and could also explain why the distortion appears greater in the lower parts of the building (basically because they're further from the viewpoint so the bending of the light creates a greater lateral deflection), but I don't really have the time to write a textbook on geometrical optics. I strongly suggest, though, that you find one and read it. You're embarrassing yourself.

Dave
 
Norseman said:
Is this picture on Flicker good enough. Look at the lines of the building and the letters that is visible through the hot gases of the small fire in front of the building.
Click to expand...
Excellent find.
Evidence, presented in a straightforward manner, is always appropriate and appreciated.

Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?

NIST says the fires on the west face had burned out when the picture was taken.
The breeze was blowing the smoke [hot gases] to the south east.
 
Christopher7 said:
Are there any examples from 911 that exhibit this refraction characteristic?
Click to expand...

Chris, this is utterly, utterly ridiculous. You're suggesting that the laws of physical optics may have been different on 9-11 to what they are known to be at all other times and places, and that for some reason the refraction of light due to random density variations in unevenly heated air may not have occurred just on that day, at that time. You're standing on a rooftop shouting out your ignorance for the world to hear. Really, it's quite embarrassing to watch.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom