WTC7 Revisited

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks for the info, Norseman, quoted below'



The 2 photos in question are reproduced below

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/wtc_7/copyofsw11th7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/wtc_7/wtc7_damage.jpg[/qimg]

The close-up and cropped comparison is once again shown below

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/wtc_7/wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.jpg[/qimg]

The Zafar and NIST-NYPD photos cannot possibly both be real.

As Norseman pointed out, this was discussed in great detail by Christopher7 around here

The counter-arguments given be Norseman and Dave Rogers, among others, were basically that the difference in the 2 photos is merely an optical illusion created by light refraction produced by the extreme heat. In other words, you can't beleive your eyes.

This is absurd (not the people but the counter-arguments).

Since this was discussed elsewhere, I wouldn't want this thread to be dominated by this discussion. I just want to point out to Gregory that NIST and is implanting a falsified photo (with a New York Police Dept stamp) into their report to exaggerate the damage to WTC 7.

This is serious in itself and something you should keep in mind.

As with Christopher7, Dave Rogers may insist that this is indeed the effects of light refraction and tell us to simply read a physics textbook on optics. I have a couple of degrees in physics myself, and you don't need to do that in order to understand that there is NO WAY IN HELL that the difference is attributable to refraction of light within the heated atmosphere around the building.

I see nothing wrong with those two photos. Both are legit and they are not mutually exclusive. The one on the left shows a gash in the corner, and it's easy to see because it's isometric. The one on the right is almost a pure elevation, you can't see the gash easily (though if you try to get past your truther mental problems you can) because the building beyond the gash masks it. It's not rocket science.

 

[Major_Tom]

Let me put this as a question. Are you stating that the fact that the photo was, evidently, taken by the NYPD, means necessarily that it was faked? Or are you implying that?

Of course not. It means that the chain of custody doesn't involve some privte party that could have silpped a fake photo to NIST unaware of what they were doing.

If this photo is fake, and it seems that it is, it is not just an accidental slip-up that it appears in the NIST report. IT wasn't faked by some private party prankster.

As Dave mentioned, it has been discussed at length elsewhere by Christopher7 and for those not familiar with the arguments for and against fakery, it is best to read that thread first..

If we are to discuss this, it is probably best to do it on that thread so we can include C7 in the discussion and draw on the resources already available.

The link to that discussion is at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2990310#post2990310

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Of course not. It means that the chain of custody doesn't involve some privte party that could have silpped a fake photo to NIST unaware of what they were doing.

If this photo is fake, and it seems that it is, it is not just an accidental slip-up that it appears in the NIST report. IT wasn't faked by some private party prankster.

As Dave mentioned, it has been discussed at length elsewhere by Christopher7 and for those not familiar with the arguments for and against fakery, it is best to read that thread first..

If we are to discuss this, it is probably best to do it on that thread so we can include C7 in the discussion and draw on the resources already available.

The link to that discussion is at

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2990310#post2990310

Yes I have been through that thread, and Christopher7 merely accuses one photo of being a fake. The problem is, that there would be evidence of fakery. Where is that evidence? Pixels out of place, repetitions that shouldn't be there, uniformed appearance showing artistry?

Is it an actual building or are you saying that the damage has been added after the fact?

 

[Corsair 115]

If this photo is fake, and it seems that it is...

Please start a thread where you detail your reasons for thinking this. A full analysis to support your supposition.

 

[jaydeehess]

I see nothing wrong with those two photos. Both are legit and they are not mutually exclusive. The one on the left shows a gash in the corner, and it's easy to see because it's isometric. The one on the right is almost a pure elevation, you can't see the gash easily (though if you try to get past your truther mental problems you can) because the building beyond the gash masks it. It's not rocket science.

here, here

That is about as well as anyone could put it.

 

[Major_Tom]

On the floors labeled 14 and 15 on the right, you can't see a corner? The reflection of the sunlight shows a straight corner. It lines up perfectly with the visible corner above. You really can't see that?

Black is white. Freedom is slavery. 2+2=5. Surreal

 

[fullflavormenthol]

On the floors labeled 14 and 15 on the right, you can't see a corner? The reflection of the sunlight shows a straight corner. It lines up perfectly with the visible corner above. You really can't see that?

[qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/wtc_7/wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.jpg[/qimg]


Black is white. Freedom is slavery. 2+2=5. Surreal

So where is the evidence that the photo was faked? Okay. You are saying they look different without taking into regards the myriad of issues. The angle is one major issue, and that even in the other thread C7 couldn't narrow down the time enough. Still the issue is, that if the photo is faked; where is the evidence?

Black is white. Freedom is slavery. 2+2=5. Surreal

Don't invoke Orwell as if that proves your point. That is the first pointer I am going to give to you.

BTW (Off topic), the statement '2+2=5' is actually a true statement. What Orwell is getting at is a person's freedom to say that the more obvious statement '2+2=4' is true. BOTH are actually true statements.

 

[GregoryUrich]

So, you are "more inclined to believe that NIST was fed bogus photos" but you haven't done a damned thing to refute those photos except regurgitate tinhat nonsense found and repeated on the Internet. Why not?

And you "think it would be meaningful to ask NIST to explain the discrepancy " (what discrepancy?) but you haven't actually made any such inquiries of NIST. Why not?

What's stopping you?

Derail. Any comments on the OT?

 

[A W Smith]

On the floors labeled 14 and 15 on the right, you can't see a corner? The reflection of the sunlight shows a straight corner. It lines up perfectly with the visible corner above. You really can't see that?

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911_old/Photo_archives/wtc_7/wtc7cornercomp2ahireswx4.jpg


Black is white. Freedom is slavery. 2+2=5. Surreal

That photo was taken across the Hudson river from another state. That could easily be column #63 and not a corner at all.

 

[jaydeehess]

Derail. Any comments on the OT?

-initial column failure

-vertical progression failure to the rooftop with floors falling through as the column comes down opening up a space under one or two columns
-equipment in the east penthouse is the last to enter that opening and would have nothing under it to hit until it reached the level of the initial column failure

-rooftop penthouse floor gives way around the original opening which widens the opening and tosses the rest of the contents of the penthoues and the penthouse itself into the widening opening
-the falling debris then continues downward collapsing the floors below it in vertical downward progression

-the rooftop equipment that first fell through the opening (That debris has been in very close to, if not in, free fall) has already hit the truss system and caused greater damage to it which pulls or otherwise compromises the core system of columns which is carrying the south end of the transfer beams over the Con-Edison building.
-core column fail in a horizontal progression west from the original column failure which draws down the core of the building.

-core column failure also causes the mass of the 40 storeys above to now be loaded on the columns of the original Con-Edison building which was, of course, not designed to carry anything close to such a load.
-Con-Edison columns fail quickly. The north face columns below the 7th floor tilt inward drawn in by their connection to the transfer beams
-the entire 40 storeys, to the north of the core, above the 7th floor falls

-the core failure also draws the south portion of the building inward but the south perimeter column system has been weakened by the impact damage and fails quickly meaning that the south portion of the building also falls.

-the eastern 1/4 of the building has suffered less impact damage, its columns extend from foundation to roof and it resists collapse to some extent. However, of course, each floor is connected to the western portion of the building that is moving downward. There is the existing column loss from the original failure and now a large floor pan opening on many floors. The eastern portion simply does not have the structural ability to tear loose from the western portion and remain standing, the 'kink' illustrates that the western portion is pulling the eastern side.

-the eastern portion folds over part way down, pushing the lower part to the north-east

In the above senario, does what would be expected to be visible from the outside not match what is seen in the videos?

 

[jaydeehess]

That photo was taken across the Hudson river from another state. That could easily be column #63 and not a corner at all.

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h3.jpg[/qimg]

Note also that there is a setback of the south face below the roof.
The SW corner damage does not extend to completely take out the extension of the sothface at the SW corner..
A picture taken from the NW will not be able to show the remaining portion of that extension whereas a picture taken from the west or SW would. Forshortening due to the telephoto lens would mask the depth between the missing corner and columns beyond the damaged portion.

ETA: Sorry my little diagram is so small, hope everyone can make out the wording

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Note also that there is a setback of the south face below the roof.
The SW corner damage does not extend to completely take out the extension of the sothface at the SW corner..
A picture taken from the NW will not be able to show the remaining portion of that extension whereas a picture taken from the west or SW would. Forshortening due to the telephoto lens would mask the depth between the missing corner and columns beyond the damaged portion.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1295947f1a63fb6cf5.bmp[/qimg]

ETA: Sorry my little diagram is so small, hope everyone can make out the wording

But you are right about the telephoto lens. It is a basic principle that is used to imply congestion in a shot. Film makers use this technique to make a street "feel" more crowded than it really is. It is why shots taken from far away are less reliable than close shots.

Not to mention the smoke, and a myriad of other objects making any real analysis of the photo difficult without reference of several images in a series.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not to mention the smoke, and a myriad of other objects making any real analysis of the photo difficult without reference of several images in a series.

,,, and the possibility that the numbering of floors in each photo is off.

the fire on floor labeled 7 is pouring a large amount of smoke in one photo as well, whereas in the other only the soot is showing which would suggest that it was taken later in the day and along with that the possibility that portions of the croner fell away between photos.

 

[deep]

Zero resistance?
I don't believe you (or anyone slse) have shown this.

Thanks- your comment literally made me laugh out loud..

I'm guessing that the near free-fall speed of the collapse isn't enough to convince you, so how should one go about satisfactorily "showing" that the building collapsed without little or no resistance?

In other words, you're demanding "proof" for something that is obvious to any objective-minded observer.

 

[deep]

But you are right about the telephoto lens. It is a basic principle that is used to imply congestion in a shot. Film makers use this technique to make a street "feel" more crowded than it really is. It is why shots taken from far away are less reliable than close shots.

Not to mention the smoke, and a myriad of other objects making any real analysis of the photo difficult without reference of several images in a series.

It could also be barrel distortion, which is quite common in many popular DSLR lenses (although it's not as big a problem as it may seem like, since Photoshop can reliably correct it). It's tough to say without seeing the original photo in its entirety, or even knowing what percentage of the original photo was cropped out (and which part we're looking at).

 

[DGM]

Thanks- your comment literally made me laugh out loud..

I'm guessing that the near free-fall speed of the collapse isn't enough to convince you, so how should one go about satisfactorily "showing" that the building collapsed without little or no resistance?

In other words, you're demanding "proof" for something that is obvious to any objective-minded observer.

You really made my day. If it's NEAR free fall there was resistance. Way to stick your foot in your mouth. Don't try to argue things you clearly don't understand, I can easily make you look even more the fool.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm guessing that the near free-fall speed of the collapse isn't enough to convince you, so how should one go about satisfactorily "showing" that the building collapsed without little or no resistance?

You're committing a classic example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy. Let's see how it works.

Let A be the collapse time of WTC7, B be the time for an object to fall from the roof of WTC7 to the ground, and C be the expected collapse time taking into account structural resistance, momentum transfer, air resistance and any other significant factors.

Your statement that the collapse was at "near free-fall speed" is equivalent to stating that A > B, but that the difference (A-B) is small. It is clear that structural resistance will slow the collapse, so we can assume that C > B. The difference (C-B) is not known at this stage in your analysis because it hasn't been calculated.

You are now stating that because (A-B) is small, (C-B) is therefore much greater than (A-B). This is a non sequitur. We don't know the value of (C-B), therefore we can't determine whether it's greater, smaller or equal to (A-B).

What is ironic is that Gregory, who doesn't suffer from intellectual laziness, is actually trying to calculate C in this thread, yet you've completely ignored his efforts, and in effect stated that they're unnecessary because your conclusion is "obvious to any objective-minded observer". It's no such thing; it's actually only obvious to the biased observer who makes no attempt to analyse his observations beyond a superficial attempt to reconcile them with his own prejudices. And this on a skeptics' forum.

Dave

 

[deep]

You really made my day. If it's NEAR free fall there was resistance. Way to stick your foot in your mouth. Don't try to argue things you clearly don't understand, I can easily make you look even more the fool.

LOL, you're on a roll.. I said "near free-fall speed" because I don't feel like getting into an argument over how to measure the speed of a building collapse. Yes, there was obviously resistance present when the penthouse first started to fall (while the rest of the building was clearly still being supported), but after that it came down at free-fall speed.

So yeah, nice job "making me look even more the fool" (sic). Try to form a coherent sentence next time you feel the urge to insult someone.

 

[DGM]

LOL, you're on a roll.. I said "near free-fall speed" because I don't feel like getting into an argument over how to measure the speed of a building collapse. Yes, there was obviously resistance present when the penthouse first started to fall (while the rest of the building was clearly still being supported), but after that it came down at free-fall speed.

So yeah, nice job "making me look even more the fool" (sic). Try to form a coherent sentence next time you feel the urge to insult someone.

How much is ZERO? Can you read?

 

[deep]

You're committing a classic example of the unevaluated inequality fallacy. Let's see how it works.

Unevaluated inequality fallacy? Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time refuting imaginary fallacies, especially when you consider the numerous circumstantial generalization fallacies present in your explanation.

What is ironic is that Gregory, who doesn't suffer from intellectual laziness, is actually trying to calculate C in this thread, yet you've completely ignored his efforts

You've obviously overlooked the fact that it was Gregory who originally made the comment about zero resistance. Don't allow little details like that to get in the way of condemning me, though. April fools?