Is NIST Faking it?

[coughymachine]

Right, having hit 15 posts, I can finally ask the question I joined this forum to ask.

I've been having a discussion over at ATS about this image.

The suggestion was that NIST had manipulated its photograph (left) to give the impression of greater damage.

As the thread developed, it was alternatively suggested that Aman Zafar, whose photograph is on the right, had manipulated his. I have had a lengthy email exchange with Zafar and am convinced this is wrong. I set about trying to show that both photographs show the same damage.

I used these images to try and explain my position.

and...

It's fair to say my conclusion was not widely accepted.

Can anyone add anything to this either in terms of showing I have it wrong, or else helping to show that the damage is consistent?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Nope. You pretty much covered it.

You did in a couple pictures what it took a several page thread to cobble together here.

If they don't see it, they won't see it. You're dealing with hard-core Deniers.

But you presented your case very well. Nice job.

 

[coughymachine]

Nope. You pretty much covered it.

You did in a couple pictures what it took a several page thread to cobble together here.

If they don't it, they won't see it. You're dealing with hard-core Deniers.

But you presented your case very well. Nice job.

It took 200+ response to get there over at ATS too, not least because we were all barking up the wrong tree to begin with.

I did forget one image in the OP, which was actually critical to my argument.

What I'm suggesting here is that Zafar's perspective enabled him to see either a beam or else the edge of the south wall, whereas the NYPD shot was taken from too narrow an angle. Does anyone know of any pictures of exposed beams in that region?

 

[T.A.M.]

In a nutshell, the greatest damage, as seen in the Police Department photo (used by NIST i think) is not visible in the Zafar Photo, due to an obstructed view that far down the building, by the buildings in front of it. What damage can been seen in both, you have correlated from one photo to the other quite accurately...IMO.

TAM

 

[coughymachine]

Nope. You pretty much covered it.

You did in a couple pictures what it took a several page thread to cobble together here.

If they don't see it, they won't see it. You're dealing with hard-core Deniers.

But you presented your case very well. Nice job.

The one reason I question whether I have this right (I'm normally more sure of my findings) is that the main objector to my conclusion is a guy who has spent an awful long time trying to show that a plane did hit the Pentagon building. In other words, he's not a hard-core denier. If he was, I probably wouldn't think twice.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The one reason I question whether I have this right (I'm normally more sure of my findings) is that the main objector to my conclusion is a guy who has spent an awful long time trying to show that a plane did hit the Pentagon building. In other words, he's not a hard-core denier. If he was, I probably wouldn't think twice.

theres plenty of hardcore truthers who believe a 757 hit the pentagon, its really not a good yardstick, lol

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

At a more 40,000' level, at what times were the two images taken? Is there anything precluding one from having been taken before a partial collapse of the facade of the building occurred?

 

[chipmunk stew]

The one reason I question whether I have this right (I'm normally more sure of my findings) is that the main objector to my conclusion is a guy who has spent an awful long time trying to show that a plane did hit the Pentagon building. In other words, he's not a hard-core denier. If he was, I probably wouldn't think twice.

A hard-core denier doesn't have to embrace the most outlandish theories. He just has to cling on to the pet theory or theories of his choice in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Does he have any rational (or at least specious) objections worth repeating?

 

[chipmunk stew]

At a more 40,000' level, at what times were the two images taken? Is there anything precluding one from having been taken before a partial collapse of the facade of the building occurred?

IIRC, there is an across-the-fence consensus that the damage was a direct result of debris impact and not a later partial collapse. Sorry, I don't have a citation, and I'm having trouble locating the thread where this was discussed.

 

[Gravy]

Good job there, coughy. Did anyone have any specific objections, or were they just throwing hissy fits?

There's a good Steve Spak photo showing SW corner damage here
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

And there's this quote:

At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

 

[coughymachine]

At a more 40,000' level, at what times were the two images taken? Is there anything precluding one from having been taken before a partial collapse of the facade of the building occurred?

I estimate the pictures to be taken at 15:30 (NIST) and 16:15 (Zafar). That said, I've never done image analysis before, so maybe someone could offer a view.

 

[Architect]

This was being discussed at LCF, but I can't tell you what their views were as I've just been mysteriously chucked off of the site and it willnae let me back in. I'm sure they can't have banned me, as I was being perfectly polite, so it must be a glitch. I'll let you know what they said when (if?) I get back in.

 

[coughymachine]

Good job there, coughy. Did anyone have any specific objections, or were they just throwing hissy fits?

There's a good Steve Spak photo showing SW corner damage here
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

And there's this quote:

The fundamental problem may have been of my making. I originally tried to explain it as a 'optical illusion', which was not the best choice of words. By the time the debate fizzled out, the basic objection was that the images do show different levels of damage, therefore one of them is faked.

Thanks for the image. I have this one (far right)...

but it doesn't go low enough to help cement my argument.

 

[e^n]

arie from Loose Change produced an interesting PDF on this, which appears to show that in the NIST photographs the lower floors of WTC7 appear to curve upwards. I haven't had time to do my own analysis yet but it looks pretty thorough:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0CKUHGOF

edit: No Architect, you have been banned. I have no idea why but it seems because you were defending Mark Roberts.

 

[coughymachine]

arie from Loose Change produced an interesting PDF on this, which appears to show that in the NIST photographs the lower floors of WTC7 appear to curve upwards. I haven't had time to do my own analysis yet but it looks pretty thorough:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0CKUHGOF

I'll take a look at that, thanks.

My view on the 'curving' was that the lower SW corner was furthest from the camera and that some effect like foreshortening (terminology?) had caused this effect.

 

[Gravy]

Thanks for the image. I have this one (far right)...
but it doesn't go low enough to help cement my argument.

Well, there is a gaping hole lower down in the Spak photo where the corner should be.

 

[coughymachine]

Well, there is a gaping hole lower down in the Spak photo where the corner should be.

I understand, and in fact this is what led the other guy to the conclusion that Zafar was faking it, since NIST appears to be corroborated.

My earlier point was that the exposed column, seen higher up in my other shot, does not appear lower down in the shot you linked to, probably because the field of view is too far round the south face to capture the corner itself.

 

[8den]

This was being discussed at LCF, but I can't tell you what their views were as I've just been mysteriously chucked off of the site and it willnae let me back in. I'm sure they can't have banned me, as I was being perfectly polite, so it must be a glitch. I'll let you know what they said when (if?) I get back in.

See you were using facts and logic, which is the loose change equivlent of abusive and rude language that gets you banned here.

 

[e^n]

I'll take a look at that, thanks.

My view on the 'curving' was that the lower SW corner was furthest from the camera and that some effect like foreshortening (terminology?) had caused this effect.

Honestly I don't know, it's relatively localized which would usually rule out visual problems other than lens imperfections. My theory is that it was not originally a digital photograph and the weirdness is a result of the processing. I have no evidence for this but the blue strangeness at the bottom doesn't seem too similar to any digital interference I can think of.

Honestly I don't know, it's confusing as hell but I disagree with arie's conclusion as he seems to think the motive is there where I don't.

 

[uk_dave]

Yep, Architect banned. Certainly deserves a badge.

The LCF admin rule with an iron fist......

IVXX:
We've given enough time and attention to this smear paper. Thread closed.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9574&st=150&#last

IVXX:
Enough time and attention has been given to this piece of garbage. Thread closed.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9665&st=50&#last

oh the irony when they have two active threads there with the titles...

I've Just Been Banned From Msnbc Forum, for speaking the Truth

and...

Google Cesure (sic) 911 Truth