Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

apacherose105 makes a very specific claim in this post

Hey, it didn't stop NIST from photoshopping the images of WTC that were taken after the North Tower fell.

It is a specific claim, and a claim for which evidence should be objective in nature and easy to verify/falsify.

I've made a new thread so this claim can either be corroborated, or falsified.

Please, present your evidence, apacherose105.

 

[e^n]

The photo he's referring to is this one:
edit: I linked the incorrect photo, please see below.

Arie from LC did what appears to be a decent analysis of it here which indicates that the photograph does seem to be a little strange (floors seem to bend upwards) the amount of damage is corroborated by other photographs.

 

[Drudgewire]

Arie from LC did what appears to be a decent analysis of it here which indicates that the photograph does seem to be a little strange (floors seem to bend upwards) the amount of damage is corroborated by other photographs.

When I was searching for this I found the LC thread where it's discussed and was like "e^n? I know that dude."

 

[funk de fino]

That is faked but it is not the original from the NIST report??

 

[apacherose105]

i can't post links yet gimme one minute

 

[T.A.M.]

That is faked but it is not the original from the NIST report??

I agree. The version of that photo, the one in the NIST report, does not have the intact floor lines in the area of the damage as this one does...IIRC.

TAM

I have just examined the photo within the interim WTC7 report, and it is not the one displayed above, which has had floor lines added in where the damage is.

TAM

 

[apacherose105]

I agree. The version of that photo, the one in the NIST report, does not have the intact floor lines in the area of the damage as this one does...IIRC.

TAM

I have just examined the photo within the interim WTC7 report, and it is not the one displayed above, which has had floor lines added in where the damage is.

TAM

Which was is fake and which one is real?



the above image was used in this one below.



here's another contradicting image



the images where the lower corner of the building are scooped out appear to be doctored.

 

[T.A.M.]

So are you accusing the police department that provided that photo of faking it, or are you saying that the police department photo is different, and yet they have said nothing about NISt manipulating it???

Please elaborate, as you are making SERIOUS accusations here.


TAM

 

[apacherose105]

the photo further up in the post is one I've never seen before, someone obviously tried to draw the missing part of the building back in, rather poorly I may add.

they could have just used this one.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Which was is fake and which one is real?

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d16dd36c38.jpg[/URL]

the above image was used in this one below.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d171ac3b2b.jpg[/URL]

here's another contradicting image

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg[/URL]

the images where the lower corner of the building are scooped out appear to be doctored.

(NOTE: I have not had a chance to read through the paper linked by e^n)

apacherose105, posting several images without any analysis at how you came to your conclusions is of no value. Please provide source information for the images in question, including relevant timestamp information; what elements of the pictures are indicative of manipulation; etc.

 

[T.A.M.]

We've discussed this here before.

WTC7 in the photo just above seems to not have the damage seen in the police dept photo because the area in question in the PD photo is obstructed from view by the building adjacent to/in front of it.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the photo further up in the post is one I've never seen before, someone obviously tried to draw the missing part of the building back in, rather poorly I may add.

they could have just used this one.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_20434471d1792dc1ea.jpg[/URL]

Since you make this claim w/o providing your "work", I'll have to ask for your qualifications. If you are going to speak from a position of authority on an issue, you better be ready to back it up.

 

[T.A.M.]

OMG...jhc

TAM

 

[apacherose105]

I do provide evidence as to how I've come to my conclusion. The pictures of WTC 7's corner has been doctored to make the damage to the building look worse than it actually was.

Unfortunately, there are no timestamps embedded within the pictures. With the spit shot, it looks like the floors bend upwards into the gouged out corner, which makes no sense..

The large photo at the top is probably a joke, I've never seen that photo in an official report or any any other website before. I'm trying to fink the NIST report on Building 7s collapse right now.

 

[apacherose105]

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?

 

[T.A.M.]

So please choose which of the following you are insinuating:

1. NIST doctored the photo after they got it from the NYPD
2. The NYPD doctored it, then gave it to NIST.
3. The NYPD never gave them the photo.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You seem to be insinuating at least 1., which is easy enough to verify or refute, you just need to see the original photo from the NYPD...right.

As well, you better explain how they did what you allege they did.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I do provide evidence as to how I've come to my conclusion. The pictures of WTC 7's corner has been doctored to make the damage to the building look worse than it actually was.

No, you provided pictures. You did not provide evidence of your process.

Unfortunately, there are no timestamps embedded within the pictures. With the spit shot, it looks like the floors bend upwards into the gouged out corner, which makes no sense..

So, you assume that no damage occurred between any of the pictures and then make a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

Or you could provide your work. Additionally, experience/expertise in photo analysis would be more benificial to your claim than structural engineering or architecutre.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Then change your underwear.

Who are you to tell me I can't?

Someone that can recognize a fallacious appeal to authority and is perfectly willing to call you on it.

 

[Drudgewire]

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Well, everyone has to have a hobby I guess.

 

[beachnut]

Well I'm not a structural engineer or an architect. So I guess I'm not qualified.

But I can smell BS pretty good.

Who are you to tell me I can't?

So far you are the one slinging pure BS.

Facts and evidence can cure that awful smell that follow you like a peanuts character.