Fake NIST photo

[Luntoc]

Take a look at this site and give your opinion. It's one of those things that conspiracy theorists say they know contradicts their claims. So the only thing they can say is that it's fake.
http://guardian.150m.com/false-opp/NIST.htm

[Arus808]

what is that page trying to say? sorry, couldn't understand their argument

[kookbreaker]

I have no idea what the hell he is trying to do with the photo flipping and other nonsense. I have yet to see any real evidence of fakery here.

No surprise.

[beachnut]

Take a look at this site and give your opinion. It's one of those things that conspiracy theorists say they know contradicts their claims. So the only thing they can say is that it's fake.
http://guardian.150m.com/false-opp/NIST.htm
What dirt dumb delusional web site. How stupid do you have to be to make up that tripe?

Bankers Trust which was never on fire and they say look at the gash in the building but it did not fall. The building did not have a large fire going all day. lol

Another point should also be made. The claimed ten story (100 foot) high damage would not explain the buildings collapse, even if it had been true. For example, the Bankers Trust building had a huge 150-170 foot high gash in it. It didn't collapse. Have a look.
What a dolt.

[SpitfireIX]

what is that page trying to say? sorry, couldn't understand their argument


An incoherent argument from a truther? I'm astounded. :rolleyes:

[Lupie]

So, the truther site claims that the photo in question of WTC7 has been altered and is a fake. And to prove it, they substantially alter another photo of WTC7 effectively turning it into a fake, to prove the first picture is fake?

Would this be Stundie worthy?

L.

[Kermassa]

Who ever made that homepage doesn't have a clue or is just playing dumb.

In particular, the X's mark locations where exterior steel columns landed outside the predominate debris area. The predominate debris area is colored dark orange. There were only EIGHT such locations and none were near WTC7. Since none of the interior columns (the heaviest columns) made it far from the building footprint, that means the claimed damage had to be caused by the light aluminum cladding. But, this is impossible, and it is apparent that NIST's claim is a LIE.

[mythstifieD]

I just did a Whois on the website and it seems to belong to a "Bill Smith"???

(haha ok, i'm joking!!)

[Kent1]

This is another old CT.
See the newest WTC7 report. You'll see more photos of the damage.
Not that it really matters anymore.

[BasqueArch]

Take a look at this site and give your opinion. It's one of those things that conspiracy theorists say they know contradicts their claims. So the only thing they can say is that it's fake.
http://guardian.150m.com/false-opp/NIST.htm


There are about a dozen errors, many so enormously wrong that's not worth my time to straighten him out. That and he's got an insulting a**hole slandering insolent attitude for those much better educated than him. Waste of time.

[Mangoose]

In the above picture we have flipped NIST's fake photo from left to right, contracted it a little, and then tilted it, so that the south-west corners of both photos line up. In the second photo below, we have altered the background photo to fit. As you can see, the south-west corner damage claimed by NIST, has been faked with Photoshop (or similar software). Even without the photos, logical deduction enabled us to conclude [that] the NIST photo was a fake, but now it only takes a glance to see this clearly.

The website author did not conclude that the photo was faked; this was presumed from the start.

[Longfellow]

The website author did not conclude that the photo was faked; this was presumed from the start.


Truther is as truther does.

[bill smith]

I just did a Whois on the website and it seems to belong to a "Bill Smith"???

(haha ok, i'm joking!!)

Yeth Mythstified. I'm sure you are, yeth indeed.lol

[NYCEMT86]

What dirt dumb delusional web site. How stupid do you have to be to make up that tripe?

Bankers Trust which was never on fire and they say look at the gash in the building but it did not fall. The building did not have a large fire going all day. lol

What a dolt.


Toofers have this awesome ability to ignore significant differences. I am still confused by the pictures lined up...


"Toofers: making up evidence since 2001"

[Kent1]

The document that really ended the debate was Chapter 1: WTC 7 Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (William Pitts)
I've had a little contact with Pitts in the past and he's a good guy to work with.
Lots of pictures of the damage. Simply the best I've seen showing the damage.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062508_unusual_event.htm

[alienentity]

Take a look at this site and give your opinion. It's one of those things that conspiracy theorists say they know contradicts their claims. So the only thing they can say is that it's fake.
http://guardian.150m.com/false-opp/NIST.htm

The site is incomprehensible to me. If they don't like that photo, which is from NYPD, try this one from an ABC video

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/3236/wtc7gash.jpg

You can also direct them to the whole video shot, although for convenience I've tagged it to start as the smoke clears and you can see the collapse area.
Note this is a different spot from NIST's photo, but shows a large, 15 to 20 story void in the centre of the building, presumably caused by a partial collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GEEzHn4tqo#t=25s

There's a still shot also from this video somewhere which shows the top of the void as well. I'll see if i can dig it up.

I got fed up with JFK over at LCF because he was asking for pics of the S. side damage, but wanted only photos with exif data intact. Yeah, as if. I suggested he contact the photographers, and he responded 'So you are uninterested in finding the truth then.' Groan....