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 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread281965/pg1) about this image.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s32/coughymachine/b1bz1.jpg

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.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s32/coughymachine/comparisontemplate_final5.jpg

and...

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s32/coughymachine/skew7.jpg

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.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s32/coughymachine/damagecomparison3.jpg

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)...

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s32/coughymachine/exposedbeam-1.jpg

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

[Gravy]

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:It appears to me that the "upward bending" is simply a perspective illusion of floors that are bent inwards (to the east), seen from above, then severely skewed when arie manipulated the photo, combined with the fact that the floors above it are bent downward somewhat.

[e^n]

It appears to me that the "upward bending" is simply a perspective illusion of floors that are bent inwards (to the east), seen from above, then severely skewed when arie manipulated the photo, combined with the fact that the floors above it are bent downward somewhat.

I had this idea too, but unfortunately there's little evidence for it in any of the other pictures, his purely skewed image shows the extent of the bending. It is very strange and I think that if we had a million bux it would be worth some serious investigation.

It's certainly on my 'unanswered questions' list.

[Pardalis]

Does somebody have the original full scale picture? It's not a good idea to focus so much on a blowup.

[Caustic Logic]

Hey! This was on the page assigned to me, and i noticed it's partly about me. I'm the guy Coughymachine was debating with over this [ATS link in OP]. I was pretty sure Zafar's pic showed intact wall where NIST's has it clearly all gone. Looking at it again, I'm just getting brain freeze, so I dunno... Maybe he was right.

But here's how that thread went: The OP and several members originally saw just that difference and decided NIST had faked their image. I saw it and jumped in with the idea that one image was fake, but i wasn't sure which. NIST's corner damage was confirmed with other photos brought in by Coughymachine. The claims of NIST fakery started petering out. Then everyone but me and Coughy dropped the issue and we were in a 1-1 disagreement. He said illusion, I said

I mentioned it in a thread here, and a few people agreed it was an illusion, while no one agreed that Zafar's photo was altered. As it stands, Coughy seems to win.

Extenuating circumstances I considered: Zafar claims he lost his original negatives in a mishap.
He told Coughy this photo was taken like 2:00 or 2:30, when light told me it was more like 5:00 (there was a possibility raised of damage after Zafar's photo, even though NIST's seems to be earlier)
Other Zafar photos have been used for other unusual claims, the concrete "spires," and fires in the WTC7 before the collapses.(all from memory, sorry if i goofed anything).

I don't trust Zafar's photos. But as a big issue, eh... the damage down the middle is still there, the building was damaged, NIST decided it wasn't much of a factor anyway... If anyone wants to take another look, I think there may still be something interesting here. Or just me being an idiot.

Oh, and on Arie's explanation, i didn't like his analysis either. here's a graphic:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Arie_Put_Together.jpg
I forget exactly what i was saying there, but if you check the PDF it should become clear
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/corner_controversy.pdf

OMG, someone dedicated a whole one-shot blog to the corner controversy:
http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/

[Mashuna]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

[Caustic Logic]

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

Yes indeed. Apologies to the extent they're due. But this one was never cleared up.

Pardalis had been looking for a high-res original. I'll check my files for the best I have of both Zafar's and NIST's.

What I was saying with Arie's graphic is that he did it wrong. At left is him showing the photos he accepts, including Zafar's, and the resultant damage area in red. Middle is how I would have put them together. That corner is intact all down there until the view is blocked. At right is how i would do an analysis of photos I accept - all but Zafar's. Damage profile makes the most sense of the three.

Anybody want to show how this is wrong?

ETA:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Rebut_2.jpg

[e^n]

Courtesy of NISTs latest report:

http://xs132.xs.to/xs132/08434/screenshot3716.png (http://xs.to)

[Caustic Logic]

Thanks, e^n! I haven't looked at the new report, at least not enough to notice this was a different shot. It offers a view from an angle showing more floors, all the way down. It's closer to parallell with the west side, however, so the angle/illusion issue is even worse here. Are there intact members just around the corner that, seen from the southwest, would like like an intact corner? The new shot doesn't help, but in either case, such structures would need to be back there a bit.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/NIST_Helicoptershots_comp.jpg
But it does show differences in the smoke that are small enough to be clues. It looks like the newer (to me) shot was taken a few moments before the other. This would mean the helicopter was moving west, away from WTC7, and the camera looking back at it.

The lighter smoke is top layer stuff, and it is ambiguous if there's something just perfectly hidden behind it, or if it's blocking a clear view through. Some if its clearly skimming over intact wall. But the darker patches are back there, under the general haze, in the shadow realm. There is no building between the camera lens and the ground in these spots.
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/NIST_corner_2_edge.jpg
Considering what would be the building edge, every patch of dark smoke to the left of the yellow line here means no building left on the west or south face along that line of sight.

So what and where is that stuff in Zafar's photo that happens to line up so well with expected corner line, window frames, outer wall color, etc, that it LOOKED at first like an intact area there? It seems to me if optical illusion is to blame, it'd have to be a cluster of odd illusions all lining up just right

ETA: Zafar photo (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/Zafar_Full_Size.jpg) The best resolution I have anyway.

[A W Smith]

you can see the outside corner column is missing in the Zafar photo, what you do see is a column from the opposite corner of that bay. but the granite clad spandrel is still there. judging by the the direction the photo was taken possibly the spandrel folded into the collapsed bay. Which is why you don't see it from the NIST photo.

[gumboot]

The appearance of upward bending floors is a result of skewing the image. Adjusting artificially like that does not take into account perspective.

[Caustic Logic]

you can see the outside corner column is missing in the Zafar photo, what you do see is a column from the opposite corner of that bay. but the granite clad spandrel is still there. judging by the the direction the photo was taken possibly the spandrel folded into the collapsed bay. Which is why you don't see it from the NIST photo.

Bay? I guess that means the hollowed-out area. Well, I meant to look at the column layout to see how much sense that makes, but meh. It's just not as clear as it could be, and I'm probably just wrong. Internal columns etc. are probably responsible for the appearance of walls and windows that aren't really there.

So, other question I had had on photos on his page that Truthers used. Early Fires in WTC7 I thought I'd seen, but the closest I see now is this and shots like it:
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-30_1_small.jpLooks like some kind of lights or reflections on the roof of the Winter garden. Flaming jet fuel stuff? I dunno. Any thoughts?

Some other discussions I found - Arie was looking at some video for this early fire case, and then decided it was illusion. Video and photo both pulled so I can't see what he meant.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/7250
So where's the idiots who were using Zafar pics for this? Cannot find right now.

e^n at ATS, 9/20/08:
There's a couple of Aman Zafar pictures showing some sort of light in the lower floors of WTC7, but it doesn't seem to be anything to do with a fire.

On the "spires" issue, which I'm not up-to-date with, Here is Zafar's photo of "part of the frame" of the north tower still erect during collapse. What's the deal with this?
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-73_1_small.jpg

[A W Smith]

I was thinking the vertical element visible in the Zafar photo was column 83. but it is too far back into the core to be visable as the damage does not go that deep

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/column63.jpg

[technoextreme]

It appears to me that the "upward bending" is simply a perspective illusion of floors that are bent inwards (to the east), seen from above, then severely skewed when arie manipulated the photo, combined with the fact that the floors above it are bent downward somewhat.
From my opinion by not even looking at the pictures it sounds like optical distortion not an illusion.

[Caustic Logic]

I was thinking the vertical element visible in the Zafar photo was column 83. but it is too far back into the core to be visable as the damage does not go that deep

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/column63.jpg

Yep, that's what i was gonna do, but in 3-D somehow... Clearly you mean 63, not 83, and wow, I didn't realize how far back from the wall all the columns were.

I just don't know what to make of this anymore, my brain freeze is getting to be compound. Either Zafar altered his photo or not and this was all a misunderstanding based on an illusion i still don't get. But what else is new?

Anyone else who wishes to dig deeper, feel free.

And on the curving floors issue, call it illusion or distortion, I'm guessing the outer wall was pushed in a bit, and it's probably not a sign of fakery on NIST's or whoever's part. This is claimed by people who want to prove a faked photo of damage that wasn't there. AFAIK, NIST never even attributed the collapse to any such damage, so either their plans fell through or there were no such plans.

Peace.