See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Was the NIST Proof of Structural Damage to WTC 7 Photoshopped?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WT ... Fire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf
Published: Sep 15, 2006
Author: honway
Post Date: 2006-09-15 22:23:46 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 8250
Comments: 30
The FEMA Performance Study Group was the first formal investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings. From the FEMA Report, Chapter 5: Years later, after independent investigators were focusing on the WTC 7 collapse, the NIST released the photo below as photographic proof there was significant structural damage to WTC 7. Since there was only one photo released, I thought that was odd. Please note that the damage to the southwest corner in the NIST released photo above is not consistent with the damage in the photo below. Note the two floors with smoke damage on the southwest corner, floors 29 and 30, in the photo above. Count down 15 floors below foor 29. That corner is missing in the NIST photo submitted as the proof there was significant structural damage to WTC 7 as a result of the collapse of the North Tower.
"According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner."(emphasis added)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#1. To: All (#0)
Here is a larger version of the bottom photograph.
Is that bottom photograph of the SW corner of WTC7? If so then this proves something is indeed amiss here. Either the investigators didn't look at this photo or they wrongly assumed that the top photo showed significant structural damage when maybe all it really showed was a lot of smoke covering up the SW corner of the building. I would highly doubt they would Photoshop a photo like this; there are too many digital photographic experts out there that would more than likely be able to tell a fake from the real thing. If the photo was altered (which I don't think it was) it certainly wouldn't have been done with Adobe Photoshop, but something much more cutting edge.
No doubt they would have used something more cutting edge and have taken in to consideration the analysis angle. None the less, it is a high stakes game to either forge that way, or accuse of forgery by that method.
If they were caught forging a picture and passing it off as evidence then people would be laughing their heads off about them. They would lose all respect and would never likely be taken serious again about anything. I'm not saying a government agency is above this, but this photo has been out for a long time and not one expert has yet called it a forgery. I think the photo is genuine, but the interpretations of it aren't. IMO there is clearly thick smoke covering the SW corner of this building. No one can say definitely how much damage this corner sustained by looking at this picture alone. The whole point about it being a forgery is pretty much meaningless anyway because even if the entire SW corner of WTC7 was gone the building still wouldn’t have fallen like it did. If they were going to forge something they at least would have made sure it would explain why the building fell as it did, but they didn’t do that with this picture.
#20. To: RickyJ (#14)
The whole point about it being a forgery is pretty much meaningless anyway because even if the entire SW corner of WTC7 was gone the building still wouldn’t have fallen like it did. You're probably right about the smoke covering the corner making it look like that corner is missing... And there is NO DOUBT that even if it was, it STILL wouldn't have caused it to collapse the way it did!!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: honway (#1)
#6. To: RickyJ (#3)
"If the photo was altered (which I don't think it was) it certainly wouldn't have been done with Adobe Photoshop, but something much more cutting edge."
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
None the less, it is a high stakes game to either forge that way, or accuse of forgery by that method.
Replies to Comment # 14. I think the photo is genuine, but the interpretations of it aren't. IMO there is clearly thick smoke covering the SW corner of this building.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
