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: 8686
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 # 3.
#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.
#5. To: RickyJ (#3)
Yes. 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. I was using the expression photoshop in a generic fashion to describe image manipulation.I should have been more specific, but I was trying to write a title that was concise.
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.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: honway (#1)
Replies to Comment # 3. Is that bottom photograph of the SW corner of WTC7?
#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."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
