Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Studies of a Falsified Photo, Part 1

Studies of a Falsified Photo, Part 1

An Introduction

The author claims that the very first photograph in the paper by Steven Jones entitled "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? " is a forgery.


The photograph in question was supposedly taken by Frank Silecchia on 9-27-2001.

I have been in communication with Steven Jones, expressing my views to him through the forum of the Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. I was told in no uncertain terms that I am mistaken, and that the photographer himself has recently reaffirmed that the photograph is real and untampered with.

I have repeatedly asked for a copy of the original digital image with it's meta-data intact. My repeated requests were ignored.

He later told me that he "doesn't have the original".

In fact, nobody seems to have the original. I was unable to find the photo with it's meta-data intact through the many archived photo collections available on the internet. A simple Google search of the name of the photographer will show that many people have tried to find the original photo with no success.


A good collection of available photo archives is listed here.



The photo is shown below. It was obtained by separating it from the pdf version of the paper by Steven Jones.





g

g



We make the following claims:

1) This photo is not real. It is a digitally manipulated composite of at least 3 different images.

2) Section 1 shows an image of a recognizable landmark in the WTC Building 1 (North Tower) debris. This beam shows clear and provable signs of being digitally manipulated.

3) Section 2 shows a beam protruding from the North Tower debris. This beam simply did not exist in the location shown. It does not exist in the location shown in any other known photo of the North Tower rubble. It was added using a computer program like Photoshop.


This article will show that it is physically impossible that the beam in section 2, called "beam #2", existed in the WTC debris in the location shown.

This article will also show that the beam shown in section 1, called "beam #1" contains digitally added and altered elements.


My proof is divided into 3 parts.


Part 1, the present part, will locate the position and orientation of the supposed photographer and beam #2 within the WTC wreckage.

Part 2 will examine many known photographs of the WTC debris in search of beam #2 in the locations we would expect it to be. We will show that it simply is not there.

Part 3 will examine the digitally manipulated features of beam #1.




g



Here you can see the digitally manipulated image of the beam followed by 8 pictures of the same beam from different angles taken at different times in the clean-up process.

The first 6 pictures were taken from the west side of the remains of the North Tower. The last 2 pictures were taken from the east side, or the WTC plaza area.

Please note that of all the pictures, picture #3 seems to have been taken at about the same angle as the altered image.


Lets take a closer look.




g



This is a very interesting set of photos that allow us locate the orientation and position of the supposed photographer with satisfactory precision.


Please observe that there is an object seen behind the beam in question. The movement of this object behind the beam relative to the beam allows us to judge angles rather precisely.

What is this object behind the beam?

We will call it "object A".



g



Note how the individual markings on object A line up with the beam in almost the same way in the first and third pictures. These 2 pictures were taken at almost the same angle.


The following 2 pictures show the beam from the opposite direction. This allows us to see what object A actually is.



g


It is just another box beam with a pole right next to it. Below is a second view of these objects.


g


Having identified a picture of the beam from just about the same angle, lets look at the uncropped, panoramic picture of the beam from this angle.


g



Fascinating. We almost have enough information to locate the position where the supposed photographer was standing.

Well, we know where the photographer who took the above picture was standing. Note how the photographer, beam #1 and that tall building with 2 domes far in the background line up.

Also note how this photographer is standing on ground level.

In fact, the entire immediate area around which this photographer is standing is at ground level. This was also true just after the demolitions occured on 9-11-01. Remarkably, this immediate area did not have a "mountain" of debris on it just after the demolitions occured. The reader can verify this for themselves in the many photos to follow, particularly in part 2 of this article.


As was mentioned before, we expect the supposed photographer who "took" the digitally manipulated picture to be in the same general location of this photographer, just a little bit forward (not lower, because he is already standing on the ground. You can't go lower than ground level).

To better understand what we mean by "ground level", lets look at the following picture.



g



You can see that the hill of rubble doesn't start to slope upwards until you reach the base of what I call the "west slope". This is actually just inside the perimeter of where the North Tower actually stood, inside the "footprint".

You'll be able to see this in all the pictures to follow.



g



Finally, using the above picture, we are able to place the alleged photographer.

This picture is also taken at an angle in which beam #1 is in alignment with the building with 2 domes.

It just lines up with the other side of the same dome. Therefore, we place the photographer a bit to the left.

We also place him pretty close to the beginning of the "west slope" since he is clearly close to a slope in the picture he is supposed to have taken.

And notice that this also places him just inside a line extending along the south wall of the North Tower.

Whether this position is off 20 or 30 feet in any direction, I, personally, do not really care. Since the beam we are trying to locate, called "beam #2", doesn't actually exist, if anyone manages to locate something that looks like it even close to where we predict it should be, we would consider that acceptable.

We will grant a very lenient margin of error to anyone who locates the beam.

Lets look at the original picture again to get a general idea just where on the west slope we would expect to find beam #2.


g

g



Again, make the green circles as big or as small as you wish. I don't really care.

Whatever helps you find beam #2 is OK by me.


These are the general relations we will use to hunt for beam #2 in part 2 of this essay.




Created on 09/06/2007 09:19 PM by admin
Updated on 10/26/2008 10:58 PM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL